03-11-02 CCCLAIMS LIST
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 11, 2002
TO: Judy Hudson
Attached is the Claims List for the City Council. For more details, please refer to the
Check Detail Registers.
If you have questions regarding this service, please let me know.
Claims Registers 02-28-02 $ 64,867.65
03-07-02 26,916.29
GRAND TOTAL $ 91,783.94
If you have any questions or if you would like to review this list further, please let me
know.
Kathy Grover
Bookkeeper
CITY OF OTSEGO 02/28/02 10:50 AM
Page 1
*Check Summary Register@
FEBRUARY 2002
Name Check Date Check Amt
10100
BANKOFELKRIVER
UnPaid
AIRGAS, INC.
$29.56
UnPaid
AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR
$383.87
UnPaid
BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS
$345.40
UnPaid
CARLSON TRACTOR & EQUIP. CO.
$11.63
UnPaid
CELLULAR+
$36.46
UnPaid
EARL F ANDERSON INC
$773.60
UnPaid
GRANITE CITY LEASING INC
$34.02
UnPaid
GRIDOR CONSTR., INC.
$31,542.00
UnPaid
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST
$422.31
UnPaid
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
$577.39
UnPaid
NAGELL APPRAISAL & CONSULTING
$3,000.00
UnPaid
PEOPLE SERVICE INC.
$24,754.50
UnPaid
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FID
$1,271.28
UnPaid
PURCHASE POWER
$519.00
UnPaid
RANDY'S SANITATION
$108.31
UnPaid
WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEYOR
$352.00
UnPaid
WRIGHT CTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY
$80.00
UnPaid
ZIEGLER INC
$626.32
Total Checks $64,867.65
FILTER: None
CITY OF OTSEGO 02/28/02 10:50 AM
Page 1
*Check Detail Register@
FEBRUARY 2002
Check Amt Invoice Comment
10100 BANKOFELKIRIVER
AIRGAS,INC.
E 101-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL) $29.56 105369147 OX/HAZMAT
Total AIRGAS, INC.—$29.56
AUTOMATIC GARAOE DOOR
E 101-43100-400 Repairs & Maint Cont (equip)
$383.87 49787
Total AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR
$383.87
BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS --—
E 101-41400-203 Supplies - General
$345.40 390647
Total BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTE
$345.40
CARLSON TRACTOR & EQUIP.
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GEN ERAL)
$11.63 2005542
Total CARLSON TRACTOR & EQUIP. CO
—$11.63
Unpaid CELLULAR-�_
GARAGE DOOR PHOTO[TIMER
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
TRACTOR SEAL ASSEMBLY
E101-43100-410 Rentals (GENERAL) $36.46 0202104359 PAGERS
Total CELLULAR+ $36.46
_ID110
EARL F ANDERSON INC
E 101-43100-393 Street Signs $773.60 45963 STREET SIGNS
Total EARL F ANDERSON INC —$773.60
Unpaid-_'-__-—_-- GRANITE CITY LEASING INC
E101 -41400-413 Office Equipment Rental $34.02 12 TOSHIBA FAX
Total GRANITE CITY LEASING INC $34.02
ltj� P iid _ 11_ _ ", - _;-1 11:- -11. 1—- GRIDOR CON SIR:-, INC
E429-43256-500 Capital Outlay (GENERAL) $31,542.00 REQ I EAST VVWTF PHASE 2
Total GRIDOR CONSTR., INC. $31,542.00
RETIREMENT TRUST
E 101-41400-121 PEPA $192.31 PPE 2/16 CK DTD 2/20
G 101 -21705 Other Retirement $230.00 PPE 2/16 CK DTD 2/20
Total ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST $422.31
U n paid-- EDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
G 701-21990 WH LINK $577.39 50461 OVS APPL WH LINK
Total KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTEREC —$577.39
Unpaid 'NAGELCAPPRAISAC& CONSULTING
E 415-43251-390
Contracted Services
$1,500.00 9948
8384 PARRISH ZACHMAN
E 415-43251-390
Contracted Services
$1,500.00 9957
HVVY 101 & RIVER ROAD D&Y FAM L
Total NAGELL APPRAISAL& CON SULTINC
Unpaid
PEOPLE SERVICEIRC
E 601-49400-390
Contracted Services
$9,090.00 00005386
MONTHLY
E 601-49400-390
Contracted Services
$15,577.00 00005386
TRUE -UP 2001
E 601-49400-220
Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$87.50 00005386
REPAIR WORK
Total PEOPLE SERVICE INC. __�_2_4
,754.50
PUBLIC EMPILOYEES RETIREMENT FID
E 101-41400-121
PERA
$288.03
PPE 2/16 CK DTD 2/20
E 101-43100-121
PERA
$373.32
PPE 2/26 CK DTD 2/20
G 101-21704 PERA
$609.93
PPE 2/16 CK DTD 2/20
Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FD__1_1_,27128
CITY OF OTSEGO 02/28/02 10:50 AM
Page 2
*Check Detail Register@
FEBRUARY 2002
Check Amt Invoice Comment
Unpaid PURCHASE POWER
E 101-41400-206 Postage $519.00 POSTAGE
Total PURCHASE POWER $519.00
Unpaid RANDY'S SANITATION
E 101-41940-325 Garbage Service $108.31 GARBAGE/RECYING
Total RANDY'S SANITATION $108.31
Unpaid WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEYOR
E 101-41400-348 Maps $352.00 PLAT MAPS/SEC MAPS
Total WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEYOR -$352.00
CTY HISTORICAL
E 101-45300-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL) $80.00 2001280901 PHOTO REPRINTS
Total WRIGHT CTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY $80.00
---ZIEGLER INC
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $411.36 483407 VALVE CAT LOADER
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $214.96 484794 VALVE CAT LOADER
Total ZIEGLER INC _$62632
10100 BANKOFELKRIVER $64,867.65
FILTER.- None
CITY OF OTSEGO 03/07/02 1:40 PM
Page 1
*Check Summary Register@
MARCH 2002
Name Check Date Check Amt
10100
BANKOFELKRIVER
UnPaid
ABC ARROW BLDG CNTR
$10.61
UnPaid
APEX BUSINESS CENTER
$5,636.96
UnPaid
BERLIN TIRE CENTER, INC
$148.93
UnPaid
BOYER TRUCKS
$207.40
UnPaid
DAVID CHASE
$90.00
UnPaid
DTS TOTAL HOME CENTER
$190.32
UnPaid
EARL F ANDERSON INC
$13,480.22
UnPaid
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
$129.64
UnPaid
FINKEN'S WATER CARE
$116.74
UnPaid
GLENS TRUCK CENTER INC
$299.94
UnPaid
H & L MESABI
$678.96
UnPaid
JACQUIE ROGNLI
$875.00
UnPaid
JOHN DANIELS
$2,773.79
UnPaid
KNUTSON RICK
$90.00
UnPaid
LONG & SONS
$426.00
UnPaid
MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC
$265.82
UnPaid
METRO TIRE CINTER INC
$157.52
UnPaid
NAPA OF ELK RIVER INC
$70.33
UnPaid
NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT CO
$239.61
UnPaid
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP
$480.12
UnPaid
TOSHIBA AMERICA INFO SYS INC
$203.38
UnPaid
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
$345.00
Total Checks $26,916.29
FILTER: None
CITY OF OTSEGO 03/07/02 1:40 PM
Page 1
Theck Detail Register@
MARCH 2002
Check Amt Invoice Comment
10100 BANKOFELIKIRIVER
Onpa'id ARROW BLDG CNTR
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $10.61 48326 ROUGH SHAWN CEDAR
Total ABC ARROW BLDG CNTF $10.61
UfWl "'APEX BUSINESS'CENTER
E 101-419CO-390 Contracted Services $5,636.96 CED ASSISSTANCE
Total APEX BUSINESS CENTER $5.636.96
,Un�6id-- BERLIN TIRE
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $62.91 2790000807 MISC
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $86.02 2790001177 92 FORD TRK
Total BERLIN TIRE CENTER, INC $148.93
E 101-43100-220
Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$35.98
12547R
92 FORD TRK
E 101-43100-220
Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$42.59
12843R
94 FORD TRK
E101-43100-220
Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$15.07
12844R
92 FORD TRK
E101-43100-220
Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$113.76
12845R
94 FORD TRK
E 101-43100-203
Total BOYERTRUCKS
$207.40
MISC - SAND
E 101-43100-203
Uii�ifcf
E 101-43100-320 Telephone $90.00 JAN/FEB/MAR/CELL PHONE
Total DAVID CHASE $90.00
U npAd---- ---6YS-7'0TALA415Ml5-C ENTER
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
$23.93 524426
MISC SUPPLIES
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
$17.65 525534
MISC SUPPLIES
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
$6.07 527491
MISC SUPPLIES
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
$43.08 531760
MISC SUPPLIES
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
$181.46 532014
MISC SUPPLIES
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
($31.96) 532019
MISC - SAND
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
($61.99) 532088
MISC
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
$12.08 532105
MISC SUPPLIES
Total
DJ'S TOTAL HOME CENTER
$190.32
R 101-34301
Street, Sidewalk and Curb Fees
$261.27 45946
PHEASANT RIDGE 4
R 101-34301
Street, Sidewalk and Curb Fees
$5,708.09 45987
THE POINTE
E 101-43100-393 StreetSigns
$241.87 45988
STREET SIGNS
R 101-34301
Street, Sidewalk and Curb Fees
$1,474.51 46067
MEADOWLANDS
R 101-34301
Street, Sidewalk and Curb Fees
$911.15 46068
PRAIRIE CREEK 5
R 101-34301
Street, Sidewalk and Curb Fees
$2,216.75 46085
PHEASTANT RIDGE
R 101-34301
Street, Sidewalk and Curb Fees
$1,036.17 46086
1-94 WEST
R 101-34301
Street, Sidewalk and Curb Fees
$1,630.41 46087
MISSISSIPPI PINES
Total EARL F ANDERSON INC
$13,480.22
INC
E 101 -41400-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL)
$46.67 125225 NOT OF PH BEAUDRY
E 101 -41400-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL)
$46.67 125226 NOT OF PH BENSON
E 101-41400-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL)
$36.30 125227 NOT OF PH ZONING
Total ECIA PUBLISHERS INC
$129.64
E 101-41940-390 $9.59 CITY HALL
$21.45 CITY HALL
$23.50 HEADSTART
$29.82 RENTAL HOUSE
$32.38 GARAGE/SHOP
Contracted Services
E 101-41940-390
Contracted Services
E 101-41950-310
Miscellaneous
E 101-41950-310
Miscellaneous
E 101-43100-310
Miscellaneous
CITY OF OTSEGO 03/07/02 1:40 PM
Page 1
*Check Detail Register@
MARCH 2002
Check Amt Invoice Comment
10100 BANKOFELKIRIVER
Unpaid __'_"_--_--ABcARROW BLDG CNTR
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $10.61 48326 ROUGH SHAWN CEDAR
Total ABC ARROW BLDG CNTF $10.61
Unpaid "--'-A'PEX BUSINESS
E 101-41900-390 Contracted Services $5,636.96 CED ASSISSTANCE
Total APEX BUSINESS CENTER $5,636.96
Unp'aicl TIR5CENTER,'INC
Unpaid
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $62.91 2790000807 MISC
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $86.02 2790001177 92 FORD TRK
Total BERLIN TIRE CENTER, INC $148.93
E 101 -43100-220
Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$35.98
12547R
92 FORD TRK
E 101 -43100-220
Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$42.59
12843R
94 FORD TRK
E 101 -43100-220
Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$15.07
12844R
92 FORD TRK
E101-43100-220
Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$113.76
12845R
94 FORD TRK
E 101-43100-203
Total BOYER TRUCKS
$207.40
MISC - SAND
E 101-43100-203
CHASE
E 101-43100-320 Telephone $90.00 JAN/FEB/MAR/CELL PHONE
Total DAVID CHASE $90.00
b n p -a-' d;____'_-iJY9'TbTAL-HdM 5t ENTER'
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
$23.93 524426
MISC SUPPLIES
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
$17.65 525534
MISC SUPPLIES
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
$6.07 527491
MISC SUPPLIES
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
$43.08 531760
MISC SUPPLIES
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
$181.46 532014
MISC SUPPLIES
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
($31.96) 532019
MISC - SAND
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
($61.99) 532088
MISC
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
$12.08 532105
MISC SUPPLIES
Total DXS TOTAL HOME CENTER
$190.32
F'ANDERSO4 INC
R 101-34301
Street, Sidewalk and Curb Fees
$261.27 45946
PHEASANT RIDGE 4
R 101-34301
Street, Sidewalk and Curb Fees
$5,708.09 45987
THE POINTE
E 101 -43100-393 Street Signs
$241.87 45988
STREET SIGNS
R 101-34301
Street, Sidewalk and Curb Fees
$1,474.51 46067
MEADOWLANDS
R 101-34301
Street, Sidewalk and Curb Fees
$911.15 46068
PRAIRIE CREEK 5
R 101-34301
Street, Sidewalk and Curb Fees
$2,216.75 46085
PHEASTANT RIDGE
R 101-34301
Street, Sidewalk and Curb Fees
$1,036.17 46086
1-94 WEST
R 101-34301
Street, Sidewalk and Curb Fees
$1,630.41 46087
MISSISSIPPI PINES
Total EARL F ANDERSON INC __�_i
3,48-0.22
PUBLISHERS INC
.0 69d
E 101-41400-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL)
$46.67 125225 NOT OF PH BEAUDRY
E101-41400-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL)
$46.67 125226 NOT OF PH BENSON
E 101-41400-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL)
$36.30 125227 NOT OF PH ZONING
Total ECM PUBLISHERS INC
$129.64
`Urikii'd-____'____FINKEN'S WATEFQ;Akt'--
E 101-41940-390 Contracted Services $9.59 CITY HALL
E 101-41940-390 Contracted Services $21.45 CITY HALL
E 101-41950-310 Miscellaneous $23.50 HEADSTART
E 101-41950-310 Miscellaneous $29.82 RENTAL HOUSE
E 101-43100-310 Miscellaneous $32.38 GARAGE/SHOP
CITY OF OTSEGO 03/07/02 1:40 PM
Page 2
*Check Detail Register@
MARCH 2002
Check Amt Invoice Comment
Total FINKEN'S WATER CARE $116.74 N
-Uh-06� GLENS TRUCK CENTER INC "
E101-43100-220
Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$113.52 220360008
00 IH TRK
E 101 -43100-220
Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$140.52 220360035
92 FORD TRK
E101-43100-220
Repair/Maint Supply (GEN ERAL)
$26.90 220390060
FORD TRACTOR
E101-43100-220
Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$19.00 220420037
SNOWBLOWER
Total GLENS TRUCK CENTER INC
_$299.94
($8.09) 905461
CREDIT BULBS
8XMES4BC ----- --
. . .......
-$7o.33
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GEN ERAL) $678.96 53067 CARBIDES/BOLTS
Total H & L MESABI $678.96
'Unpaid �'__JACQUIE ROG N
E 101-41400-347 Newsletter $875.00 2002-02 OTSEGO VIEW
Total JACQUIE ROGNLI _$875.00
Unpaid DANIELS
E 101-41900-390 Contracted Services $2,773.79 CED ASSISTANCE
Total JOHN DANIELS ____!�2_,77379
Unpaid 'KNUTSON RICK
E 101-43100-320 Telephone $90.00 JAN/FEB/MAR/CELL PHONE
Total KNUTSON RICK _$9o.00
LONG & S()Ng--
E 101-41940-389 Cleaning Services $426.00 FEB CLEANING
Total LONG & SONS $426.00
MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $265.82 2021418 PUMP/GASKET SNOWBLOWER
Total MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC $265.82
METRO TIkE'CINTER INC - -------- -- ---
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $157.52 12271 TRACTOR
Total METRO TIRE CINTER INC $157.52
Lin p�kr___ RIVER INC
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
$29.14 902775
MISC
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
$14.90 903611
BEARING
E 101-43100-203
Supplies - General
$19.48 904752
MISC
E 101-43100-220
Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$14.90 905354
BULBS 86 PU
E 101-43100-220
Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
($8.09) 905461
CREDIT BULBS
Total NAPA OF ELK RIVER INC
-$7o.33
iLfnpajd__'_'- �NORTHERWIWL & EQUIPMENT
E101-43100-203 Supplies- General $239.61 5873031 CARPET/FLOOR DRYER
Total NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT CC $239.61
trKliaiia ". PRINCOACHNANCIAL GROUP' ----`--------
E 101-43100-123 Health $223.25 P/W - APRIL
E 101-41400-123 Health $256.87 ADMIN- APRIL
Total PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUF $480.12
TOSHIWAMMcA INFO SYS INC'
E 101-41400-413 Office Equipment Rental $203.38 32210496 TOSHIBACOPIER
Total TOSHIBA AMERICA INFO SYS INC $203.38
Unpaid— MINNESOTA
E 101-41400-360 Education/Training/Conferences $345.00 MMCI REGISTRATION JUDY
CITY OF OTSEGO 03/07/02 1:40 PNI
Page 3
*Check Detail Register@
MARCH 2002
Check Amt Invoice Comment
Total UNIVERSITY OF -MINNESOTA $345.00
10100 BANKOFELKRIVER $26,916.29
FILTER: None
r-
�Ij , �2-
LICENSE TO OPERATE
MECHANICAL DEVICES
CITVOF OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
FUNI CITY
Having filed an application therefore and complied with the ordinance in such case niade and provided,
IS HEREBY LICENSED to operate no more than nineteen (19) mechanical games in the City of Otsego'
at 9 100 Park Avenue NE. Otsego, MN at which place is conducted the business of Fun City for the term
of One (F) Year from the date hereof, subject, to the ordinances of said City applicable thereto.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Otsego this I I 1h day of March 2002.
Attest: City Clerk
By: Larry Fournier, Mayor
Name of Business:
Address:
Phone Number:
Name and Address
Of Applicant:
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF NIINNESOTA
8899 NASHUA AVENUE NE
OTSEGO, NIN 55330
LICENSE APPLICATION
MECHANICAL A-NIUSETNIENT DEVICE
763
7i, b
1� Ce) KK
7/ jle'�
2 -_,?'7- y,_4
Date of Birth:
Other than Traffic Violations, list convictions of o'ffense:
Describe area where Mechanical Amusement Devices will be located:
Description of Games: (List on an additional sheet of paper, if necessary)
C/ I JCU
Fee: $15.00 Location Fee plus $15.00 per machine.
/ re. -b -?—
Dated: Applicarif's Signature
"*&T"Wt%T ASSOCIjkTto Co"SutTANTS" INC,
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 55S, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
T 0.- Otsego Mayor and City Council
FROM: Daniel Licht
RE: Otsego - Otsego Commercial Park Final Plat
REPORT DATE: 6 March 2002 APPLICATION DATE:
NAC FILE: 176.02 - 02.03 CITY FILE- 2002-02
BACKGROUND
G. �
12 February 2002
Today Properties has submitted a final plat application for a four -lot commercial
subdivision located east of CSAH 42 at the 85th Street intersection. The property was
rezoned to B -W, Business Warehousing District and preliminary platted on November 27,
2000. Under the terms of the preliminary plat approval, the developer was required to
proceed with a final plat and all improvements no later than November 27, 2002. This
includes removal of an existing single family dwelling on the property.
Exhibits:
A. Site Location
B. Final Plat
ANALYSIS
Preliminary Plat. The proposed final plat is generally consistent with the preliminary plat
approved by the City Council. Whereas the preliminary plat provided for five lots, the
proposed final plat has only four. The change in number of lots is due to existing
easements and ponding area needs at the east end of the property, which limits the
buildable area. The final plat also provides for one-half the necessary right-of-way to
extend 85th Street from CSAH 42 to the east.
Page I of 3
Access. The final plat provides only one-half of the right-of-way for the 85"' Street
extension. The other half of the right-of-way must be acquired from the abutting property
to the north in order to allow for construction of the necessary street to access Lots 2, 3,
and 4. Without construction of 85" Street, the developer would have to request a CUP to
allow access to Lots 2, 3, and 4 other than to an abutting public street. Such a request
would be necessary prior to approval of the final plat.
The developer was to try and acquire the necessary land from the property to the north for
the full 85"' Street right-of-way. The developer requested in a letter dated July 26, 2001
that the City condemn the necessary land from the abutting property in order to provide
for the extension of 85 th Street. To date, the City has not initiated this process or
requested plans and specifications from the City Engineer to determine the costs of the
Roadway and the financial feasibility of its construction.
Until such time as issues pertaining to the extension of 85t" Street and access to Lots 2,
3, and 4 are resolved, approval of the final plat is premature.
The final plat must also be revised to provide necessary right-of-way for a north -south
collector street as shown on the City's Transportation Plan.
Lot Requirements. Lots within the B -W District must be at least two acres in area and
200 feet in width. All of the lots Wthin the final plat meet these requirements.
Existing Dwelling. There is an existing single family dwelling on the subject site. As part
of the final plat, the house must either meet side yard setback requirements or be
removed. Removal of the dwelling is required by November 27, 2002 under the terms of
the preliminary plat approval.
Construction Plans. The developer must submit construction plans for proposed site
improvements, including streets, grading, stormwater facilities, sewer and water utility
extensions, and other items required by the Engineering Manual. These plans are subject
to review and approval of the City Engineer.
Park Dedication. Final platting of the property make it subject to park dedication
requirements. The City's current requirement for commercial and industrial lands is a cash
fee in lieu of land equal to 10 percent of the market value of the property at the time it is
final platted. City Staff will work with the developer to determine the amount of the cash
fee and it will be incorporated as part of a development contract.
Development Contract. Upon approval of the final plat, the developer is required to enter
into a development contract. The development contract will require payment of securities,
Page 2 of 3
escrows and fees applicable to the project. The development contract will also need to
address the costs associated with extending 85"' Street. A draft of the development
contract has already been drafted by the City Attorney, but the developer has not signed
it or provided the necessary fees and securities.
CONCLUSION
While the proposed final plat is generally consistent with the design of the preliminary plat,
several issues have not been fully addressed. Most significant of these is access to Lots
2, 3, and 4 of the final plat which do not have frontage to a public street. In order to
approve the final plat, 85 1h Street must be extended, which would require the acquisition
of land from the abutting property to the north. Alternatively, the developer may request
a CUP allowing temporary access to these lots. Such an application must be processed
before final plat approval and would require the developer to provide plans indicating how
such access would be provided.
Until the access issue is more clearly resolved and other additional plans provided,
approval of the final plat application is premature. The developer will either need to waive
their rights for 60 -day review under Minnesota Statutes 15.99 or withdraw the application.
Should the developer not take one of these actions, we recommend that the City Council
deny the application based upon a finding that it is premature due to a lack of street
access to Lots 2, 3, and 4 within the plat.
PC Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
Mike Day
Bob Day
Page 3 of 3
BASE MAP DATA PROVIDED BY
HCKCWISon
Anderson
Fin Assoc.,Inc.
I
NOTE:
THIS MAP IS FOR PLANNING
PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD
NOT BE USED FOR EXACT
MEASUREMENT
SCALE:
NORTH
CITY OF
m
x 0 T S E G 0
X
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
�14
04
1%
q
11:4
04
C)
E-�
(Z)
XM 'NAT (ew -Olt W-rr")
---------------------------------
64 0
EXHIBIT B
LIJ
Ld
L,
0
ul
0
+
M
XM 'NAT (ew -Olt W-rr")
---------------------------------
64 0
EXHIBIT B
FEASIBILITY REPORT
FOR
85 TI STREET EXTENSION
WITH SANITARY SEWER, WATER MAINS
AND STORM DRAINAGE
SEPTEMBER 20, 2001
Prepared by:
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
3601 Thurston Avenue
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
Telephone: (76-3)) 427-5860
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my
direct super -vision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of
the State oE,,Minnesota-
11047 0
License No. *ateZ--
26052
License No.
I
A/
D te�
INTRODUCTION
In February of 200 1, the City Council reviewed and tentatively approved a
Development Agreement for the Otsego Business Park, TMH Development. The
preliminary plat was subsequently approved. The Final Plat and Developer's
Agreement are not completed and need to be, signed and recorded before the City
makes any proposed improvements. C�
The improvements proposed are sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, and
streets. The Developer has petitioned the City for the feasibility study to
construct these improvements and the City Council, therefore, directed the City
Engineer to report to the Council on this matter.
The adjacent property to the north of the proposed development, owned by
Vernon Kolles, does not plan to develop the farmland in the near future and are
not a willing petitioner.
Ii. PURPOSE OF FEASIBILITY REPORT
Therefore, the preparation of a Feasibility Report will accomplish two items:
First is to recommend the required water, sewer and roadway improvements, the
benefited areas, and the resulting assessments. The Development Agreement that
the City would enter into with the developer of the 15 -acre property now owned
by TMH Development, formerly the Philip H. S wiggum#2241 03 ) and #3 )3 201
shall include the cost of the entire improvement with potential for reimbursement
when the Kolles property develops. The developer proposes to construct the
"Otsego Industrial Park" which includes the extension of 85 1h Street along the
northern boundary of their tract.
Secondly, to recommend the storm water infrastructure improvements and
acreage impact fees for the proposed "Commercial/ Industrial District of the
Lefebvre Watershed" area lying between C SAH 42 and TH 10 1, south of 8 8th
Street.
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS
I. Existing Development
This 230 -acre District 4 Commercial/ Industrial Planning Area is basically
undeveloped except for some rural single family residential properties lying on
the southwestern portion along CSAH 42 and some commercial and institutional
development on a 40 -acre portion on the northern end centered around 88th Street
/ Quaday Avenue extension. The proposed fifteen (15) acre development,
Pa-ge I
"Otsego Industrial Park, TMH Development" is the second tract within the
planning area to bring a planned development to the Council for consideration.
The overall boundary of the District 4 Commercial / Industrial Planning Area and
the location of the 85"' Street Extension Project is shown on EXHIBIT'A'.
2. Existing and Planned Roadway Improvements
After 1995, the City included in its Municipal State Aid Roadway Plan the
extension of Quaday Avenue from 881h Street southward to connect with County
Road 42, (Parrish Ave.) at the existing intersection of Quaday Avenue. The
extension of 88"' Street for approximately 1300 feet as part of the MDR Christ
Lutheran Church Addition Project is the only project to date that has effected the
construction of the planned Quaday Avenue connector.
The original conceptual plan, called for 85t" Street to be extend only about 350
feet east of CSAH 42 to a loop road that split into nor -them and southern segments
that then connected with the proposed Quaday Avenue. The current property
owner's approved preliminary plat has 85 1h Street extending approximately 1, 100
feet and ending in a cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac was necessitated by the absence
of future Quaday Avenue that would have given roadway access to Lot 5 of the
proposed 15 -acre development.
The current developer's plan would have to be revised to extend 85 1h Street the
full 1560 feet to future Quaday Avenue location. A temporary cul-de-sac would
have to be constructed for safe turn around of the truck traffic until Quaday
Avenue is constructed by future industrial developments.
n
I Existing and Planned Sanitary Sewer System
C,
Commercial / Industrial Planning Area #4 was identified as the East- I Sub -district
in the 1997 Sanitary Sewer Collection System Study. The improvements
identified in that study as being Phase I improvements included the extension of
an 8" gravity sewer inline with the extension of 8D 1h Street to Quaday Avenue.
This sewer would also serve the properties lying to the east of the future Quaday
Avenue. Another 8" gravity sewer would follow 88"' Street and the northern
1h
segment of Quaday Avenue to serve the lots north of 85 Street. Both of these
sanitary sewer lines would connect to the existing sanitary sewer trunk line that
runs parallel to CSAH 42. These sanitary sewer lines are shown on "EXHIBIT
A"
Additional 8" lateral sewers would be necessary to provide service to the
remainder of the industrial/commercial properties. No attempt was made to show
the probable location of these smaller sewer lines. Services to the future lots of
the plat will be as required by the City Engineering Manual.
Page 2
4. Existing and Planned Water System
In 1997, the City developed its Potable Water System Plan as shown on EXHIBIT
A. 1h This plan called for a 12" water main loop to be nin down the extension of
85 Street and then north following the proposed Quaday Avenue. corridor to tie
back into the water system at 88"' Street. Approximately 1300 feet of this 12"
trunk water main was installed with the MDR Christ Lutheran Church project. As
Quaday Avenue is extended to the south toward CSAH 42, it is recommended that
a 12" lateral water main be installed to loop back into the system on the south end
as well.
5. Existing and Planned Storm Drainage System
The approximately 120 acres of the planning area are identified as basin 541 L and
551L within the Lefebvre Watershed. Two portions of the Planning Area are not
included within the Lefebvre Watershed. The largest excluded area is the 40
acres at the northern end of the study area along the 88t" Street Extension.
Another 34 -acre area abutting the western right of way of State Hwy. 101
naturally drains toward Hwy. 10 1 rather than contributing to the flows into the
main stormwater channel shown in the southern part of the study area just north of
CSAH 42. However, this later area is proposed to be brought into the Lefebvre
Watershed Commercial / Industrial Storm Sewer Tax District to avoid overtaxing
the existing storm culverts under Hwy. 10 1 and the downstream channel that
flows throuah an existing trailer park.
There are three sub -basins lying to the west of CSAH 42 that drain through the
studyarea. These sub -basins are designated as 511L, 421L and 431L. Thestorm
water runoff from all three of these sub -basins passes through the study area in a
City owned storm water channel. This channel is protected with a dedicated
easement that begins at the intersection of 85th Street and CSAH 42 and runs
diagonally parallel of CSAH 42 to the trunk storm water channel that was
included in the 1995 improvements for the Lefebvre Watershed. This storm
drainage channel and easement impact the eastern edge of the proposed 15 -acre
tract development.
In order to establish a storm water infrastructure within the planning area that just
these new industrially developing lots would participate in the shared cost, the
proposed Storm Water Management Plan as shown on EXHIBIT B was
developed. In this new plan, the Quaday Avenue corridor will provide much of
the backbone storm drainage culvert system that will direct the industrial property
runoff into several detention ponds within the planning area prior to discharging
to the major channel along the northern side of CSAH 42. The storm drainage
modeling done for the Lefebvre Watershed indicated that a total of 54 acre-feet of
storm water detention would be required for the 120 -acre industrial area. With
the addition of the 3 4 -acre tract next to Hwy. 10 1, it is estimated that the
stormwater detention storage would increase to 69 acre-feet.
Pa.- 7 e 3
This required detention could be provided as one single regional detention basin
or as smaller individual site development basins. For purposes of this feasibility
study, three separate detention basin sites are identified. A portion of the two
northernmost detention basins are shown to be built as part of the proposed
"Otsego Industrial Park" Project.
B. PROPOSED SHARED —COST INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
Frontage A-s-sessments
The City Assessment Ordinance treats the construction of water, sewer and
roadways in commercial/industrial developments as cost to be shared on a per
foot frontage basis for the properties that abut the proposed improvements. For
the proposed 85'h Street Extension, the following table lists the specific items of
infrastructure and its associated estimated cost that should be assessed on a per
frontage foot basis to the benefited properties. The benefited properties are shown
on EXHIBIT A. The assessments to the properties on each side of the proposed
85 1h Street Extension are proposed to be 50% of the cost per lineal foot of the
street, water and sewer lines.
The Engineer's estimate for the street, water and sewer improvements required for
the 85th Street Extension are calculated in the attached Table I. The estimated
cost for acquiring the northern half of the 80 foot wide street right of way is
included in the street estimate.
As shown on Table III (Financial Summary), dividing the total cost by the 2960 -
foot assessment front footage results in an assessment of $ 117-83 per frontage
foot for the proper -ties abutting each side of the street.
Acreage mpact Fees
Typically, the sharing of the cost for an area —wide storm drainage system is
performed by allocating a per acre impact fee to the total acreage of the properties
that will be benefited by the area -wide storm drainage system. For this 150 -acre
industrial area, the overall cost of the trunk storm drainage system is $ 9' )4,500, as
shown in Table II.
Therefore, as shown on Table III, the impact fee would be $ 5,079 per acre. We
recornmend this area be annexed to the Lefebvre Creek Storm Drainage Taxing
District. Exhibit C shows the relationship of the proposed Commercial/Industrial
District to the existing Lefebvre Watershed District. The industrial/commercial
area will impact the drainage system at a higher rate than residential due to
increased runoff, therefore, cost per acre is approximately 4 times higher than
residential acreage.
Page 4
C,
IV. PROJECT FUNDING
It is expected that the developer of the "Otsego Industrial Park" will have to
finance all of the street, water and sewer improvements to support his 15 -acre
development. He will be reimbursed the assessments that will be charged to the
Kolles property whenever they decide to develop.
VI. PROJECT SCHEDULE
A public hearing must be held to discuss the establishment of the street, water and
sewer assessments and the storm drainage impact fees. Advertising and holding
the public hearing usually takes approximately two weeks. The acquisition of t'hi' e
right. -of -way could take another three months, especially if condemnation is
required. Assuming the developer will perform the rough grading for roadway
extension this fall, the construction of the pavement and utilities could begin as
early as next March.
VIL. DEVELOPER'S PLANS
It is recommended that the developer's agreement for the "Otsego Industrial
Park" be amended to included the construction for the following items:
0 All of the water and sanitary sewer improvements for the full 1,560 length of
85"' Street Extension to include the temporary plugged end of the lines within
the future Quaday Avenue right-of-way.
C�
0 That the two on-site storm water detention basins be built on the developer's
property in a manner that will facilitate the future expansion of the detention
basins to serve the over-all stormwater district's needs. The initial size of the
detention basins and their outlet control facilities shall be sized to meet only
the 15 -acre projects storm water runoff.
0 That a 60' radius cul-de-sac, with concrete curbs and gutters, be constructed
with the center of the cul-de-sac located at approximately station 14+3 ) 0. That
the subgrade preparation be completed to a point within the Quaday Avenue
roadway section to provide proper cover for the ends of the trunk water and
sewer lines, as directed by the City Engineer.
Z:)
VIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend the Council accept the report and enter into a Developer's
Agreement with the Developers and order the plans and specifications. We find
the project benefits the abutting proper -ties and is technically feasibility. The cost
tz�
benefit ration appears to be satisfactory.
Page 5
IV. PROJECT FUNDING
It is expected that the developer of the "Otsego Industrial Park" will have to
finance all of the street, water and sewer improvements to support his 15 -acre
development. He will be reimbursed the assessments that will be charged to the
Kolles property whenever they decide to develop.
VI. PROJECT SCHEDULE
A public hearing must be held to discuss the establishment of the street, water and
sewer assessments and the storm drainage impact fees. Advertising and holdina,
the public hearing usually takes approximately two weeks. The acquisition of t:he
right-of-way could take another three months, especially if condemnation is
required. Assuming the developer will perform the rough grading for roadway
extension this fall, the construction of the pavement and utilities c'�'ould begin as
early as next March.
VII.- DEVELOPER'S PLANS
It is recommended that the developer's agreement for the "Otsego Industrial
Park" be amended to included the construction for the following items:
• All of the water and sanitary sewer improvements for the full 1,560 length of
85"' Street Extension to include the temporary plugged end of the lines within
the future Quaday Avenue right-of-way.
• That the two on-site storm water detention basins be built on the developer's
property in a manner that will facilitate the future expansion of the detention
basins to serve the over-all stormwater district's needs. The initial size of the
detention basins and their outlet control facilities shall be sized to meet only
the 15 -acre projects storm water runoff.
• That a 60' radius cul-de-sac, with concrete curbs and gutters, be constructed
with the center of the cul-de-sac located at approximately station 14+3 ) 0. That
the subgrade preparation be completed to a point within the Quaday Avenue
roadway section to provide proper cover for the ends of the trunk water and
sewer lines, as directed by the City Engineer.
VIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend the Council accept the report and enter into a Developer's
Agreement with the Developers and order the plans and specifications. We find
the project benefits the abutting properties and is technically feasibility. The cost
benefit ration appears to be satisfactory.
Page 5
1
Engineer's Estimate
85 th Street Extension
Otsego Industrial Park
Assessments
Table I
30% Overhead Included In Unit Cost
Schedule "A" - I;trppt
-i-tem
No.
Description
Unit
-
Unit Cost
Estimated
Quantity
-T-stimated
Cost
1
Mobilization
LS
$5,000.00
1
$5,000
2
Class 5 Aggregate Base
LF
S� 00
3140
$25,120
3
Type 31 Non -Wearing Course Mixture
_TN
TN
$27.50
890
$24,475
4
Type 41 Wearing Course Mixture
TN
$30.00
_�70
$20, 100
5
Biturninous Material for Tack Coat
GAL
$1.50 1
400
_S2,120
$8,700
6
Curb and Gutter Design B618
LF
S9.00
3102
_$600
$27,918
7
Traffic Signs
SF
$25.00
15
$375
8
- Adjust frame and Ring Casting
EA
16 5. 00
-8
_T,320
9
�djust Water Valve Box
_EA
$138.00
3
_$414
aLiiuuuie jA ioEajs $105,322
Schedulp "R" - qtr)rm
-Tt-em
No.
Description
Unit
Unit Cost
Estimated
Quantity
Estimated
Cost
1
15" RC Pipe
LF
$21.00
1000
$21,OCQ
2
RC Pipe
LF
$22.90
88
_T7_,406
$1,943
3
15" HDPE Pipe
-TT7HDPE
LF
$18.00
40
_$2,015
$720
4
Pipe
LF
$20.00
106
$9,282
5
4' Dia. Catchbasin/ Manhole
EA
-
$1 45000
6
_S2,120
$8,700
6
4' Dia. Storm Manhole
EA
__$ 4�H��2
-52
$2,800
7
2' x 3' Catchbasin
EA
$1,2oaffo�
2
$2,400
8
15" HD:1E FES
EA
$380.00
1
$380
9
18" HDPE FES
EA
$430-00
6
$2,580
10
Class 11 Field Stone Rock Rip -Rap
F�y
1--_
$75.00
13 1
$975
Schedule "B" Totals t43,690
Schedule "C" - Rnnit�try _qApr
Ft e-m-
No.
Description --Unit
Unit
Unit Cost
_ffs_t=ated
Quantity
_�`st_imted
Cost
1
8'. PVC SDR 35 0-1 O'Deep
-PVC
LF
$13.49
549
$2,880
2
T SDR 35 10-12' Deep
LF
$14.50
134
_T7_,406
$1,943
3
8" PVC SDR 35 12-14' Deep
LF
$15.50
135
$2,093
4
8" PVC SDR 35 14-16' Deep
�_F
$17.00
546
$9,282
5
8" PVC SDR 35 T6--18' Deep
LF
$19.00
114
$2,166
6
8" PVC §-DR26 18-20- Deep
_��t_andard
7F_
_�2 3 0-0
-52
$1,196
7
Sanitary Sewer Manhole 0-8' Deep
EA
$1,500.00
4 ---$6,000
8
i�`anhole Overdepth
VF
$125.00
1-2
9
Connect to Existing Sanitary Sewer
EA
$1,500.00
1
_$1,500
$1,500
10
-
811x 6" PVC Wye
�PVC
EA
$170,00---
8
$1,360
11
� Service Pipe
F
$10-00
- 440
$4,400
12
8" Plug
EA
$140.00
1
$140
13
Televise Sanitary Sewer
LF
$0.60
1 530
$9 1 8
__L4 _�Dewaterjng
LF ,
$32.00_::�_1�5$48
30
.9 60
ot-HuUUM �, I uLals :1>61,458
Schedule "n" - Vv;;tprrnni�
Item
No.
Description
Unit
Unit Cost
Estimated
Quantity
Estimated
Cost
I
T-DIPWatermain Class 52
LF
$15.00
192
$2,880
2
12" DIP Watermain Class 52
LF
$22.00
15-60
-$34,320
3
llnsulation
SF
$1.00
64
$64
5
lWatermain Fittings
LBS
$1.60
2475--T-$3,960
6
lWet-Tap Existing 16" DIP, F & 1 12" Butterfly Valv
EA
$2,700,00-
1
$2 700
7
1 Hydrant w/ Gate Valve
EA
S1,700.00_
3 1
$5�100
8
�6" Gate Valve
EA
$470.00
7 1
ocneauie u iotais
$52,314
//HaOI/Shared Docs/municipal/Aotsego/343/ot343EngEstimate.x[sEng's Est. Total - All Schedules $282,784
9/20/2001
Engineer's Estimate
85 th Street Extension
Otsego Industrial Park
Impact Fees
Table 11
30% Overhead Included In Unit Cost
Storm Drainage Trunk Facilities
Item
No.
Description
—Pipe
Unit
Unit Cost
Estimated
Quantity
Estimated
Cost
1
24" R��
—LF
S75.00
—1,600
— $120,000
2
36" RC Pipe
LF
$100.00
1,000
$100,000
3
Detention Basin Excavation
CY
$5.00
120,000
$600,000
4
Revegetation
CR9
S2,500.00--30
_S75,000
5
K Dia. Catchbasin/ Manhole
EA
$1,500.00
6
$9,000
6
14' Dia. Storm Manhole
EA
$1,500.00
5
$7,500
7
2' x 3' C2tchbasin
EA
$1,500.00
12
$18,000
8
24" RCP FES
EA
$500.00
—1
—$500
9
36" RCP FES
EA
$750.00
1 --$750
10
Class 11 Field Stone Rock Rip -Rap
CY
$75.00
50
$3,750
11
Skimmer Structures
EA I
$2,5CO.00
3
$7,500
rotal $934,500
//HaOl/Shared Docsimunicipal/Aotsego/334/ot343EngEstimate.xlsEng's Est. (2)
9/1912001
85th Street Extension
Table III
City of Otsego
Financial Summary
Assessments -
Sanitary Sewer $81,458.00
Watermain $52,314.00
Storm Sewer (lateral) $43,690.00
Street $105,322.00
Estimated Cost of Utility Construction $282,784.00
Easement Acquisition 1.4 acres @ $40,000 $56,000.00
Acquisition Fees $10,000.00
Estimated Cost of Final Land Acquisition $66,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost including 30% overhead $348,784.00
for contingencies, engineering and legal
Assessment front footage - 2,960 front feet
cost per front foot $348,784/2,960 F.F. = $117.83/F.F. $'117.83 /F.F.
Impact Fee for the Storm Drainage Trunk Facilities
Estimated cost of Truck Facilities including pipe, control structure
and ponding $934,500.00
Gross Acres in Commercial areas of Lefebve Watershed District
184 acres, estimated impact per acre of developed land
$934,500/184 acres $5,079/acre $5,079.00 /acre
ot343fin. summary AsFinandal Summary
9/19/2001
1000 0
1000
C. A. H. SCALE IN FEET
N. 39
1221101
1221203 0721204 i88t ST N.E.
12211 Ol #22 1202
-70 1
-7z-
0221205 5891-V
0221207
0221206 8763-30 1- 1232200
�ISIRICT 4 COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL �R
PRO��(TSED
232300
85th ST EXT.
TE.Pok." 60 a.Z"
2285th CONCE TUA ROADWAY LAYOU
Mfg tKA (W LOT LOT 4 LOT 5
122 1023 1
ir
#232-W 0 123230
4
224103 1233202
EXISTiNG STORM ORAJNAGE EASEMENT
1221101
8344-30
0
z
8112-30
.1, 0NI 2332 1233100
1224403
:L (J�
8182-30
#224400 0224
1224500 233300 #233300
8116-3
#224300
BQ5-30 u�
WIU14.1 2223 11 0233301
26
0262200 1262102
>
lip
EXISTING TRUNK WATER LINES - - - - - - -
EXISTING TRUNK SEWER LINES - - - - - - -
CONCEPTUAL TRUNK SEWER UNES
CONCEPTUAL TRUNK WATER LINES
BENFITED PROPERTIES
85TH STREET EXTENSION diw OF
FEASIBILITY PLAN
EXHIBIT A N�m
Now now
1143300
1514
zz Z-)
C-S-A.H.
N 0, 3
!2
IF221201 1221202 122,203 1221204 88th 'S" To' N E.
0221205 8091-3o
02212V 0221loo
1221206 8763-
12322oo
DISTRICT 4 PROPOSED LEFEBV
COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIA COMMERCIAL INDUST L
AREA WATERSHED TAX DISTRI
C&C"EoPTUAL STORM WATER LINES
2285 t h ST. PROPOSED
85th ST EXT.
14.3o
L, 0: T I LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT
02241
163a. -
5 CONCEPTIJA�
XX
0224103
0233202
224 Q1 EXISTING STOR14 *ATER EASEMENT
44-30
03292-30
2 4102
2332C
�ksk #224403
14 CONCEPTUAL OR A ER LINES
122..Do 12 OZ
12243DO
1233302
allo-U)
24401
223
1 4300 26
10
1271 IDD
1000 0 1 nnn
232300
233300
11811-10
12
32200
Z.-
0:
Zi
0232300
L -,-J
(J�
<
0262200
I IN FEET
85TH STREET EXTENSION
FEASIBILITY PLAN
STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS
EXHIBIT B
ft ft
0232501
F232301
-23
cj�
PROPOSED LEFEBVRE
COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL
WATERSHED TAX DISTRICT
1262102
diTy OF
n ruir
--.- -.—. ruvimn KuAu
— r
If
r .
-d-
. kz-
7
FT j, —
-SUT—,
Ma
�jj S'M
E 8h Q T.. --,L� L Q! —ii
71-
;y1li
L 2 2
-.4 LLI
E. ET 55:41, A
L. '"I 1; 0
-MCA
jr-, A
4612
Z
h
8,2
E-1 q
1w
N.E. 78TH ST
— — — — — - I LE B REI
I S
T
4 sli 1
if
Wi.ss—
MMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
ST N,E.
777�
1=.=,B
Anderson
11
3
1 r
LL
E Ot REr,
lc� 7. 77 S)
Ezzm E
R
'th STREET J FOS ER L Aj K E i—'i
TT, RAUCW9 11-16T—
�7
TA N'
I C ISTRICT CHANGES'
Hakanson FOR PROPOSED COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
Anderson OF LEFEBVRE WATERSHED DISTRICT
Assoc.,Inc. CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER, 2001
-----------
H
1000 0 1000 2000
SCALE
COPROPOSED
MMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
Hakanson
777�
1=.=,B
Anderson
11
3
Assoc.,Inc.
0
z
Erqs, Swveyws L L.� ... p,, Ahte,tS
3601 Tl`—tol A,e, A k,,. Mk—ota 55303
763-427-5860 FAX 763-427-0520
PREPARED: MAY. 149 7
CA
REVISICNS
UNE, 1993 A 0JST 2000
EA TO TRANSFER
1 996 APR'! 200;;
\TO PROPOSED
MAT, J�Jqa
!!;�cohfIMERCIAL / INDUSTRI11L Ul�,II�IUI
—
1AN. 1999
'A I I
A
4
0 NO ACCESS - CUL-DE-SAC
L
C"p
!LSOUTH
ffl I —S5 1 5-s-
rp
h STRET
— XHIBIT
\..I -
I "ERIURNE
If
C0i
()T -�4 -�
Hakanson L�S.
Anderson 3601 Thurston Avenue, Suite 101, Anoka, AAN 55303
Assoc., Inc. Phone: 763/427-5860 Fax: 763/427-0520 -
February 21, 2002
Mike Robertson
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Otsego, MN 55330
Re: Otsego Commercial Park
Dear Mike:
F E 8 2 15 2002
We have reviewed the Final Plat for Otsego Commercial Park and have the following comments:
1. A 40' permanent road easement is required on the east end of the property for future
north -south road through the industrially zoned area west of CSAH 42 and east of TH
101. This was stated in a review dated November 6, 2001.
2. A Wetland Delineation is required. Two wetlands are defined on the Construction
Plans although we have been unable to verify these due to the absence of a Wetland
Delineation Report.
3. If the two areas designated as wetlands on the Construction Plans are wetlands, a
drainage and utility easement around them is required on the Final Plat.
As part of the process in allowing the Final Plat of the property, we recommend the Developer be
assessed for V2of the construction of 85 th from CSAH 42 to the eastern extents of the Plat. This
would be covered in the Developer's Agreement, but the Developer should be made aware of
this.
Also, the Developer was required to attempt to secure the N /2of the 80' roadway easement om
Er
the Kolles family. We are not sure if the requirement has been completed.
If you have any questions, you mav contact me at 763-427-5860.
Sincerely,
Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc.
- A
Ronal J. W er, P.E.
cc: Judy Hudson, Clerk
Andy MacArthur, Attorney
Dan Licht, NAC
Mike and Bob Day, Today Properties
Civil&Municipal
G:\Municipal\AOTSEGO\2213\ot2213mr3.doe Engineering 2 Qr-
Land Surveyingfor
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
3601 Thurston Avenue, Suite 101, Anoka, MN 55303
Phone: 763/427-5860 Fax:763/427-0520
CITY OF OTSEGO
CITY COUNCIL
CITY ENGINEER'S AGENDA
MARCH 11, 2002
Item 7.1: Approval of Page Avenue Plans and Revised Intersection with 85" Street.
Order Ad for Bids and set Bid Opening Date — Recommend April 8, 2002
Bid Opening.
Item 7.2: Consider ordering Stormwater Impact Fee Studies for NW Mississippi
Watershed and Otsego Creek Watershed.
Item 7.3: Any Other Engineering Items
Civil 6-Munici al
'P w
Engineering 2
G:\Municipal\AOTSEGO�Agendas\agendal.doc Land Survtyingfiar
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
SAP 217-103-02 , Street & Storm Sewer Construciton On Page Avenue NE (79th Street NE to 85th Street NE)
Bid Schedule "A" - ;trppt.q
Item 7.1
Item
No.
Spec. Ref.
Description
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
Number of
Units
MSA Participating Locally Funded
Number of Number of
Units Cost Units Cost
0'al
Est�imat.d
Cost
1
2021.501
Mobilization
LS
$4,500.00
1
1
$4,500
$4,500
2
2101.511
Clearing and Grubbing
LS
$1,000.00
1
1
$1,000
$1,000
3
2104.501
Remove Pipe Drain (8" PVC)
LF
$2.00
40
40
$80
$80
-4
2104.501
Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter
LF
$6.00
170
170
$1,020 1
$1,020
5
2104.505
Remove Bituminous Pavement
SY
S4.00
440
440
$1,760
$1,760
6
2104.509
Remove Catch Basin
EACH
$400.00
1
1
$400
$400
7
2104.513
Sawing Bit Pavement (Full Depth)
LF
$3.50
180
180
$630
$630
8
2104,523
Salvage & Reinstall Sign
EACH
$125.00
2
2
$250
$250
9
2105.501
Common Excavation (P)
CY
$3.00
4375
4375
$13.125
$13,125
10
2105.523
Common Borrow - LV
CY
$5.00
1 1620
1620
$8,100
$8.100
11
2211.501
Class 5 Aggregate Base (6")
TON
$9.00
7476----
7476
$67.284 1
$67,284
12
2232.501
Mill Bituminous Surface
SY
$8.00
20
20
$160
$160
13
2350.501
Type LV 4 Wearing Course Mixture (8)
TON
$35.00
2490
2490
$87,150
$87,150
14
2350.502
Type LV 2 Non -Wearing Course Mixture (B)
TON
$32.00
2420
2420
$77,440
$77,440
15
2357.502
Bituminous Material For Tack Coat
GAL
$1.50
900
900
$1,350
$1,350
16
2504.602
Adjust Gate Valve
EACH
$175.00
6
6
$1,050
$1,050
17
2506.522
lAdjust Frame & Ring Casting
EACH
$220+00
3
3
$660
$660
18
2531.501
Concrete Curb & Gutter Design B61 8
LF _
$8.00
6600
6600
$52,800
$52,800
19
2531.604
6" Concrete Valley Gutter
SY
$35.00
86.3
86.3
$3,021
$3,021
20
2531.618
6" Concrete Apron
SF
$3.90
81
81
$316
$316
21
2563.601
Traffic Control
LS
$1,500.00
1
1
$1,500
$1,500
22
2564.531
Sign Panels, Type C
SF
__$28_._Q0
97�75
97.75
$2,737
$2,737
23
2564.602
Pavement Message (Right Arrow) - Epoxy
EACH
$130.00 1
1
1
$130
$130
24 1
2564.603
14" Double Solid Line Yellow - Paint
LF
$1.30
2940
2940
$3,822
$3,822
25
2564.603
112" Solid Line White - Paint
LF
$2.00
150
150
$300
$300
26
2564.603
14" Double Solid Line Yellow - Epoxy
LF
$2.00
2940
2940
$5,880
$5,880
27
2564.603
14" Solid Line White - Epoxy
LF
$1.00
6100
6100
$6,100
$6,100
28
2564.603
12" Solid Line White - Epoxy
LF
$4.00
170
170
$680
$680
29
2564.603
24" Stop Line White - Epoxy
LF
$8.00
26
26
$208
$208
30
2573.501
Bale Check
EACH
$15.00 1
24
24
$360
$360
31
2573.502
Tilt Fence, Type Machine Sliced
LF
$5.00
1100
1100
$5.500
$5,500
32
2575.501
Seeding - Type Lawn Restoration (Hydroseeding)
ACRE
$3,000.00
2.5
2+5
$7,500
$7,500
33
2575.505
Sodding - Type Lawn Restoration
SY
$3.50
150
150
$525
$525
34
2575.502
Seeding Mixture - 606
LBS
S4.75
250
250
$1,188
$1,188
35 1
2575.532
lCommercial Fertilizer, 20-10-10
LBS
$0.60
1250
1250
$750
$750
UiU 11CUUIC � UW- i ULdl aj0�0'Z 10 W $359,275
Rwl qrh.,i, il. "R" - qt -
Item
No.
Spec. Ref.
Description
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
Number of
Units
MSA Participating
Number -of
Units Cost
Locally Funded Total
Number of Estimated
Units Cost
36
2501,515
15 ' RC Pipe Apron
EACH
$500.00
1
1
$500
-Cost
$500
37
2501.515
21 RC Pipe Apron
EACH
$850.00
1
1
$850
$850
38
2501.515
24' RC Pipe Apron
EACH
$1,200.00
1
1
$1,200
$1,200
39
2501541
1E' RC Pipe Sewer Design 3006 CIL V (all depths)
LF
$32.00
180
180
$5,760
$5,760
40
2503.541
18- RC Pipe Sewer Design 3006 CIL III (all depths)
LF 1
$37.00
1
760
$28,120
1 $28,120
41
2503.541
121" RC Pipe Sewer Design 3006 CL III (all clepths)
LF
$42.00
__760
41
41
$1,722
$1,722
42
2503.541
24" RC Pipe Sewer Design 3006 CL III (all depths)
LF
S48.00
33
33
$1,584
$1,584
43
2503.602
Connect to Existing Storm Sewer
EACH
$850.00
1
1
$850
$850
44
2506.502
Construct Drainage Structure 2' x 3'
EACH
$1,100.00
3
3
$3,300
$3,300
45
2506.502
Construct Draingage Structure Design 48" 4020
EACH
$1,500.00
6
6
$9,000
$9,000
46
2506.502
_55
Construct Draingage Structure Design 54" 4020
_�andom
EACH
$225000
J
1
1
$2,250
"4�
T5 11 1
RipRap Class III
CY
�75.tO
22 1
22 1
$1,650
__�2,250
__$1,65_07
UIU OUI 1VUU1U 0 OUU- I Utdl ��O' I do $U $5b,786
Total - Both Schedules $416,061 $0 $416,061
shared docs/municipal/aotsego/344/ot344 Engineers Estimate Alt B EE - 1
OT344 3/6102
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
February 28, 2002
Mike Robertson
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Otsego, NIN 55330
Item 7.2
3601 Thurston Avenue, Suite 101, Anoka, MN 55303
Phone:763/427-5860 Fax:763/427-0520
Re: Otsego Creek Watershed Study
Dear Mike:
As requested by the Council, we have estimated the cost to provide the City of Otsego
with a Trunk Storm Water Facilities Study for Otsego Creek Watershed (see attached
map).
The Study would be similar to the Lefebvre Creek Watershed Study provided for the City
in 1999. This study and report has three main goals. These goals are as follows:
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 (per gross acre of developed land) to fund
trunk stormwater facilities. This impact fee would be different depending on
the proposed zoning of the land.
The City's Comprehensive Drainage Plan will be used as the framework for this
study. The Drainage Plan has identified the boundaries of what is termed the Otsego
Creek Watershed Sub -Districts. The new contour maps obtained by the City for the
western half of the City will be used to more accurately delineate the Sub -Districts.
We have estimated the cost of providing this report at $8,500.00.
Upon reviewing the Otsego Creek Watershed boundary, there is an area northwest of
the Otsego Creek Watershed, east of Monticello Township and south of the
Mississippi River, which has not had any stormwater study work completed on it (see
Civil 6- Municipal
G:\Municipal\AOTSEGO\422\ot422mr.doc Engineering 2 Or -
Land Surveyingfor
attachment). We have called it the Northwest Mississippi Watershed District. This
area has two unnamed creeks, which flow into the Mississippi River. Currently this
area is zoned agricultural and can be platted at 4 parcels per 40 acres. There have
been concept plans and developments within this area, which have much higher
densities. We recommend a watershed study be completed with proposed impact fees
set at a per parcel basis. This study would require some guidance from the Council as
to what type of density they may allow and where.
We have estimated the cost of providing this report at $2,500.00.
If you have any questions or need additional information, you may contact me at 763-
427-5860.
Sincerely,
Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc.
RJW:dlc
cc: Judy Hudson, Clerk
G:\Municipal\AOTSEGO\422\ot422mr.doc
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
February 28, 2002
Mike Robertson
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Otsego, MN 55330
Item 7.2
3601 Thurston Avenue, Suite 101, Anoka, MN 55303
Phone:763/427-5860 Fax:763/427-0520
Re: Otsego Creek Watershed Study
Dear Mike:
As requested by the Council, we have estimated the cost to provide the City of Otsego
with a Trunk Storm Water Facilities Study for Otsego Creek Watershed (see attached
map).
The Study would be similar to the Lefebvre Creek Watershed Study provided for the City
in 1999. This study and report has three main goals. These goals are as follows:
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 (per gross acre of developed land) to fund
trunk stormwater facilities. This impact fee would be different depending on
the proposed zoning of the land.
The City's Comprehensive Drainage Plan will be used as the framework for this
study. The Drainage Plan has identified the boundaries of what is termed the Otsego
Creek Watershed Sub -Districts. The new contour maps obtained by the City for the
western half of the City will be used to more accurately delineate the Sub -Districts.
We have estimated the cost of providing this report at $8,500.00.
Upon reviewing the Otsego Creek Watershed boundary, there is an area northwest of
the Otsego Creek Watershed, east of Monticello Township and south of the
Mississippi River, which has not had any stormwater study work completed on it (see
Civil C� Municipal w
G:\Municipal\AOTSEGO\422\ot422mr.doc Engineering 2
Land Surveyingfor
attachment). We have called it the Northwest Mississippi Watershed District. This
area has two unnamed creeks, which flow into the Mississippi River. Currently this
area is zoned agricultural and can be platted at 4 parcels per 40 acres. There have
been concept plans and developments within this area, which have much higher
densities. We recommend a watershed study be completed with proposed impact fees
set at a per parcel basis. This study would require some guidance from the Council as
to what type of density they may allow and where.
We have estimated the cost of providing this report at $2,500.00.
If you have any questions or need additional information, you may contact me at 763-
427-5860.
Sincerely,
Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc.
RJW:dlc
cc: Judy Hudson, Clerk
G:\MunicipaMOTSEGO\422\ot422iiir.doe
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
'e� - �1.
3601 Thurston Avenue, Suite 101, Anoka,"MU55,
Phone: 763/427-5860 Fax: 763/427-0520 :1 ji.
Ff_�2
L
February 28, 2002
Mike Robertson
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Otsego, MN 55330
Re: Otsego Creek Watershed Study
Dear Mike:
As requested by the Council, we have estimated the cost to provide the City of Otsego
with a Trunk Storm Water Facilities Study for Otsego Creek Watershed (see attached
map) -
The Study would be similar to the Lefebvre Creek Watershed Study provided for the City
in 1999. This study and report has three main goals. These goals are as follows:
Define the trunk stormwater facilities and their requirements. These
requirements include:
0 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 (per gross acre of developed land) to fund
trunk stormwater facilities. This impact fee would be different depending on
the proposed zoning of the land.
The City's Comprehensive Drainage Plan will be used as the framework for this
study. The Drainage Plan has identified the boundaries of what is termed the Otsego
Creek Watershed Sub -Districts. The new contour maps obtained by the City for the
western half of the City will be used to more accurately delineate the Sub -Districts.
We have estimated the cost of providing this report at $8,500.00.
Upon reviewing the Otsego Creek Watershed boundary, there is an area northwest of
the Otsego Creek Watershed, east of Monticello Township and south of the
Mississippi River, which has not had any stormwater study work completed on it (see
G:\MunicipaMOTSEGO\422\ot422mr.doc
Civil 6- Municipal
Engineering 2
Land Surveyingfor
attachment). We have called it the Northwest Mississippi Watershed District. This
area has two unnamed creeks, which flow into the Mississippi River. Currently this
area is zoned agricultural and can be platted at 4 parcels per 40 acres. There have
been concept plans and developments within this area, which have much higher
densities. We recommend a watershed study be completed with proposed impact fees
set at a per parcel basis. This study would require some guidance from the Council as
to what type of density they may allow and where.
We have estimated the cost of providing this report at $2,500.00.
If you have any questions or need additional information, you may contact me at 763-
427-5860.
Sincerely,
Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc.
RJW:dlc
cc: Judy Hudson, Clerk
G:\Municipal\AOTSEGO\422\ot422mr.doc
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
0'
1500 0 15co
3000
PM
RPIGE 24 RANCE 23 SCALE IN FEET
-----------
- -----------
h. . . . . . .
.... ......
L ............ ........
........ ..... .......... . ................. ..... .......
57
....... ... . ... . .......
61&t X
...... ...............
- - - - - - - - - - - ---- --- -
MISSIS ppvi
IATERSIED
ee
E
............. ................
-T ...........
2
e- ...... -------- I I M. Ill I
------ TIT- �j
OTSEGO CREEK kT ED-
......... .......
....... ................. ... ....... .................. .................
.... ............... . -------- ....... .. .... ... ..... - ----- -------
.1. 1� V ...... ............ ... .
...............
__j ... ............. .... ....
-2-
.......... ....
7
........ ... ............ ...
................ ............... ............ . ............ ...
. ..... ........
................. ................
L
..... ......... .............
-4 ......
.. /ji
Jo.
A�
.... ........... ....... ............ -P LEGEND
.......... ...............
------------- - - .............. . ...............
TAX DISTRICT BOUNDARY
WATERSHED TAX DISTRICT
CITY OF OTSEGO
DATE:02/28/02 RLE: OT422
LAND -DEVELOPMENT\OT422WMS\DWG\OT422WMS.DWG
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
Bid Schedule "C" - 85th Street NE Intersection - Streets
Item 7.1
Item
No.
Spec. Ref.
Description
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
Number of
Units
MSA Participating Locally Funded
Number of Number of
Units Cost Units Cost-
Total
Estimated
Cost
48
2101.511
Clearing and Grulbbi�g
LS
$125,00
1
1
$125
$125
49
2102.502
Pavement Marking Removal (4" Solid)
LF
$1.25
1360
1360
$1,700
$1,700
50
2104.501
�emove Sewer Pipe (Storm - 18 " RCP)
LF
S4.00
90
90
$360
$360
51
2104.505
�emove Bituminous Pavement
SY
$4.00
1225
1225
$4,900
$4,900
52
2104.513
Sawing Bit Pavement (Full Depth)
LF 1
$3.50
66
66
$231 1
$231
53
2104.523
1 Salvage Metal Culverts
LF
$1.00
48
48
$48
$48
54
2105.501
lCommon Excavation (P)
CY
$3.00
800
800
$2,400
$2,400
55
2211.501
1 Class 5 Aggregate Base (6")
TON
$9.00
435
435.
$3,915
$3,915
56
2232.501
Mill Bituminous Surface
SY
$8.00
5
5
$40
$40
57
2350�501
Type LV 4 Wearing Course Mixture (B)
TON
$35.00
195
195
$6,825
$6,825
58
2350.502
Type LV 2 Non -Wearing Course Mixture (B)
TON
$32.00
1 235
235
$7,520
$7,520
59
2357.502
uminous Material For Tack Coat
GAL
$1.50
95
95
$143
$143
60
2531.501
Concrete Curb & Gutter Design 6618
LF
$8.00
470
470
$3.760
$3,760
61
2563.601
Traffic Control
LS
$500.00
1
1
$500
$500
62
2564.531
Sign Panels, Type C
S F
$28.00
12.5
12.5
$350
$350
63
2564.602
Pavement Message (Left Arrow) - Epoxy
EACH
$130.00
1
1
$130
$130
64
2564.602
Pavement Message (Right Arrow) - Epoxy
EACH
$130.00
1
1
$130
$130
65
2565.602
Pavement Message (Left-Thru Arrow) - Epoxy
EACH
S200.00
1 1
1
$200
S200
66
2566.602
Pavement Message (Right-Thru Arrow) - Epoxy
EACH
$200.00
1
1
$200
$200
67
2564.603
4" Double Solid Line Yellow - Paint
LF
$1.30
1775
1775
$2.308
$2,308
68
2564.603
4" Double Solid Line Yellow - Epoxy
LF
$2.00
1775
1775
$3,550
$3,550
69
2564.603
4" Solid Line White - Epoxy
LF
$1.00
1200
1200
$1,200
$1,200
70
2564.603
24" Solid Line Yellow - Epoxy
L
$8.00
375
375
$3,000
$3,000
71
2564.603
24 Stop Line White - Epoxy
LF
$8.00
50
50
$400
$400
72
2575.501
Seeding - Type Lawn Restoration (Hydroseeding)
ACRE.
$3,000.00
0.6
0.6
$1,800
$1,800
73
2575.502
1 Seeding Mixture - 60B
LBS
$4.75
60
60
$285
$285
74
2575.532
lCommercial Fertilizer, 20-10-10
LBS
$0.60
300
300
$180
$180
Bid Schedule "C" Sub -Total
Bid Schedule "D" - 85th Street NE Storm Sewer
$46,199 so $46,199
Item
No.
Spec. Ref.
Description
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
Number of
Units
MSA Participating Locally Funded
Number of Wumber of
Units Cost Units Cost
Total
Estimated
Cost
75
2501.515
21" RC Pipe Apron
EACH
$850.00
1
1
$850
$850
76
2503.541
17 RC Pipe Sewer Design 3006 CL V (all depths)
LF
$32.00
120
120
$3,840
$3,840
77
2503.541
21" RC Pipe Sewer Design 3006 CL III (all depths)
LF
S42.00
460
460
$19,320
$19,320
78
"
2503.602
21" Pipe Plug
EACH
$100.00
1 1 1
1
$100 1
1 S100
2504.603
Install Salvaged 15" CMP
LF
$3.00
48
48
$144
$14
8
2506.502
lConstruct Draingage Structure Design 48" 4020
EACH
$1,500.00
3
3
S4,500
$4,500
8 1
2511.501
1 Random RipRap Class III
CY
$75.00
8
8
$600
Bid Schedule "D" Sub -Total $29,354 $0 $29,354
Total -All Schedules $491,614 $0 $491,614
shared docslmunicipallaotsego/344lot344 Engineers Estimate Alt 8 EE - 2
OT344 3/6/02
W—
CITY OF OTSEGO
CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR EXCAVATION, AGGREGATE BASE, CURB & GUTTER,
BITUMINOUS SURFACING, & STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
PAGE AVENUE NE
NW 1/4 OF SEC. 27 & SW 1/4 OF SEC. 22, T121N, R 23W
GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS
THE 2000 EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION"
SHALL GOVERN.
ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND
ORDINANCES SHALL BE COMPLIED NTH IN THE CONSTRUCDON
OF THIS PROJECT.
CITY OF OTSEGO PROJECT 02-01
SHEETINDEX
THIS PLAN CONTAINS 18 SHEETS
PAGE AVENUE NE 1 . Title Sheet
2. Quantities and Basis of Estimate
MSAP 217-103-02 3. Details, Typical Sections
4. Sto m Sewer Details
GROSS LENGTH= 3,265 FT. OR 0.62 Mi. 5. Proj'ect Overview
NET LENGTH= 3,265 FT. OR 0.62 MI. 6-8A Street & Storm Sewer
9 Traffic Control
REF. PT.=INT. OF 79TH STREET � AND PAGE AVENUE 10. Traffic Signs and Markings
11-18. Cross Sections
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc.,Inc.
PROJECT STA. TO STA. ADT ADT R TON SIGMA DESIGN NUMBER NUMBER OF FUNCTIONAL
(2001) (2021) VALUE DESIGN N-18 SPEED OF LANES PARKING LANES CLASSIFICATION
MSAP 217-103-02 9+25 TO 41+90 2430 4840 40 10 2 0 MINOR COLLECTOR
�' I I I %-� 1 1-11 1 -.) L- 1-7 \-/
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
SAP 217-103-02
90
ECT
T1 ON
BEGIN OF SAP 217-103-02
STA=9+25
t (L PAGE AVENUE NE AND
79TH STREET NE
DIPPING SITE DISTANCE BASED ON:
OADWAY
3.5 FT. HEIGHT OF EYE
6 IN. HEIGHT OF OBJECT
SIGN SPEED NOT ACHIEVED AT.
STA *1+15 TO 41+65
(STOP CONDITION)
1000 0 1000 2000
FM
SCALE IN FEET
I hereby certify that this pion, specification, or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws
of the State of Minnesota
26052 3/1/02
RONALD J. WAGNER P.E. License No. Date
CITY ENGINEER
STATE AID APPROVALS
DISTRICT STATE AID ENGINEER Date
RE�AEW FOR COMPLIANCE NTH STATE
AID RULES / POLICY
STATE AID ENGINEER:
APPROVED FOR STATE AID FUNDING
DATE
ume
1 3/1/02 REMSED SHEET INDEX I
Mal 04, 2002 — 10.17o -
V \rud eng\land pro)ects\ot344\dwq\0T344 C, d-, MSAP 217-103-02
I SHEET 1 OF 18 SHEETS
so
PACE AVENUE NE
EARTHWORK TABLE
VOLUMES CUMULA27VE VOLUMZS
STA77ON Squa Fe�t Cubic Yards Cubic Yards
CUT FILL CUT FIUL CVT FHZ
9+50 0.00 0.00 21.59 1.22 21.59 1-22
9+73 50.69 2.86
10+00 33.92 11.16- 42.30 7-01 63.89 8.22
10+50 0.42 31.94- 31.80 39.90 95.68 48-13
- 0.39 83.11 96.08 131-24
11+00 0.00 57.82 -
- 0.00 113.48 96.08 244.71
11+50 0.00 64.73 0.40 116.83 96.48 361.54
12+00 0.43 61.44 -
-- 0.40 106.41 96.a8 467.94
12+50 0.00 53.48 1.11 97.22 97.99 565.16
13+00 1.20 51.51 -
13+50 0.00- 48.27 1.11 92.39 , 99.10 657.55
14+00 0-00 44.03- 0.00 85.47 99.10 743.02
14+40.38 0.00 44.03 0.00 65.86 99.10 808.88
14+50 017 37.89 - 0.03 14.60 99.13 1 823.47
15+00 0.05 45.28- 0.21 77.01 99.34 900.48
0.46 69.80 99.80 970.28
15+50 0.45 30.11 0.41 76.04 100.22 1046.32
16+00 0.00 52-02 0.00 102.21 100.22 1148.53
16+50 0.00 58.37
0.00 134.96 100.22 1283.48
17+00 0.00 87.39
-- 0.00 187.72 100.22 1471.20
17+50 0.00 115.35
0.00 138.67 100.22 1609.87
17+82.46 0.00 115.35
0.23 69.43 100.45 1679.31
18+00 0.72 0.66 201.00 101.11 1880.30
18+50 0.00 118.66 -
- 0.00 213.90 101.11 2094.20
19+DO 0.00 112.35
- 0.00 197.63 101.11 2291.83
19+50 0.00 101.09 -
- 0.00 155.54 101.11 2447.37
20+00 0.00 66.90 3.30 82.84 104.41 2530.21
20+50 3.56 22.57
-- 34.12 25.67 138.53 2555.88
21+00 33.29 5.15 -
- 21.77 3.37 1 160.31 2559.25
21+17.66 33.29 5.15
-- 28.31 13.52 188.62 2572-77
21+50 13.99 17.43
22+00 0.03 44.45 12.98 57.30 201.60 2630.07
22+50 0.00 64.89 0.03 101-24 201.62 2731.31
23+00 0.00 76.44 0-00 130-86 201.62 2862.17
23+50 1.65 44.76 1.53 112.22 203.15 2974.39
24+00 0.00 36.37 1.53 75.11 204.68 3049.50
24+50 11.47 8.63 10. 2 41.66 215.30 3091.16
25+00 26.04 6.84 34.73 14.32 250.03 3105.48
25+50 35.42 4.42 56.91 10.43 306.94 3115.91
26+00 37.63 4.13 67.64 7.92 374.58 3123.84
26+50 46.38-- 2-20 77.79 5.86 452.37 3129.70
- -- 82.83 5.85 535.20 3135.54
27+00 43.07 4.12 86.98 5.07 622.18 3140�61
27+50 50.87 1.35 1 00
28+00 57.45 1.30 -29 2-45 722.48 3143.06
- --- 124.60 1.20 847.07 314-4-26
28+50 77.11 0-00
- 1 22.94 5.19 970.01 3149.45
29+00 55.66 5-61
29+50 71.77 2.53 117.99 7.53 1088.01 3156.98
30+00 40.93 - 4.26 104.35 6.29 1192.36 3163.27
30+50 27.51 5.66 63.37 9A9 1255.73 3172.46
31+00 11.40 9.77 36.03 14.28 1291.75 3186.74
31+50 0.46 20.68 10.97 28.19 1302.73 3214.93
-- 0.52 49.72 1303.25 3264.65
32+DO 0.10 33.02 --
73.17 1303.34 3337.82
32+50 0.00 ---;6 01 010
33+00 - 0.00 97-31 1303.34 3435.13
0-00 59.09
- 0.00 43.22 1303.34 3478.35
33+19.75 0.00 59-09 0.45 54.65 1303.79 3533.00
33+50 0.80 38.47 0.74 74.66 1304.53 3607.66
34+00 0-00 42.16
---- 0.42 64.09 1304.94 3671.76
34+50 0.45 27.06
- --- - 20.70 32.42 1325.64 3704.18
35+00 21.90 7.96 -- 193.79 7.37 1519.43 3711.55
35+50 187.39 0.00
36+00 194.91 0.00 353.98 0-00 1873.40 3711.55
36+50 187.43 0.00 354.02 0.00 2227.42 3711.55
- 326.57 0.00 2553.99 3711-55
37+00 165.26 0.00
- 306.37 0.00 2860.36 3711.55
37+50 165.62 0�00 364.12 0.00 3224.48 3711.55
38+00 227-63 0.00 -
38+50 134.07 14.23 334.91 13.17 3559.38 3724.72 1
39+00 96.65 49.92 213.63 59.39 3773.02 3784.11
39+50 - 139.35 125.52 3912.37 3909.63
5185 85.64 93.95 146.99 4006.32 4056-62
40+00 47.61 73.10 61.20 107.63 4067.52 4164.25
40+50 18.49 43.14 65.46 59.89 4132.98 4224.14
41+00 52.21 21.54 -
41+50 66.29 13.95 109.72 32.86 4242.70 4257.00
117.46 13.33 4360.16 4270.33
42+00 60.57 04-4
105..0004 0.11 4375.20 4270.43
0
0�0
0:
0
42+13.41 0.00 0�::� I
0.00 0.00 4375.20 1 4270.43
EARTHWORK SUMMARY
FILL FACTOR
4270x 1.4 = 5978 CY
CUT = 4375 CY
1603 CY
COMMON BORROW
NOTE.
BASIS OF ESTIMATED QUANTMES:*
BITUMINOUS - 110 POUNDS PER INCH
PER SQUARE YARD.
BITUMINOUS TACK COAT -
0.05 GALLONS PER SQUARE YARD
A GA ASE -
105 POUNDS PER INCH
PER SQUARE YARD.
SEEDING - 100 Ilp&/ACRE
FERTILIZER - 500 lb&/ACFZE
MULCH MATERIALS� TYPE -1 - 2 tons/ACRE
K.\-c-en9\1and projects \ot -,44,.dwq\10T344
SCHEDULE OF QUANTITIES
THESE
STANDARD PLATES AS APPROVED BY FHWA SHALL APPLY
Bid Schedule "A" - Streets
Rem
No. Spec. Ref. Description
Unit
Locally
MSA Participating Funded
Units Storm Sewer Units
Total
Units
1
2021501 Mobilization
LS
1
3133C
1
2
2101.511 Clearing and Grubbing
LS
1
4022A
1
3
2102502 Pawment Marking Remo%el (4" Solid)
LF
1360
4108F
1360
4
210-4.501 Remo%e Sewer Pipe (Storm - 18" RCP)
LF
90
80001
90
5
2104.501 Remoke Pipe Drain (8" PVC)
LF
40
40
6
2104.501 Remo%e Concrete Curb & Gutter
LF
170
170
7
2104.505 Remo%e Bituminotjs PaNemerit
SY
1665
1665
8
2104.509 Remov- Catch Basin
EACH
1
1
9
2104.513 Sawing Bit Pavement (Full Depth)
LF-
250
250
10
2104.521 Sahoage Metal Culverts (15" CMP)
LF
48
48
11
2104.523 jSaheige & Reinstall Sign
EACH
2
2
12
2105.501 Common Exca\ation (P)
CY
5175
5175
13
2105.523 Common Borrow - LV
CY
1620
1620
14
2211501 Class 6 Aggregate Base (6")
TON
7915
7915
15
2232.501 Mill Biluminous Surface
SY
25
25
16
2350.501 Type LV 4 Weafing Course Mixture (B)
TON
2685
2685
17
2350.502 Type LV 2 Non -Wearing Course Mixture (B)
TON
2655
2655
18
2357.502 Bituminous Material For Tack Coat
�1
995
995
19
2504.602 Adjust Gate Vaive
EACH
6
6
20
2506.522 Adjust Frame & Ring Casting
EACH
3
3
21
2531,501 Concrete Curb & Gutter Design B618
LF
7070
7070
22
2531.604 6" Concrete Valley Gutter
SY
86.3
86.3
23
2531.618 6" Concrete Apron
SF
81
81
24
2563.601 Traffic Control
LS
1
1
25
2564.531 Sign Panels, Type C
SF
110.25
11025
26
2564.602 Pa�emerjt Message (Left Arrow) - Epoxy
EACH
1
1
27
2564602 Pa,.ement Message (Right Arrow) - Epoxy
EACH
2
2
28
2564-602 Pa%emerd Message (Left-Thru Anow) - Epoxy
EACH
1
1
29
2564.602 Pa%ement Message (RigN-Thru Arrow) - Epoxy
EACH
1
1
30
2564-603 4" Double Solid Line Yellow - Paint
LF
4715
4715
31
2564.603 12" Solid Line White - Paint
LF
150
150
32
2564.603 4" Double Solid Line Yellow - Epoxy
LF
4715
4715
33
2564.603 4" Solid Line Whi te - Epoxy
LF
7300
7300
34
2%4.603 12" Solid Line White - Epoxy
LF
170
170
35
2564.603 24" Solid Line Yellow - Epoxy
LF
375
375
36
2564-603 24" Stop Line Whte - Epoxy
LF
76
76
37
2573.501 Bale Check
EACH
24
24
38
2573-502 Sift Fence, Type Machine Sli��
LF
1100
1100
39
2575.501 Seeding - Type Lawn Restoration
ACRE
3.1
3.1
40
2575.505 Sodding - Type Lawn Restoration
SY
150
150
41
2575.502 Seedng Mixture - 60B
LBS
310
310
42
2575.519 Disk Anchoring
ACRE
3.1
3.1
43
2575523 Erosion Cxxitrol Blanket Category 3
SY
4200
4200
44
2575.532 Commercial Fertilizer, 20-10-10
LBS
1550
1550
45
2575.511 Mulch Matenal Type 1
TON
47
4.7 -
Bid Schedule "B" - Storm Sewer
Item
No. Spec- Ref. Description
Unit
Locally
MSA Participating Funded
Sewer Units
Total
Units
46
2501.515 15" RC Pipe Apron
EACH
1
1
47
2501.515 21" RC Pipe Apron
EACH
2
2
48
2501.515 24" RC Pipe Apron
EACH
1
1
49
2503-541 15" RC Pipe Sewer Design 3006 CL V (all depths)
LF
350
350
50
2503.541 18" RC Pipe Sewer Design 3OD6 CL 5
51
2503.541 21" RC Pipe Sewer Design 3006 CL III (all depths)
LF
501
501
52
2503.541 24" RC Pipe Sewer Design 3006 CL III (all depths)
LF
33
33
53
2503.602 21" Pipe Plug
EACH
1
1
54
2503.602 Connect to Existing Storm Sewer
EACH
1
1-
55
2504.603 Install SaKage 15" CMP
LF
48
48
56
2506.502 Construct Drainage Structure 2' x 3'
EACH
3
3
57
2�0�6,2 Co�nstruct Draingage Structure Design 48" 4020
EACH
9
9
58
2506.502 lConstruct Draingage Structure Design 54" 4020
EACH
1
1
59 1
2511.501 lRandom RipRap Class 111
30
30
EARTHWORK SUMMARY
FILL FACTOR
4270x 1.4 = 5978 CY
CUT = 4375 CY
1603 CY
COMMON BORROW
NOTE.
BASIS OF ESTIMATED QUANTMES:*
BITUMINOUS - 110 POUNDS PER INCH
PER SQUARE YARD.
BITUMINOUS TACK COAT -
0.05 GALLONS PER SQUARE YARD
A GA ASE -
105 POUNDS PER INCH
PER SQUARE YARD.
SEEDING - 100 Ilp&/ACRE
FERTILIZER - 500 lb&/ACFZE
MULCH MATERIALS� TYPE -1 - 2 tons/ACRE
K.\-c-en9\1and projects \ot -,44,.dwq\10T344
STANDARD PLATES
THESE
STANDARD PLATES AS APPROVED BY FHWA SHALL APPLY
PLATE NO.
DESCRIPTION
3000L
REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
3006G
GASKET JOINT FOR R.C. PIPE
3007C
SHEAR REINFORCEMENT FOR PRECAST DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
3133C
RIPRAP AT RCP OUTLETS
4018A
MANHOLE OR CATCH BASIN
4020H
MANHOLE OR CATCH BASIN COVER
4022A
3 FT X 2 FT OPENING MANHOLE OR CATCH BASIN COVER
4024A
48" DIA PRECAST SHALLOW DEPTH CATCH BASIN
4101D
RING CASTING FOR MANHOLE OR CATCH BASIN
4108F
ADJUSTING RINGS
411OF
COVER CASTING FOR MANHOLE
71 OOG
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
80001
STANDARD BARRICADES
8002G
PERMANENT BARRICADE
9102D
TURF ESTABLISHMENT AREAS
EARTHWORK SUMMARY
FILL FACTOR
4270x 1.4 = 5978 CY
CUT = 4375 CY
1603 CY
COMMON BORROW
NOTE.
BASIS OF ESTIMATED QUANTMES:*
BITUMINOUS - 110 POUNDS PER INCH
PER SQUARE YARD.
BITUMINOUS TACK COAT -
0.05 GALLONS PER SQUARE YARD
A GA ASE -
105 POUNDS PER INCH
PER SQUARE YARD.
SEEDING - 100 Ilp&/ACRE
FERTILIZER - 500 lb&/ACFZE
MULCH MATERIALS� TYPE -1 - 2 tons/ACRE
K.\-c-en9\1and projects \ot -,44,.dwq\10T344
BE
C;
Q�
3E
C;
ll�
80' R.O.W.
CL
12.5�-- 5- 10.5,_ — 12���j
2.0% SHOULDER DRIVE
17.5'
9618 CONCRETE I
CURB AND GUTTER
(FUTURE)
APPROVED SUBGRADE]
12' —3
DRIVE LANE SHOULDER
2.0!
TYPICAL STREET SECTION A
PAGE AVENUE STATION 9+26 TO 31�+34
NOT TO SCALE
85' R.O.W.
50'
10.5' �E`12'—
t2. 0 SHOULDER DRI LANE
B618 CONCRETE-/
CURB AND GUTTER
(FUTURE) APPROVED SUEMADEJ
AND
L2 1/2- BITUMINOUS RON-WEAR 23W TYPE LVNW350308
6' CLASS 6 GRAVEL
14'— 13.5'
2'
CLEAR
ZONE
2' CLEAR
ZONE
2'
DIRIVE LANE fxIGHI TURN LANE 11KE IRAIL� ZONE
1 2.0%
—9618 CONCRETE
CURB AND CUTTER
2" BITLUINCUS WEAR 2350 TYPE LVW45030C
2 1/2- BITMINOUS NON -WEAR 23SO TYPE LVNW350308
6' CLASS 6 GRAVEL
TYPICAL STREET SECTION B
PAGE AVENUE STATION 40+09 TO 41+59
NOT TO SCALE
96' R.O.W.
2"
2' CLEAR ZONE — [--ZONE
_10.0, —4.5— 135�
I RIGHT TURN LANE DRIVE L
SKE TRAIL 2.0%
3 FT- TRANSITION-__��
DROP CURB
A
3 FT. TRANSI'nON
0618 CONCRETE �
CURB AND GUTTER
(FUTURE)
SLOPE BIKE PATH
TO DROP CURB AT
MAXIMUM 5% SLOPE
-t 10 FT.
0 FT-- A I
APPROMED SUIMADE1
TYPICAL DROP CURB - BIKE TRAIL
1 10 20
"MOFM���
SCALE IN FEET
NOMINAL
10 FT.
5% MAX. SLOPE
SECTION A -A
2 0 2 4
SCALE IN FEEr
TRANSITIONS
STATION 39+34 TO STATION 40+09 TRANSITION
TYPICAL SEC71ON A TO TYPICAL SECTION 8
- 12'— 10.0, 5.0'— 23'
DRIVE LANE SHOULDEMR
2.0%
—9518 CONCRETE 'I
Ct" AND GUTVER
2' BITUMINOUS WEAR 23W TYPE LVW4=$OC
2 1/2- 817UMINOUS NON -WEAR 2350 TYPE LVNW3503OB
6* CLASS 6 GRAVEL
TYPICAL STREET SECTION C
&5TH STREET STATION 1+50 TO 3+50
2 _'O. O'l r2,O'
2 8� CLEAR
.0
CLE.� ZONE
ZONE 2_01 1 1
L2 1/2- BITU S WEAR 2350
PLACE ON APPROVED] L ."""Ou
AVEL
suBGRADE
TYPICAL SECTION - BIKE TRAIL
NOT TO SCALE
ai
6
0�
A-,
F)
NEW CURB
CROSS GUTTER DETAIL
NTS
R.O.W.
C
6 1, 6 X 10/10
WlIM OF aunm AND
D8"H OF CONORM SHALL
BE DET041NOD BY TYPE
OF CUM NO GUTTER
SECTION AA
PLAN
3. 24'
4.5'
EXPANSION JOINT
NEW CURB
ELEVATION
3'
4' CLASS 6 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
6
' Concrete Won
CROSS SECTION
TYPICAL DRIVEWAY APRO
INTS
5, 2DO2 10 2
&Aor 0
K \-d d
i -o' (D ,RIPRAP
SURMOUNTABLE CURB
GRANULAR
MnDOT 2573.503 -
2- 4'
FILTER MAWET (2) SEC, 8-
PREASSEMBLED
Ex. CB/MH 6-1
B
MIN. 2 1/2"
Neenah R-3067-DR/DL
4
872.05 (E), 871.8 (W)
Or CASTING 10 FEET LONG IN LENGTH
GROUND
4020
Neenah R-3D67-DR/DL
875.57
APPROVED BY
Ex. STIMI-I 6-3
48"
4020
THEE CITY ENGINEER.
2'
874.16 (SE), 874.06 (N)
CIBIMH 7-1
48"
A
Neenah R,3067-DR/DL
A
i70.47 (E), 870.37 (W)
CB 7-2
L J-
7x3'*
Neenah R,3067-DR/DL
SX6
870.81 (W)
5!
2'J
48"
EARTH FILL
MATERIAL
L 6' AM"
131
FOR PIPE WN'
(SUE M. R- 311. IWI HXW. D)
r- f_ 1.0, (1)/,RIPRAP
GRANULAR
FILTER BLANKEr (2) SEC A
(1) FOR PIPES GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 48'-. USE ZO-
(2) THE CONTRACTOR MAY SUBSTITUTE A GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC. C. 25601 FOR THE GRANULAR FILTER
BLANIKET UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THE
PLANS- THE FABRIC SHOULD COVOR THE AREA
OF THE RIPRAP AND EXTEND UNDER THE CULVERT
APRON 3 FEET.
(3) mwmnES AS PER MnDOrT STANDARD PLATE
RIP -RAP AT R.C.P. OUTLET
NO SCALE
NEENAH R-3067 DR/DL
CONCRETE ENCASED
INN�mfil.�Mil
M�00001
NEW
"m
SLAB
4020H
STRUCTU
Mn/DO7 PLATE 4024A
OUT IN T STANDARD OPENINGS
AS REQLXRED PIPE DIA. 0I SIZE
(IN) (IN.)
11 �4
i8 26
21 30
SECTION A -A 24 34
48 INCH DIAMETER SHALLOW
DEPTH CATCH BASIN
MAXIMUM 24 INCH DIAMETER PIPE SIZE
NO SCALE
5' POSTS - 8' MAX. ON CENTER
MINIMUM 2' PENETRATION
REF. WDUT 38M
SI�j FENCE
, SCALE
STANDARD PLATE NO- 501
6, EARTH FILL
ffi
6'
P66ianm
MINhIMUM 2 STAKES PER BALE
STRAW/HAY BALE BARRIER PLACEMENT
NO SCALE
STANDARD PLATE NO. 503
NEENAH R-3067 DR/DL
CASTING
4" U
0
WALL TO BE PRECAST
TION OR CONCRETE
/'SEC
24" X 36" SEWER BLOCK
PRECAST OPENINGS
AS REOUIRED
NOTE.
SURMOUNTABLE CURS AND GUTTER
X . 2' TO BE FORMED INTO A 8624 TYPE
< CURB AT CATCH BASIN CASTING.
RECTANGULAR
_6.
X 4,_6.�
NOTE:
1. CONCRETE ADJUSTING RINGS MIN. 2-2" RINGS
MAX 4-2" RINGS
2. CONCRETE BASE SHALL 6" POURED IN
PLACE OR 5" PRECAST SLAB.
2' x 3' CATCH BASIN
NO SCALE
1111 �.IN. TRANSITION
SURMOUNTABLE CURB
10' Mthl- TRANSITION
AN'
2- 4'
Pim Elev.
Invert Elevations
Ex. CB/MH 6-1
48"
EXPANSION JOINT
Neenah R-3067-DR/DL
ROARS ON E.ACH S!
872.05 (E), 871.8 (W)
Or CASTING 10 FEET LONG IN LENGTH
PLATE 704 B624 CURB 0618 CURB
TTER AT GUTTER TO GUTTER
CATCH f-ATCH
CURB
17 I_/2' --Lj---
ICr TAPER TAPER
CURB TRANSITION AT CATCH BASIN
NOT TO SCALE
STANDARD PLATE NO. 703
* See Detail Sheet for 2'x3'Catch Basin Detail
M.r 06. 2002 - 6:16o,
'44 44 L, i
d eng\land proects',ct� 013
STORM SEWER SCHEDULE
Structure
Diameter Design Type Casting
Pim Elev.
Invert Elevations
Ex. CB/MH 6-1
48"
4020
Neenah R-3067-DR/DL
875.57
872.05 (E), 871.8 (W)
Ex. CB/MH 6-2
48"
4020
Neenah R-3D67-DR/DL
875.57
872.62 (S), 872.35 (W)
Ex. STIMI-I 6-3
48"
4020
Neenah R-1733
877.70
874.16 (SE), 874.06 (N)
CIBIMH 7-1
48"
4020
Neenah R,3067-DR/DL
874.56
i70.47 (E), 870.37 (W)
CB 7-2
2'x3'
7x3'*
Neenah R,3067-DR/DL
874.56
870.81 (W)
Ex. CB/MH 7-3
48"
4020
Neenah R-3067-DR/bL
876.52
873.47 (E), 872.48 (N), 872.38 (SW)
Ex. CB 7-4
2'x3'
2'x3'*
Neenah R-3067-DR/DL
876.52
873.60 (W)
Ex. CB/MH 7-5
48"
4020
Neenah R-3067-DR/DL
876.52
872.85 (E), 872.67 (S)
Ex. CB 7-6
48"
4020
Neenah R-3067-DR/DL
876.52
872.94 (W)
CB/MH 8-1
54"
4020
Neenah R-3D67-DR/DL
873.91
869.66 (E), 869.56 (W), 869.68 (N)
CI3 8-2
48" 1
48"
Neenah R,3067-DR/DL
873.91
870.40 (E), 870.21 (W)
CB/MH 8-3
48"
4020
Neenah R-3067-DR/DL
876.90
871.22 (N), 871.12 (S)
CB1MH 8-4
48"
4020
Neenah R-3067-DR/DL
876.41
872.90 (E), 872.70 (S)
CB 8-5
2'x3'
2'x3'*
Neenah R-3067-DR/DL
876.41
872.96 (W)
CB1MH 8-7
48;'
4020
Neenah R-3067-DR/DL
873.88
870.06 (E), 869.91 (NW)
CIB 8-8
2'x3'
2'x 3'
Neenah R-3D67-DRIDL
873.78
870.23 (W)
CB/MH 8A-4
48"
4020
Neenah R-3067-DR/DL
874.27
869.56 (N), 869.66 (SE)
CB1MH 8A-3
4020
Neenah R-3067-DRIDL
874.38
869.36 (S), 867.95 (W), 867.95 (NE)
ST/MH 8A-5
48"
4020
Neenah R-1733
874.00
867.73 (SW), 867.73 (N)
* See Detail Sheet for 2'x3'Catch Basin Detail
M.r 06. 2002 - 6:16o,
'44 44 L, i
d eng\land proects',ct� 013
----- ---------- - - - - - - - - --------------- I ---------------------- --
------------ r ----------
---- - -------- r ------ r ---------------- ----------------
r
2 7 5
1 3 4
EW DRAINAG� & U11LITY EAS�MENT (5')@
v
COUNTRY RIDGE I
NEW 0 W. (5)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
---------------- ------------------------
7
D-gA
E --t
i "I I ' 7 8 4 1 i
------- 1 18 4
---------- 2
7 4 1 ---------- 11
3 -------- 4' 3
T
---------- --------
19
I � I I I PHEASAN
2
3 2
--------- TEMPORARY SLOPE M
2 3 rEASEMINT (10')
PHEA;ANT RID4E 4TH
I I I "1 0,
4 3
20
5 P
PHEASANT 3RD
�-TEMPORAF�k SLOPO 6
7 8 9
EASEMENT (10'
z z Z:
---------------------------- ---------------------------------
2 -- - - - - - - - - -
-.g*
r F -t
2
CRIMSON POND - - - - - - - - - - -- It,
ON 2 1 1 1 "IX -Dminoge 2 4
2 C�MSON PD41DS 47H
I I . : I I OliDS 2.1)
1:1 \) 1 CRIMSON 'ONDS 4TH 4 --------------------- Li iIMSON P 5
4 1 11
LL-------- 4
------------------- ------
5 POd9ett Am
------------ A, P.&. ckl. P.&. C.t --------- 7 ---------------
r----------- I r ----------- 7-
20
5 i
i 1 11 6 2
7 7
100 0 100 2DO
SCALE IN FEEr
PARCEL
-------------
OWNER
;0rNEW R.O.W. (E
Cy ITEMPORA
ENTIRE NEW
TRACT HIGHWAY
ACRES RIGHT
OF WAY
ACRES
CONSTRU
NEW LINAGE &
TEMPORARY
SLOPE/
CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT
ACRES
InuTY EASEMENT (9 EASEMEN
4
---------------
----------------
3
4' 3
1 ------------ - -- 41 - ------ ------
1 PHEASANT RIDGE 2ND 7
3 2 1 1 2 1
I I ' PHEASANT RIDGE
--- 2 ------- ---------
PHE$ANT RIDGE
-----------------
-------- ----- ----------- --------
Li ---------------
-71 ------------------ ------------------------------- -------------
r -------- I - - - - - - 1
1 1
CRIMSON POND
5 11-7 ----------- L.-il --------
OUMOT E
2
----- - -------
---- I
----------
CRIMSON PMDS
118-070-001080 Kurt G. & Kim T. Eich LOT 8, BLOCK 1. PHEASANT RIDGE/7889 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.577, 0 0 1 0 0
118-070-001070 Jason R. Corisch LOT 7, BLOCK 1, PHEASANT RIDGE/7895 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.552 0 0 0 0
118-073-001010 Corry P. & Cheryl A. Gunderson LOT 1. BLOCK 1, PHEASANT RIDGE 2ND/7995 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.853 0 0 0 0
Outiot A
CRIMSON PONDS 4TH
118-075-003010 James D. & Jessica L Stockamp LOT 1. BLOCK 3. PHEASANT RIDGE 3RD/15243 81ST CT NE 0.896 0 0 0 0
118-075-001200 Aaron G. Stritesky LOT 20, BLOCK 1, PHEASANT RIDGE 3RD/15242 81ST CT NE 0.5561 0 0 0.035 0
118-079-003010 Craig S. Mader LOT 1. BLOCK 3, PHESANT RIDGE 4TH/1524-1 81ST ST NE 0.468 0 0 0.032 0
118-079-001090 Swift Construction, Inc- LOT 9, BLOCK 1, PHEASANT RIDGE 4TH/8101 81ST ST NE 0.548 0 0 0 0
118-079-001080 Drake Construction, Inc. LOT 8, BLOCK 1, PHEASANT RIDGE 4TH/8117 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.306 0 0 0.024 0
I
16
7
D-gA
E --t
i "I I ' 7 8 4 1 i
------- 1 18 4
---------- 2
7 4 1 ---------- 11
3 -------- 4' 3
T
---------- --------
19
I � I I I PHEASAN
2
3 2
--------- TEMPORARY SLOPE M
2 3 rEASEMINT (10')
PHEA;ANT RID4E 4TH
I I I "1 0,
4 3
20
5 P
PHEASANT 3RD
�-TEMPORAF�k SLOPO 6
7 8 9
EASEMENT (10'
z z Z:
---------------------------- ---------------------------------
2 -- - - - - - - - - -
-.g*
r F -t
2
CRIMSON POND - - - - - - - - - - -- It,
ON 2 1 1 1 "IX -Dminoge 2 4
2 C�MSON PD41DS 47H
I I . : I I OliDS 2.1)
1:1 \) 1 CRIMSON 'ONDS 4TH 4 --------------------- Li iIMSON P 5
4 1 11
LL-------- 4
------------------- ------
5 POd9ett Am
------------ A, P.&. ckl. P.&. C.t --------- 7 ---------------
r----------- I r ----------- 7-
20
5 i
i 1 11 6 2
7 7
100 0 100 2DO
SCALE IN FEEr
PARCEL
PARCEL I.D. NUMBER (PIN)
OWNER
LOCATION
ENTIRE NEW
TRACT HIGHWAY
ACRES RIGHT
OF WAY
ACRES
NEW
DRAINAGE
& UnUTY
EASEMENT
ACRES
TEMPORARY
SLOPE/
CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT
ACRES
BALANCE OF
TRACT
ACRES
4
---------------
----------------
3
4' 3
1 ------------ - -- 41 - ------ ------
1 PHEASANT RIDGE 2ND 7
3 2 1 1 2 1
I I ' PHEASANT RIDGE
--- 2 ------- ---------
PHE$ANT RIDGE
-----------------
-------- ----- ----------- --------
Li ---------------
-71 ------------------ ------------------------------- -------------
r -------- I - - - - - - 1
1 1
CRIMSON POND
5 11-7 ----------- L.-il --------
OUMOT E
2
----- - -------
---- I
----------
118-070-DO1090 Scott & Heather Kolstad LOT 9, BLOCK 1, PHEASANT RIDGE/7883 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.417 0 0 0 0
118-070-001080 Kurt G. & Kim T. Eich LOT 8, BLOCK 1. PHEASANT RIDGE/7889 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.577, 0 0 1 0 0
118-070-001070 Jason R. Corisch LOT 7, BLOCK 1, PHEASANT RIDGE/7895 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.552 0 0 0 0
118-073-001010 Corry P. & Cheryl A. Gunderson LOT 1. BLOCK 1, PHEASANT RIDGE 2ND/7995 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.853 0 0 0 0
118-073-002010 Note & Ann Hemann LOT 1, BLOCK 2, PHEASANT RIDGE 2ND/7998 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.429 0 0 0 0
118-075-003010 James D. & Jessica L Stockamp LOT 1. BLOCK 3. PHEASANT RIDGE 3RD/15243 81ST CT NE 0.896 0 0 0 0
118-075-001200 Aaron G. Stritesky LOT 20, BLOCK 1, PHEASANT RIDGE 3RD/15242 81ST CT NE 0.5561 0 0 0.035 0
118-079-003010 Craig S. Mader LOT 1. BLOCK 3, PHESANT RIDGE 4TH/1524-1 81ST ST NE 0.468 0 0 0.032 0
118-079-001090 Swift Construction, Inc- LOT 9, BLOCK 1, PHEASANT RIDGE 4TH/8101 81ST ST NE 0.548 0 0 0 0
118-079-001080 Drake Construction, Inc. LOT 8, BLOCK 1, PHEASANT RIDGE 4TH/8117 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.306 0 0 0.024 0
I
118-079-001070 Americken Home Builders, Inc. LOT 7, BLOCK 1. PHEASANT RIDGE 4TH/8135 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.317 0 0 1 0.023 0
118-079-001060 Colberg - Young Const. Inc. LOT 6, BLOCK 1, PHEASANT RIDGE 4TH/8153 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.3261 0 0 0 0
1 18-079-001050 Fenno Construction. Inc, LOT 5, BLOCK 1. PHEASANT RIDGE 4TH/8171 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.367 0 0 0 0
118-079-001040 Troy L & Diana L Harrison LOT 4, BLOCK 1, PHEASANT RIDGE 4TH/8193 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.398 0 0 0 0
@ 118-079-001030 Sharp Holding Companies. Inc. LOT 3, BLOCK 1, PHEASANT RIDGE 4TH/8215 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.382 0 0 0 0
118-079-001020 Northern Home Builders, Inc. LOT 2, BLOCK 1, PHEASANT RIDGE 4TH/8237 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.392 0 0 0 0
@ 118-079-001010 Swift Construction, Inc. LOT 1. BLOCK 1, PHESANT RIDGE 4TH/8249 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.4281 0 0 0.030 0
118-052-007070 Scott & Amy P. Langston LOT 7, BLOCK 7. COUNTRY RIDGE/8333 PALMGREN AVE NE 1.771 0 0 0 0
118-052-007060 Herbert & Kodo Wessel LOT 6, BLOCK 7. COUNTRY RIDGE/8333 PAI-MGREN AVE NE 1.177 0 0 0 0
(D 118-052-007050 Rolland P. Tiernan LOT 5, BLOCK 7, COUNTRY RIDGE/8365 PALMGREN AVE NE 1.196 0 0 0 0
@ I 118-052-DO7040 Gary A. & Lafoncla ovsky LOT 4, BLOCK 7. COUNTRY RIDGE/8399 PALMGREN AVE NE 1.015 0 0 0 0
118-0'52-007030 Gregory M. & Linda Strommen LOT 3, BLOCK 7, COUNTRY RIDGE/8433 PALMGREN AVE NE 1.008 0 0 0 0
118-052-007020 William M. & Luann S. Crawford LOT Z BLOCK 7, COUNTRY RIDGE/8465 PALMGREN AVE NE 1.008 0.014 0.014 1 0 0
118-052-007010 Richard A. & Rebecca S. Emery LOT 1, BLOCK 7, COUNTRY RIDGE/8499 PALMGREN AVE NE 0.9991 0.021 0.020 0 0
118-068-006010 Ronald J. & Tracy J Sadowski LOT 1, BLOCK 6, CRIMSON PONDS 1ST/15237 85TH ST NE 1.649 0.025 0.0.25 0.024 0
118-088-000010 Backes Componie -=�OUTLOT A, CRIMSON PONDS 4TH 0.003 0.004 0 0
s Inc. 0.4861
Mot 06 . 2002 - 6. 1 Sorn
K:',c o d_enQ\Iond projects
PHEASANT RIDGE 2NP 8
------------------- ------ j
9
Drainage 50 0 50 100
R 30' (TYPICAL) NX -874.5 I
CONSTRUCT CROSS 100 YR-87E.I5 PHE4tANT RIDGE SCALE IN FEET
W -TTM (SEE -DETAIL) Easement�-/�-, REMOVE 25 �y
EX CB/MH 6-2 E� OUTLET STUCTJRE BITUMINOUa-�
Z S -3
EX ST/MH 16
7 STA 13+9�3_a - S SAWCUT
STA 112+16�r,4
42
(RT -:2n
RIM=875.57
�XRIM=845.12
BEGIN MSAP 217-103-02
�4_001 10+001 1* 9+
15+00 + 112�00 1 1+00 STA 9+25
:7 7
T6 -
A -V QE
J�Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
X F�S
*ATE15 , EX CB/MH 6-1 SILT FENCE I
EDOE - STA 1.3+93.21
NURP "'T' (LT -23')
IR -873 6 RIM=875.57
..871 50 EX.-RIM=874,83
WOOD FIBER CRIMSON POND
BLANKET
It --F - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OUTLOT E
P,
2
NOTE: CB OFFSETS ARE TO BACK OF CURB PAGE AVEN-UE N.E.
895 :
............... ---
890
...............
885 :
......... : .. ........
880
v
PROPOSED PROFILE
5 .............. ....... ......
875 : =2-!!�!.
............
RT_
870
................... .
.......
........ q
c
865 +
q
q z
X, ........
U)
co
w
n a:
c
L
860
>
Ld
......
ol
:+
. .... .........
+
.........
c
L
.... .. .......... .........
W,4b 1.4
.01,
855 :
......... : ......... : .........................
OD
r., D,,d �0.115
40 �o 10:6 0:6
........... ........... : ............ ................
t.� "o c
ci
w,w W-0 a
: ..............
N
BENCHMARKS:
NORTHWEST PROPERTY CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 1
COUNTRY RIDGE -ELEVATION = 873.95
DOUBLE SPIKE IN POWER POLE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
85TH STREET N.E. AND 150 FEET WEST OF PAGE AVENUE N.E.
ELEVATION = 875-27
................................................................................................................................................................................................ -1
w
w 895
........................................................... ........ ......................................
890
.............. ......... r ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..........
............................. ......... ............................. ......... .......
w 885
.............. ......... ......... ........ ........ ......... ......... ....... ... ..... ......... ...................
F EXISTING PROFILE a
880
................... ........ ................. . : .. _ I
: .... * * ... : ......... :'' ''*,*,: . .............. ..... ***''* ---- - ...... ..
875
w..... ....... ......... ......... ........ ......... ....... ........ ......... ...... . ....... I
870
............................................................................. ........................................................................................................... .......
m w 865
........................ ... ... ................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..........
.................................................. .....
860
.............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ---------
tl� 'o q: co
.0. co .0: so
...... . ...................................
...................... I ..................... ... ........................................... ...................................... ............................
14+00 13+00 12+00 11+00 10+00 9+00 8+00
E
2,
EX NURF PC"O
100 YR-8?2 80
SILT ��N-E
CRIN�SON PONJD
Easement -
22+DO
X- CB/MFF 7--5-
-ST-A� 21 +&4-.6&=l --- - - - -
PTK 87
TEM-OVE-CONCI --CU
BLANKE-T-----i TO�NEAREST-JbINT -1
"PAST -END IRADOS (10.IZ�- 1 11
D
2
SAWC UT & MILL ANY
UNEV�N EDGES
REMOVE CONC. CURB
T-&-NE-mmST-jOrNr- -
PAST END OF RADIUS (1 OLF)
-4
-.74 772%7
-[�F a i n,- 7gle- El'
�2— CB/MH 7-1
STA 15+90 (23'LT)
EX. SANITARY NHOLE-- RIM=874.56
RIM=877.45 (E)INV=870.47
---X CB/MH 7-3 1
EX—RIM=876.8� 4 1 (W)INV=870.37
StA 20+70 1 �W)INV=860.361 I
'�T-23') E)INV=860.381 I
RIM=876.52
I �—RIM=876.53 I CkIMSON PO�DS 2ND
L---- I I 1 1 5
PACE AVENUE N.E.
P1
------ rl
CB 7-2
STA 15+90,to,
RIM=874. (I
-tW�INV=87 .
ISTING
G.
.................
...............
......
INV=87 1 3 1
�FES
A
61-F 21" RCP 0 0.47%
STA 15+65 (LT 49')
150 SY SOD
INV=870.15
.......
8.0 CY RANDOM RIPRAP
EX N,,RP PCNE,
100 �11-8736
CLASS 3 WOOD FIBE
NWL-07150
BLANKET
LT FENCE
2
PHE,�SANT
RID6E 4TH
890
- - - -
- - - - - - - - L - - - - - - -- f
BALE DITCH
VELOCITY CHECK
w.......
lmw vc
\�
15CLccr
4
I
.......
POWER POLE
REMOVED BY
a
HIGH POINT D" - 87EL02
I
1
REMOVE 350 SY
HIGH POINT ELEV - 577.139
0
20
OTHERS PRIOR
I 1 5
6
BITUMINOUS
SAWCUT & MILL ANY
PHEASANT �IDG(�
TO CONSTRUCTION
3RD
HIGH
POINT ST A - 23+44.32
11
I I
EX CB 7-6
LOW PUNT E
EV - 877.05
UNEVEN EDGES
BlTumfj�ws
'7
7
1
STA 21+64.66
R=30' (TYPICAL)
SAWCUT ANY EDGE
rEXfSnN'G
W-iEPZiN
7REMOVE 10 SY,
1 ,-TREES TO
....... ...........
1 8
9 (RT -23')
8-
PM STA a- 23+50
-PM-
EX C81 7�4
UNEVEN EDGES-\
.1 0
B MIN US
BITUMINO US I
REMAIN
�7-
RIM=876.5
-2
STA 20+ 76' -78-
'
E 40' OF
R MOV 0
REMOVE
8 !2
885
-4 .
-EX -EUM�876 -1
--CRT
8 PV,
-4: PVC
14
IEUEV:-
-.fz ......
t,
a s7k-
21+17- - -
14
PM ELEV:-87&13-:2
LOW POINT WA - 15+8Z68
-B77-
.
'd .......
-
777
22
EX NURF PC"O
100 YR-8?2 80
SILT ��N-E
CRIN�SON PONJD
Easement -
22+DO
X- CB/MFF 7--5-
-ST-A� 21 +&4-.6&=l --- - - - -
PTK 87
TEM-OVE-CONCI --CU
BLANKE-T-----i TO�NEAREST-JbINT -1
"PAST -END IRADOS (10.IZ�- 1 11
D
2
SAWC UT & MILL ANY
UNEV�N EDGES
REMOVE CONC. CURB
T-&-NE-mmST-jOrNr- -
PAST END OF RADIUS (1 OLF)
-4
-.74 772%7
-[�F a i n,- 7gle- El'
�2— CB/MH 7-1
STA 15+90 (23'LT)
EX. SANITARY NHOLE-- RIM=874.56
RIM=877.45 (E)INV=870.47
---X CB/MH 7-3 1
EX—RIM=876.8� 4 1 (W)INV=870.37
StA 20+70 1 �W)INV=860.361 I
'�T-23') E)INV=860.381 I
RIM=876.52
I �—RIM=876.53 I CkIMSON PO�DS 2ND
L---- I I 1 1 5
PACE AVENUE N.E.
P1
------ rl
CB 7-2
STA 15+90,to,
RIM=874. (I
-tW�INV=87 .
ISTING
G.
.................
...............
......
INV=87 1 3 1
�FES
A
61-F 21" RCP 0 0.47%
STA 15+65 (LT 49')
INV=870.15
.......
8.0 CY RANDOM RIPRAP
EX N,,RP PCNE,
100 �11-8736
CLASS 3 WOOD FIBE
NWL-07150
BLANKET
LT FENCE
n I I T-1 ("I T c-
50 0 so 100
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE: CB OFFSETS ARE TO BACK OF CURB
.......... ................................................. ................ ......................................................................................... .................................................................. ....................................................... ....... ...............
895
..................... ....... ........ .......... ........ ................................................... ............ ............... I .............................................. ...................
890
.......
..........
.........
......... w— ...... .......
...........
—
......... ......... ......... ....... .........
...........
890
w.......
lmw vc
15CLccr
Vc
125.W VC
.......
...... ............
a
HIGH POINT D" - 87EL02
HIGH POINT ELEV - 577.139
a
HIGH
POINT ST A - 23+44.32
LOW PUNT E
EV - 877.05
HIGH POINT SiA - 19+17.32
125.0(r VC
885
-------
....... ...........
..............
8-
PM STA a- 23+50
-PM-
-:2
c4 -�D
cb
LOW: POINT STA
.
- 21+17 10
14
PM STA - 194-00
I;DW POINT BEV - 87&19
8 !2
885
14
IEUEV:-
-.fz ......
t,
a s7k-
21+17- - -
14
PM ELEV:-87&13-:2
LOW POINT WA - 15+8Z68
.....
.
'd .......
22
7;
+
D
PVI ELEV
876.83
r,:
PM STA 16+00
40
A
:+
10
PIA ELEV:- 87445
. W.
-
........
a
. .. ....
w
D. W :j+
880
+
.
.........
.... ..........
.........
.........
.........
......... . .......
........
..... .........
....... ...... . .................... so
.........
. .......
.........
EXISTING PROFILE
M80X
—0.60%
9L a.
Va
875
........
. ..
........
...... ......... .........
....................
..................
.........
...
...
....................
.......
a
a ..............
......
87
w
EX. 21
RCR 24-
w
P RIOPOSED r PROFILE
870
870
a
...................
.........
a
.........
........ ......... ........ .........
...........
.......
.......
.. . ....
w
w
p
vv TERMAINI
to
X -
_-f'M
�-j
w
qll�
w
CNI
0
x
865
a
r
+
o
co
a +
OD
+
865
.............
....... ........
.........
...................
...........
R.: ......
...................
......
....... ...........
p
a
w
<
I.-
rl
N �1, :
co
co
. L6
co
ml
w
w
V)
11
>
Lu
ff)
U
0i >
860
........
.... ......
w
.....
+ +
-j 0
Li ....
L>L,
-j
LW
Lu
_j
LLJ
+
860
w
204�00
18-1-00
... .. -17-�,00 16+00
15+00
...... .
14+00
......
.D
W.m
"A
W?:;z (,!t -:12
-n�p
pl:
-q Z R.2
.19
0.0
a
R:p
.2
N R:2
IRAD
nt
q-9
cq-0
-:6 7. cb 1q, RA
"!Z
'R.2
q:!2
14, It
6 rz
4
�10 10D
.0 le
It,
0
WD OD Wt
It,
Ot
D
40 u
-0
oot
wt
Got
ID u
:2 so
.0: 6
co
cc OD 40 -0
QD t
855
.........................
.......... ............. ........................
......... .......
....................................................
w
:0
............................ ............................. I ............................................................................. -..
28+00 27+00 26+00 25+00 24+00 23+00 22+00 21+00
Li
—7
4
I I 1),I) �i, i-- – _;__ 2
NOTE: PROVI I I --, '// 'i
La
END MSAP J R
FIB
x POSIDW- OUTLET
217-05-02 1 FES C R' rB L AMN K E T I
STA 41+90 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL SIG
I CLEAR & GRVB
I POWER POLE TO BE 1 11 ELF 15" RCP
E To BE LUMP SUM I
Pow !L OTHERS 05.35% j
mov
MOVED BY OTHERS (20± TREESI&
RIDG�/ INV�.875. 80 15 RCP I
=50 MOVE 0 5',35%
COUNTRY -STA P+00
I Drai
BUSHES) BUILDINGS TO BE �aq 50
-8 P
1 40 (RT -28') EA THEIRS
+ CON
6 8
�3 6
0
7 .23 .7
REM t
CB 8-8 PROPOSED D Ely (RT 83.4!)- -
0 PRIOR CS 8-5 320*-18",4cp
TR�EES TO REMAIN 2
ST, 8&)
M
STA 41+40 (RT -28 SEMENT CB� 29+ (Rlir-23')
REMOVE 120' STA 35+50 (RT -23') I E- Cj s mla-r*t
Tn STRUCTION 00.45%
23 1 330'-18" RCP -s7 Rl' =873.9�
(W)INV=872.96
,'Olslj�ETE CURB 4;tIM=873.68 l PROPOSE RIM=876.41
(W)WV=870.23 ---877
0 0.45%
-v MINV=87b.-Z1f'
4L pnep —876- -x
48LF 15- �Cr :t_
00.35%
42
8,T1.1i,Q.j5 , : o \w -1 -- , "35+00 34+00 33+ 32+00 31+00 --00- 28+00
A-:7 30+
CID
< R '42
WOOD HBE
47+13.41 00.35%
BLANKET
0,
FIX WASH OUT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -- --- - - - - - - - - - -
A I DG T 1� -
A, -,- -- - ��2:! . -
-jE ........
B,
-87ZM8
4H 7K-- t
-RTMA41t� STA NTABLE
0�.
E RB TO NEAREST
�H
L
CURB CUT 8F FES 6 - - - - - - -
4W�NV=86<,91 LN�L=872.80 IOINT (15LF)-
DROEWAY APON I OUN4:\ABLE-I
191NV=-872.,60 - S 4 �ST ELF 24"�,RCP E. NIJFIP F
(SEE DETAIL: 6AI loo m-a�
70LF 15" RCP 'I iH 8
E.�- — , I , OURB--r" CB/m 0 0.83% NWL-871 9
0 0.35%
I I -t SAYCUT & MILL I �l STA 32+201 (LT -23') I STA 29+00,
CONTRACTOR TO & MILL
CEI H 8A 4 .2. 1 1 ANY UIEVE I RIM=876.90 (LT 53.7')'-
1 SEE SHEET 8) CONSTRUCT 3 1 EDGES R 1 (N)INV=871112
G
1 7 RAVEL DRIVEW�Y EMOVE CB/MH 8-1
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL SIGN TEMPORARY 2 us (S)INV=871�12 STA 29+0a'(LT'2,3'
I I I BITUMINO
I EASEMENT (35 SY) RIM=87�.'§l INV=869.2-f
EMOVE EXISTING 2 14.0 CY RANDOM
27" 0 CB CRlIMSON PO�DS 4TH (E)INY,-6:8159.66
60 RIPRAP CLASS 3
l o I CRIMSON PONDS 4 CRIMSON �ONDS 4TH �W)lINV=869.56 Ea s �,n r- T
kN)INV=869.68 SILT FENCE
-- - -- - - - - - - - I - - - - - -- - - -
----------------------------------------- -------- ----------- X 4
Ou NO t A
CRIMSON PONDS 4TH ----P — — — — — — — — — — — - Podre Circle Padre Court
50 0
50 100
PACE AVENUE -1-4,E. --------- -------------- SCAM I fN FEEY
NOTE: CE3 OFFSETS ARE TO BACK OF CURB
.... ........ : --------- ........................... .......... .................... ............................ .... .................................................. _6 ......................................... ........................... ................................... . ............
895
................... -- ---- ............... ......... ...................................... .... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
......... ......... ......... ......... .................... 895.
a
q a
w .. ..... .. . .... .. ...... . .. ...... q ......... 870
870: =-4t-7t
...................
Lo
+ m a
865 w
.......... It,.. ......... ..........
......... ................... ....................................... ....... 865
. ................................................. .. ................
860
w w
........ .....
.........................
................... w ......... ......... ...................
w ........
.......
...................
.. ......... .........
......
........
�0 :w �p 10 35+00
-m 40
34+00
-0
33+00
32+00
31+00 30+00
29+00
.0
00
v in
855
............................. ........ ......... ......... .........
I" co" 11, cow It .0 1 I'd .0,0 .0.0
....... ................................ : ......... .... .................................
Colo
go W -W Got
P,
so M:,
w..0 W.0
............. — ............. .............................................. . — ..... ................ .......... — ...........
42+00 41+00 40+00 39+00 38+00 37+00 36+00
8b -1H STREET N.E. I - -�L, .
-117
1901-r 2-1 REr-
CLEAR & GRUB 0
8' EE -- --- 42+13 41-
49+00 48+00 _A7+00 46+00 45+00 44+00 x
S.=43+
Im W T
2
PqC-VIb7E7POSJTl$::--
OUTLET
FES D -Pt
6LF 21- �CP 0 0.3 ci
STA 444�'3.49 (23*7L9T,;
INV=867110 I
8.0 C.Y' CL3 RIPRAP 3*,.
I
SAWCUT 25�y
REMOVE 75 BITUMINPLIS ST/MH 8A-5
STA 42+83.49 (23'
RIM=874.00 I
(SW)IN 67 1
V=86.5373 I
(N)INVV;:7
=867.73
V"
S.A.00fAa-&-l3t A�L CB/MH BA -3
DWIVEWAY/7�61-VERT SEE LEFT
I IF
Al Co.
X
0 50 100
N
ISME IN FUT/ I,
I L
PAGE AVEN-UE N.E.
.................................. ..................... ..................................... ......................................... - A ................................................. ... ........................................ .............. . . ......................... ....... . ... .............. I
890
.................................................... ........... ......................... .............. ......... .................... ........ ..... ................................. ............. .......... .............. ........ ...... ......................
.... I .... : ................. ...... .
885
..................................................................................................................................... ....................................................... ....................... q ......... r .. ................ ............. .................... ...... . .....
.......... I .... : ...... ..
a
890
........................................... — ................ -- ... .................... .............. ............. ........ ......... ......... ........ ............ . ......... ......... ......... ....... ......... ......... ...... ...... ......... 880
........... ..... ................. ... --- I
885
...........
..
.....
..... .
p
.......................................................
fl
u')
C,
OD
+
ID
880
to
:+
OD
'o rl co rl m : r
co :co co 00: to:
: w
...................................
7+00
>
PROPOSED: Ct PROFILE
.........
.........
: ... *:",*,**-
... im]
..... ........ .... .... .. ....
w ...
Ll
EXIS-nNG PROFILE
—0.70%
875
!-77-.7 ................
_A132
zz 0 w
.......... ......... ...........
HId-H POINT E�EV 876.09
HIGH POINT STA 3+7t'.88
0
PO T .�LEV 873:36
- - - - -
PM STA:= 4+00
.87 .
T.
P0 -STA. �..6+73 i�A-
.............. ......
A76 4 ... ......... ...
P
:,VlELEV:= 873-10:
w
865
............................
.........
.........
w .........
......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...... ......... w .............
860
......... ........
......... .........
......... .........
w
......... .........
.0
fl
:c� 14
1P :0) Q
0"o
......... ......... ...
:0 :0 0
C4 m, cl!:
An .-a!
in
855 :10
so:r,
.00
-�r� Colo,
.00 co
rlo
AD w co
W': V woo
'o rl co rl m : r
co :co co 00: to:
: w
...................................
7+00
6+00
5+00
.....................
4+00
.........
3+00
....... ... . . ......... ......... ...
2+00 1+00
......... .860.1
.................... ............... ......... ......... a ......... ........... I ....... ......... ....................... .................. ........ .....
855
a 48+00 47+00 46+00 45+00 44+00 43+00 42+00 41+00
c� 0!: ci: -q: IR: R: R: 0!: cq: Q: 0!: R: q:
w CO. m 0. n n. V. V. n. .0
w w -��c 53— c,o:
w 00 .0. .0. Co. co: Co. 10. w .0� MJC'0'�X, 1 2 Co.
..............
49+00
- - - - - - - - - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — - —
k M0138 111 S 3NIII HDIVIVII k
C-4 1 1
-- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — i — — — — — — —
It
T-- It
It
- - - - - - - - - - - - It
- - - - - - - - - It
a 10,uno
'n
T - -----
C4
TT
L---- ------------
---------- ------
7.-
A-----------
--------------
4 - - - - - - - - - - -
4' - - - - - - - - - -
I z
T
04
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
II - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Him
3DOW lNVSV3Hd
----------
4
V
40
C4
- - - - - - ------------ (D
3WIS WO
I nP
C(D
00
'YOO
Q
OD
:c
C,4 —
00,�
_j C,
0 LLJ tf) C4 'Q
�C-f 5 0 C) 3:
E� 2
zz— 52
0 LAJ I �--
(.) > rC) 0
,4 t 12 — LLJ 0
N '3 LLJ
LLJ 6 V,
LL ry- 0
LL < Q- a- L�
< CL 08
ry- 0
X
0 T
A
------------ -- -------- --------- --------
�E
T
--------------
---------------
------------ r ------
-------------- I I I , , , ,
1 L — — —
----------- L ---------- il --------
L
-jw is qla
U-)
-------------- T ---------------
Ln Lr)
a
z
0
D
z
z
Z
rE
0,4
----------- --------------------
w C4
CL
L
s5
0.
- ----- -------
r ---- &A ------ 1,
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
r
Li
L
D
z
rE
0,4
----------- --------------------
w C4
CL
P
3AO8V 33S NI -1 HOIVY4
- - - - - - - - - - - - -/T -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
D
z
z
P
Li
Li
Ln
0 < N
LO n
ui z
Z<W
0
z m <
Z
<
CD V)
0
K �-
f�
z
Mon
af
U- 0 <
V)
zz-
0 — U,
a
0 V) z
m<
I L , 0 .
0
� W 0
� C) N
<
I
Ln
0
0
O�z
Ln
<
0
Cf
V)
Li
Li 0 0
w
<
w
<
ir
L)
0'
<
z
F�
0
z
0
0
F-
U
af
<
w<
<
C)
D
R,:
0
z
-
1:
<
Z<
Ou
0'
0
cc
w
0
f�
<
.
<
z
z
0
z
V)
LL W
L,
0
Q
L, 0 CL
L�
C)
0
0
V)
y
U
z
L)
0
< L, M
f� H w
<
fl-�
<0
0
z
0
<
0
D
:1 z C)
Of
Li
w
w
< 0 LL
<
G)
(D
@
V
9
-------------
C4
------------------ 4 ,
r, 0 ---------- 14
-------------- w
d4
---------------- -------------
Y / ------------
C.4
C4
------------------ --------------------------
MOW AV 3H
--------------- ------ ---- -
9
-------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - I -----------------
ol
------------------------------
--------------------------- A 1
1 It
It
11
11
-------------------------------
It
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------------------- 31 ------
88f
311H)
311HM
aino
Ydn
z
0
UOIgffwsuoj.L
----------- -
— — — — - — — -- — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
--------
0 U) V)
Val 7----
MOTUA
<
------------
C4
e 1.01ino
-------- -------
------------- w ---- TT
-.1
< <
---------- — I ----
z
0
------ ------
Z, TT
-----------
LLJ
F_
<
z
4
3,
8 0
ly -----
6 C4
6 'd
6
<
V
9
-------------
C4
------------------ 4 ,
r, 0 ---------- 14
-------------- w
d4
---------------- -------------
Y / ------------
C.4
C4
------------------ --------------------------
MOW AV 3H
--------------- ------ ---- -
9
-------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - I -----------------
ol
------------------------------
--------------------------- A 1
1 It
It
11
11
-------------------------------
It
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------------------- 31 ------
88f
311H)
311HM
aino
1 '0
.10 0
01
N
0
to
U)
:�,_; -- ----------- ---------
<
ir
It
t
on to) I Lv,1
-----------
14
---- IL 0
<
-----------
z 0
6
to Z t-
Lj <
------------------ L ---------- L -------- I ---- -------------
3N P.)s Pro
------------------ I r ------------- --------- ---------
F - – – – – – – – ` i i
8 C4,
0 0
_,S
-------------- ------------ n C4
8
---------------- / ------------ IMP
1 10
\x A
C.4 ---------
L- - - - - - - ------------
Z-4 --- ---- ----
V)
z
0
I
311M
--------
0 U) V)
Val 7----
MOTUA
<
31anoo
C4
RIKM
1 '0
.10 0
01
N
0
to
U)
:�,_; -- ----------- ---------
<
ir
It
t
on to) I Lv,1
-----------
14
---- IL 0
<
-----------
z 0
6
to Z t-
Lj <
------------------ L ---------- L -------- I ---- -------------
3N P.)s Pro
------------------ I r ------------- --------- ---------
F - – – – – – – – ` i i
8 C4,
0 0
_,S
-------------- ------------ n C4
8
---------------- / ------------ IMP
1 10
\x A
C.4 ---------
L- - - - - - - ------------
Z-4 --- ---- ----
V)
z
0
H-- ------------
z C)
Fn Li
--------
0 U) V)
Val 7----
Li
f�
<
V)
C4
z
C�
U')
00
-.1
< <
---------- — I ----
z
0
0
m
00
V)
I Z C14
o
E Ll
MDOOZ
Z
c�i
Jd �j
U)
07, Z 04 o
U.J
of 0
C,
Vim ?--
LL_ M Fj
LL -
22
00-
04310
a c ca 5R
3
I rmfm
RIHM
D113,k
isno(I
AIHM
z
0
H-- ------------
z C)
Fn Li
W
0 U) V)
104
W 0 Of
<
Z af Ljj
:3 C)
CM
z
C�
_J Z
-.1
< <
0 0
L
LLJ
F_
<
TAP JS YIU
4
4 s
8 0
V)
6 C4
6 'd
6
<
�
� �
� �
tD b
b b
Uj�
U)
x x
RIHM
D113,k
isno(I
AIHM
----------------- F. -------------- 1.1
m
0
V) W uj
z z
LLJ
LL)
< <
0 uj w
z (D 0
mino Lq <w <
uj CL Z EL
�2 z z
LLJ :5 1 �! I
JIIHM M z<
0 z Z z
LJj =1 �e Ll oz ow
M0113A < y 2 X = Lj m z
Llf < < _W �_I
311enoo— 0 o Lu)
m wm Lj
o
z 2 (L
0 U) 0 v) (n z v) w v) a- noo
3-LIHM_ 836,'41� *'0' z <
9�ino
z
0
:3
0
z C)
Fn Li
W
0 U) V)
104
W 0 Of
<
Z af Ljj
:3 C)
CM
z
C�
_J Z
-.1
< <
0 0
LLJ
F_
<
4
4 s
8 0
V)
6 C4
6 'd
----------------- F. -------------- 1.1
m
0
V) W uj
z z
LLJ
LL)
< <
0 uj w
z (D 0
mino Lq <w <
uj CL Z EL
�2 z z
LLJ :5 1 �! I
JIIHM M z<
0 z Z z
LJj =1 �e Ll oz ow
M0113A < y 2 X = Lj m z
Llf < < _W �_I
311enoo— 0 o Lu)
m wm Lj
o
z 2 (L
0 U) 0 v) (n z v) w v) a- noo
3-LIHM_ 836,'41� *'0' z <
9�ino
<
n P
8 8
4 0
8 8
8 8
<
CM
C�
C�
-.1
4
4 s
8 0
C4,6
6 C4
6 'd
6
<
�
� �
� �
tD b
b b
Uj�
U)
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
z
0
z
0
z z
z
z z
z z
z z
00
<
<0000
0
a.
U)
w
ui
z
0
a. a.
w
cu,
L 0
<
a.
W (9
0
< <
U)
_j
cn (n
Cl) Z
ix CO
CL CLIcol
z
HER
�2
9
mm
12fOO
M
'20
60
Sao
`
m*
mo
we
aw
-m -m o 20 40 *v
om 14+O0
EX
w w &,
mm
vm
,72
mm
so
mm
mm
mm
876
mm
m2
-40 -20
v
2D
40 60
�
13+50
EX
ow ww
mm -� .0
mm
^'---40---'----20_---' ,^----^--'--��--------- ---^-----~ om mm
40 60
11f00 mm EX
um
880 �m �� -+'----+--- -f--�--+----�- ---+---'--!mm
-~ -40 -2D v 20 40 60 so
876� mw
1Jf00
EX
om�-- --^- �-----yu�' Om 890__Q -20v ou 40 so
10f50 um u76
8w --- �m um on
876'-- ' mw mmF-----f �------�---�� ----f ---F-----f--- ----1W8
| �� -40 +m v eu 40 wn 80
872 ~^1872
-40 +m v 40 80
12f5O
�
10+00 wm v am
EX
mw �
vrn
mm----
--�-_
an -t '---' 872
um
^'o � � | ' � -_
� �-- ---�-' mm �
--r---�-- �: - - mm
872 ��_
NOTE:
D a u Denotes Existing Drainage & Utility Easement
T5�E. Denotes Temporary Slope Easement
M0, G�,sm-9:50.�.
co co
ol LLI
US
C; Cl (If (A
r), LLJ
4-j
m
00
....... ...
0
0
I e
13
C)
o
N .0
co co
-7
Lr)
IN 9 U9 Owe;
L() Ln
N rl
COD "00
70
i
LO
+
a
E
D (v
.d C)
C
C)
c 0
1p a-
.cn E
Tc
U) U)
(D 0
0 0
c c
4) 0)
to in
.00
E0 '20
co m
L_ J
4
4- 4-1
Ic
.0 10
010
E
D (v
.d C)
C
C)
c 0
1p a-
.cn E
Tc
U) U)
(D 0
0 0
c c
4) 0)
to in
E
0
co m
L_ J
4
4- 4-1
Ic
E
D (v
.d C)
C
C)
c 0
1p a-
.cn E
Tc
U) U)
(D 0
0 0
c c
4) 0)
to in
E
L_ J
4- 4-1
E
D (v
.d C)
C
C)
c 0
1p a-
.cn E
Tc
U) U)
(D 0
0 0
c c
4) 0)
to in
L_ J
.0 10
E
D (v
.d C)
C
C)
c 0
1p a-
.cn E
Tc
U) U)
(D 0
0 0
c c
4) 0)
to in
8w
876
872
868
20+00
EX
850
676
872
RRR
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 2110
19+50
EX
& u
V
B80 . .. ... aaO
4- an
— — — — — — — — — —
-I-
872 4_--.-.- A— IM
wa L,
0 20 40 60 11110
19+00
I
wo':
876 ------ -
872
WO
-40 -20 0 2D 40 w
18+50
876
T
572
am -
-40 0 20 40 60
18+00
----------
880
876 --------- IL -4_
7- ------
872 ------
4
868 - - ----- L
-40 -20 0 20 40 60
NOTE:
D & U Denotes Existing Drainage & Utility Easement
T. S. E. Denotes Temporary Slope Easement
876
972
J am
so
-_--i aw
876
572
am
80
876
$72
ON
so
Cei
81s
-40
-20
22+00
20
40 so
21+00
EX
RIM
880
81st Street R.O.W.
am
gn
872
876
872
-20
.0 .0
0
20 40
60
Fn
21+50
-40
-20
0
880
40 60
80
20+50
Ex. Drainage & Utility
Easement
EX
wo
876
RM D h. U, T.S..F-
880
4- -
876
876
r
-40
-20
0
20 40
60
21+17.66
872
.........
Cei
81s
Mor 2002 - 9:51orn
-40
-20
0
20
40 so
21+00
RIM
81st Street R.O.W.
am
gn
876
an
Fn
-40
-20
0
20
40 60
80
20+50
EX
wo
RM D h. U, T.S..F-
880
4- -
876
876
872
.........
872
-40
-20
0
20
40 60
80
Mor 2002 - 9:51orn
24+50
876!
872
-40 -20
NO
EX
D & U T.S.F-
0 20 40 80
24+00
am
am
876
876
972
872
EX
D : !j
-"-'#F
i -S -4-
T'
0
aeo
EX
23+50
W4
--A ---------
40 60
-40
-20
0
20
EX
23+50
W4
D&U ..........
854
<4 —
9176' - ---
ODD
N
aso
$72
872
------
872
r...........
40
-2D
0
2D
23+00
a84 ...... .
-40 -20 0 20
22+50
884
EX
40 w
EX
D & u
-T-
40 w
Ex
880
876
872
-40
876
872
W4
876
ffn
W
aw
11 an
-20 0 2D 40 80
NOTE:
D & U Denotes Existing Drainage & Utility Easement
T. S. E. Denotes Temporary Slope Easement
un
27+00
-40
-20
0
20 40 so
EX
26+50
W4
D&U ..........
854
ODD
N
aso
872
------
872
r...........
an
872
16 16
-40
-20
0
20 40 so
-2D
0
26+00
w
Sao
875
an
M
-40 -20 0 20 40 so
25+50
NO
876
872
an
aw
FYA
872
am
so
EX
W4
D&U ..........
854
ODD
N
aso
on
872
872
-Q
-2D
0
40
w
25+00
EX
T
_F
WO
------- ----
---- --
876
ffn
872
L
-40
-20
0
20 40
60
aw
FYA
872
am
so
29+00
�M ML D & U T.S.E
"-F
880
SKI
876
876
872
872
868 J a68
—20 0 20 40 60 so
28+50
Sao
876
872
868
880
876
$72
we
—40 —20 0 20 40
27+50
-------------
-------------
lB76
868
—40 0 20 40
-40 —20 0 20 40 60
28+00
EX
SKI
878
$72
am
so
NOTE:
D & U Denotes Existing Drainage & Utility Easement
T. S. E. Denotes Temporary Slope Easement
880
876
872
we
so
am
876
872
31+50
-40 —20 0 2D
31+00
.. . ..... . ....
876
an r—
-40 —20 0 20
30+50
sw
876
872
we
8w
876
872
am
ow
876
872
wa
40
40
-40 —20 0 20 40
30+00
60
am
876
on
so
Sao
Exisitng
Dralina" & U01ity Easement
876
872
80 80
ExislIng am
U I y IE t
---876
872
868
w so
--T SKI
n
Dr Utlitgy kamement
--------- 72
16 16
—40 —21D 0 20 40 60 so
29+50
ExIsitng
...... & Utility Easement
880
—20 0
20 40
876
872
60 80
8 28-
$72
00
so
am
876
872
31+50
-40 —20 0 2D
31+00
.. . ..... . ....
876
an r—
-40 —20 0 20
30+50
sw
876
872
we
8w
876
872
am
ow
876
872
wa
40
40
-40 —20 0 20 40
30+00
60
am
876
on
so
Sao
Exisitng
Dralina" & U01ity Easement
876
872
80 80
ExislIng am
U I y IE t
---876
872
868
w so
--T SKI
n
Dr Utlitgy kamement
--------- 72
16 16
—40 —21D 0 20 40 60 so
29+50
ExIsitng
...... & Utility Easement
880
—20 0
20 40
876
872
60 80
8 28-
aw
876
872
34+00
FX
am
876
872
-40
-2D 0
20
20
40 w
ExIsItng
33+50
880
T --U 884
__T
------
& UTILY.
ent
Bw
EX
RM
c
ROW D u
FM 0 & u
876
_____77
a76
------
aw
876
aw
87V
-40
OD M
-20 0 20
40 60
876
un
ffn
872
872
872
40
-20 0
2D
40 w
0 20
33+19.75
40 60 so
32+00
EX
aeo
tnq
RON D & U
Centerline
Dralnog� & UtItty Edownent
880,
—4, L -i 3 t N
. .....
NO
076
876
A
876
872
46 ir-Z 4-
------- ---
876
r,
1171,
1172
0 20
40 60
672
-40
-20 0
20
40 w
Denotes Existing Drainage Utility Easement
33+00
872
T.S.E.
880
876
872
32+50
am
876
,,a72
a54
aw
876
872
am
876
V2
36+00
EX
RCVW D & U
au
ZZ. ow
— — — — — - — — — — —
------ a76
if
2D 40 so
-40 -20 0
35+50
LO
Sao
VG
872
36+50
0
20
40 60
ExIsItng
8M I-
880
T --U 884
__T
------
& UTILY.
ent
Bw
EX
-T -------T
c
ROW D u
876
_____77
a76
------
—876
876
87V
-40
OD M
-20 0 20
40 60
872
un
ffn
872
GD 0
-40 -20
0 20
20
40 60 so
32+00
880
aeo
tnq
LOW . ...... .. .. .
Dralnog� & UtItty Edownent
876
076
872
46 ir-Z 4-
876
r,
1171,
-40 -20
0 20
40 60
NOTE:
D & U
Denotes Existing Drainage Utility Easement
872
T.S.E.
Denotes Temporary Slope Easement
0
20
An
a54
aw
876
872
am
876
V2
36+00
EX
RCVW D & U
au
ZZ. ow
— — — — — - — — — — —
------ a76
if
2D 40 so
-40 -20 0
35+50
LO
Sao
VG
872
36+50
0
20
40 60
EX
8M I-
T --- - -
T --U 884
EX
-T -------T
ROW D u
_____77
a76
------
'an
876
87V
-40
OD M
-20 0 20
40 60
a54
aw
876
872
am
876
V2
36+00
EX
RCVW D & U
au
ZZ. ow
— — — — — - — — — — —
------ a76
if
2D 40 so
-40 -20 0
35+50
LO
Sao
VG
872
-40 -20
0
20
40 60
,35+00
EX
ROW D u
876
876
un
872
GD 0
-40 -20
0
20
40
34+50
EX
LOW . ...... .. .. .
w D & u
880
876
1171,
P2
872
40 -20
0
20
An
884
880
876
872
884
880
876
872
884
880
876
872
39+00
-40 -20 0 20 40 w
38+50
EX
D.A.P.
-40 -20 0 20 40 60
38+00
EX
D & U
-20 0 20
37+50
884
880
876
T
872 _J-1
NOTE:
D & U Denotes Existing Drainage & Utility Easement
T. S. E. Denotes Temporary Slope Easement
40 80
EX
T_
M4
aw
an
872
so
854
am
872
W4
- ------ ago
872
W4
876
872
40 60
EX
D & U
M4
880
876
172
40 60
-40
40+00
0 20
D &U RM
884 - -
-1 .1 - ._F._T__ I
,37+00
T
ROW
D & U
-- , —, M4
Q�ive
884
aw
... ...... .. . ..
880
876
WO
Te-porary
876
-4-
77-
1372
Gorage Floo
876
.0
576
40 feet left
of centerlim
-40
-2101
0
20 40
60 80
39+50
..
..........
01
872
872
-40
-20
0 20
NOTE:
D & U Denotes Existing Drainage & Utility Easement
T. S. E. Denotes Temporary Slope Easement
40 80
EX
T_
M4
aw
an
872
so
854
am
872
W4
- ------ ago
872
W4
876
872
40 60
EX
D & U
M4
880
876
172
40 60
W4
880
876
e72
am
W4
sw
8761--
872
am
D&U a"
_7
876
4 872
coo
-40 -20 0 20 40 w so
39+34
T . . . . .
876
T
i6
868
-40 -20 0 20 40 w so
39+08 10
EX
40+00
D &U RM
884 - -
-1 .1 - ._F._T__ I
D & U
T
. 1.
D & U
-- , —, M4
Q�ive
SOD
aw
880
876
WO
Te-porary
876
-4-
77-
1372
Gorage Floo
.0
576
40 feet left
of centerlim
-40
-2101
0
20 40
60 80
39+50
W4
880
876
e72
am
W4
sw
8761--
872
am
D&U a"
_7
876
4 872
coo
-40 -20 0 20 40 w so
39+34
T . . . . .
876
T
i6
868
-40 -20 0 20 40 w so
39+08 10
EX
D &U RM
884 - -
-1 .1 - ._F._T__ I
T
. 1.
D & U
-- , —, M4
Q�ive
a Y
880
WO
Te-porary
-4-
Const�ction
Easement
Gorage Floo
576
40 feet left
of centerlim
876
Ele-882 04
872
872
12'
.j
-------
---
-40 -20
0
40
so 80
J- 16, 2002 - 8 29-
Of
Olafui 0
U-1
w
+
NIV)
Iz,
00
-4---- 4 -
k- - 9 -- I
T f --*-r T-18
Is
Z4
0
J— If --r
T-1
D
U4
0 U)
z 0
i
!
CD
t
4911
0
0
Ln
921,LS'
D
U4
0 U)
z 0
4.11
-0�
c
Lij
0
Ln
921,LS'
MUS 0
6'9LS
g'S;LS
D
U4
0 U)
z 0
0
Ln
921,LS'
MUS 0
6'9LS
g'S;LS
0
4)
D 4)
L
4) 4)
Cn CL
0 0
4
471
0
3c
I
x 0
ui F-
4) (D
0 0
W 4)
14
C4
00
OD It
no
D
U4
0 U)
z 0
EX
3+50
D U
ROW
876
872
. ..... -------
-40
–2D
0
20
,3+00
D & U ROW
880
7S-
876
872 .......
.. –
6 6
–60
–40
–20
0
20
2+50
D & U ROW
880
876
872
di lei
–60
–40
-------
- — ------
–20
L
0
20
2+00
D U Raw
aeo
976
----------
-
-------
872
–80
–40
–20
0
20
1+50
D & U ROW
876
–60
–40
–20
0
20
40
n --Z---- - -1876
872
40
40
40
876
PAGE AVENUE WE
R.O.W.
872
40
EX 5+00
D & U ROW R
880 OU0
876 876
872 ------
------- 872
868 868
-40 20 0 2D 40
EX 4+50
880 D & U -ROW - ---------- --- --
876 876
872
872
40
-40 --:20 0 2D 40
EX 4+43.50
D & U
880 ------ -
12' *VADESIT. D/W
876
876
-----------
1!2
572 972
Id ID
40 -20 0 20 40
EX 4+00
880 D & U ROW -,-T
876
876
872 572
go iso
-40 -20 0 20 4�
Mar 06, 2002 10.49am
K . \c, d-ena\la d pro iects\OT345\,dw(j\OT345 XS PAGE+dwq
Michael C Couri-
Andrew J. M"Arthur
Robert T. Ruppe--
David R. Wendorf
*Also licemed hn llibnoU
"Aw lic&LW in C440mia
March 6, 2002
City of Otsego
c/o Judy Hudson, City Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
COUN & MACARTHUR
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN55376-0369
(763) 497-1930
(763) 497-2599 (IFAX)
couriandmacarthurQpobox. com
RE: Proposed Application Form for State of Minnesota Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program
Dear Council Members:
At the Council's request I have reviewed the application information for the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program. The program allows for application for a Federal share of up
to 75% of the project costs. The project costs are more than just the acquisition cost of the
property in question but also include project management, legal costs,
engineering/desip, appraisal, property acquisition, asbestos abatement, demolition,
materials, equipment, labor, transportation and other. The City would be responsible for
at least 25% of the project cost.
The question raised at the Council was whether or not park and trail dedication money
could be used to fimd the City's share of the project. At present the area in question is not
included in the City's adopted trail plan which is incorporated into the City
Comprehensive Plan. In the event that this area was incorporated into that plan, then it is
my opinion that City park and trail funds could be used to pay the City's share of the cost
of the project.
Minn. Stat. 462.358, Subd.2b states in pertinent part . ..... that a reasonable portion of any
proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or
for public use as parks, recreational facilities as defmed and outlined in section 471.191."
The statute further states that, "(a) the municipality may choose to accept an equivalent
amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated to
such public uses or purposes... (b) any cash payments received shall be placed in a special
fund by the municipality used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained."
The purposes for which the money is obtained is for park purposes, therefore any
Letter to Otsego City Council
March 6, 2002
Page 2
property acquisition or remedial costs which would result in additional park land are
legitimate expenditures. There is no specific provision that park dedication fund be spent
only in or near the area where it is collected.
I have additional questions regarding the application, including what documentation that
is needed to establish fair market value for purposes of an application, what area is to be
considered for purposes of a cost benefit analysis and what documentation is required to
show reoccurring flooding. I also have questions regarding the form of the resolution to
be approved by the City. I have a call in to the agency, but have not received a return call.
I will provide the Council with additional information by the Monday night Council
meeting.
Ver5�tru
yours,
4a�OF w J. NjacArthur
t'OURI &-MACARTHUR
Encls.
cc: Dan Licht, City Planner
Ron Wagner, City Engineer
Page 1
Citation/Title
7k § 462.358, Procedure for plan effectuation; subdivision regulations
-73781 M.S.A. § 462.358
MINNESOTA STATUTES ANNOTATED
LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICE POWERS
CHAPTER 462. HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING
MUNICIPAL PLANNING
Current through End of 2001 Ist Sp. Sess.
462.358. Procedure for plan effectuation; subdivision regulations
Subdivision 1. Repealed by Laws 1980, c. 566, § 35.
Subd. Ia. Authority. To protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic,
and safe development of land, to preserve agricultural lands, to promote the avai.lability of housing affordable to persons and families
of all income levels, and to facilitate adequate provision for transportation, water, sewage, storm drainage, schools, parks, playgrounds,
and other public services and facilities, a municipality may by ordinance adopt subdivision regulations establishing standards,
requirements, and procedures for the review and approval or disapproval of subdivisions. The regulations may contain varied
provisions respecting, and be made applicable only to, certain classes or kinds of subdivisions. The regulations shall be uniform for
.h class or kind of subdivision.
A municipality may by resolution extend the application of its subdivision regulations to unincorporated territory located within two
miles of its limits in any direction but not in a town which has adopted subdivision regulations; provided that where two or more
noncontiguous municipalities have boundaries less than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the subdivision of land equal
distance from its boundaries within this area.
Subd. 2. Repealed by Laws 1980, c. 566, § 35.
Subd. 2a. Terms of regulations. The standards and requirements in the regulations may address without limitation: the size,
location, grading, and improvement of lots, structures, public areas, streets, roads, trails, walkways, curbs and gutters, water supply,
storm drainage, lighting, sewers, electricity, gas, and other utilities; the planning and design of sites; access to solar energy; and the
protection and conservation of flood plains, shore lands, soils, water, vegetation, energy, air quality, and geologic and ecologic
features. The regulations shall require that subdivisions be consistent -with the municipality's official map if one exists and its zoning
ordinance, and may require consistency with other official controls and the comprehensive plan. The regulations may prohibit certain
classes or kinds of subdivisions in areas where prohibition is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the purposes of this section,
particularly the preservation of agricultural lands. The regulations may prohibit, restrict or control development for the purpose of
protecting and assuring access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The regulations may prohibit the issuance of permits or
approvals for any tracts, lots, or parcels for which required subdivision approval has not been obtained.
*73782 The regulations may permit the municipality to condition its approval on the construction and installation of sewers, streets,
electric, gas, drainage, and water facilities, and similar utilities and improvements or, in lieu thereof, on the receipt by the municipalltv
of a cash deposit, certified check, irrevocable letter of credit, or bond in an amount and with surety and conditions sufficient to assure
the municipality that the utilities and improvements will be constructed or installed according to the specifications of the municipali�,.
:ons 471.345 and 574.26 do not apply to improvements made by a Subdivider or a subdivider's contractor.
Copyright (c) West Group 2002 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
Page 2
MSA § 462.358, Procedure for plan effectuation; subdivision regulations
'he regulations may permit the municipality to condition its approval on compliance with other requirements reasonably related to
drovisions of the regulations and to execute development contracts embodying the terms and conditions of approval. The
municipality may enforce such agreements and conditions by appropriate legal and equitable remedies.
Subd. 2b. Dedication. The regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public
or preserved for public use as streets, roads, sewers, electric, gas, and water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas or ponds
and similar utilities and improvements.
In addition, the regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or
preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, recreational facilities as defined and outlined in section 471.191,
playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space; provided that (a) the municipality may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash
from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value
of the land no later than at the time of final approval, (b) any cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by the
municipality used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained, (c) in establishing the reasonable portion to be dedicated,
the regulations may consider the open space, park, recreational, or common areas and facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve
for the subdivision, and (d) the municipality reasonably determines that it Will need to acquire that portion of land for the purposes
stated in this paragraph as a result of approval of the subdivision.
Subd. 3. Repealed by Laws 1980, c. 566, § 35.
Subd. 3a. Platting. The regulations may require that any subdivision creating parcels, tracts, or lots, shall be platted. The
regulations shall require that all subdivisions which create five or more lots or parcels which are 2-1/2 acres or less in size shall be
platted. The regulations shall not conflict with the provisions of chapter 505 but may address subjects similar and additional to those
` '�at chapter.
ziubd. 3b. Review procedures. The regulations shall include provisions regarding the content of applications for proposed
subdivisions, the preliminary and firial review and approval or disapproval of applications, and the coordination of such reviews with
affected political subdivisions and state agencies. Subdivisions including lands abutting upon any existing or proposed trunk highway,
county road or highway, or county state -aid highway shall also be subject to review. The regulations may provide for the consolidation
of the preliminary and final review and approval or disapproval of subdivisions. Preliminary or final approval may be granted or
denied for parts of subdivision applications. The regulations may delegate the authority to review proposals to the planning
commission, but final approval or disapproval shall be the decision of the governing body of the municipality unless otherwise
provided by law or charter. The regulations shall require that a public hearing shall be held on all subdivision applications prior to
preliminary approval, unless otherwise provided by law or charter. The hearing shall be held following publication of notice of the
time and place thereof in the official newspaper at least ten days before the day of the hearing. At the hearing, all persons interested
shall be given an opportunity to make presentations. A subdivision application shall be preliminarily approved or disapproved within
120 days following delivery of an application completed in compliance with the municipal ordinance by the applicant to the
municipality, unless an extension of the review pefiod has been agreed to by the applicant. When a division or subdivision to which
the regulations of the municipality do not apply is presented to the city, the clerk of the municipality shall within ten days certify that
the subdivision regulations of the municipality do not apply to the particular division.
Copyright (c) West Group 2002 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
MINNESOTA STATE OF MINNESOTA
Public Safety Department of Public Safety
Division of Emergency Nlanagernent
444 Cedar Street, Suite 223
-E. v t� P I E
St. Paul, 111N 55101-6223
(651)296-2233
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICATION PACKET
Please review all materials carefitIly and conipletety.
1. Overview
The Hazard Miticyation Grant Procram (HMGP) is a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
program administered in the State of Minnesota by the Minnesota Division of Emergency Management
(DEM). The program's objective is to reduce repetitive losses from natural disaster" 117 1
s by funding cost-
effective projects intended to eliminate/reduce future disaster expenditures for the repair/replacement of
public and private property, and for the relief of personal loss, hardship, and suffering. Federal funding
for HMGP projects can be up to 75 percent of the project's total eligible costs. C)
2. Eligible applicants
Z5
Eligible applicants include:
C
?? State and local governments,
?? Certain private non-profit organizations or institutions (i.e. rural electric cooperatives), and
I
?? Indian tribes or authorized tribal orcranizations.
3. Eligible projects
t5
Projects may be of any nature that will result in protection to public or private property. Specific types of
eligible projects include, but are not limited to:
?? Structural hazard control or protection projects;
?? Construction activities that will result in protection from hazards;
?? Retrofitting of facilities including burying or rebuilding of power lines;
?? Acquisition or relocation of floodplain properties; and
?? Development of comprehensive hazard mitigation programs with implementation as an essential
component.
Projects that are in prog-ress or that have been completed cannot befitnded. The Hazard 'Mitigation
Grant Program is not intended to retroactively fund projects. This policy is based, in part, on the HMGP
requirement that projects be in conformance with environmental regulations. The Federal environmental
review process requires that a satisfactory environmental analysis be completed prior to any comi-nitment
of funds. Projects that have been initiated may not meet environmental requirements, resulting in an
otherwise potentially eligible project becoming ineligible. A second reason for not funding projects
retroactively is that funding has presumably already been found for those projects.
C,
D P S- D ENI Page I oF5
liazardMitigatim Grant Program Application Packet
July 1999
4. Application review and selection process
The following, steps outline the application process in simplified form. The tirneline for the completion of
al! steps is dependent on the number and size of disasters in which DEM and FEMA are involved.
1) Applicants for HMGP funds will submit a completed application forin, preliminary application
form, or multi-aaency application form within a tirne-frame established by the State Hazard
Mitigation Officer (SHINIO). In larger disasters, the preliminary application form or a multi -
agency application is used to determine which applicants should comp ete a 11 application f
I fu orm
More information on which form to use is available at Applicant Briefings or by calling DEM.
tD ZD
2) The SHMO will review all applications. If additional information is needed, the SHMO will
contact the applicant.
3) After reviewing the potential hazard mitigation projects, the SHMO will decide which projects
should be selected and the level of funding for each project and will notify applicants of these
decisions.
4) The SHMO will then submit the chosen HNIGP applications to the FEMA Region V Mitigation
I C;
Officer for Minnesota. The State will continue to submit HNIGP projects to FEMA until the total
estimated HMGP funds are exhausted.
5) Once FENIA has notified DEM of the action that it has taken on the state's applications for HMGP
funds, the SHMO will so notify individual applicants. For each project that has been approved by
the state and by FEMA and which the applicant will undertake, a State of Minnesota HINIGP Sub -
grant Award Aoreement will be completed.
1 0
5. Project criteria
To be eli-ible for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, a project must:
1) Be in conformance with the state hazard mitigation plan developed as a requirement of Section
409 of the Stafford Act.
2) Have a beneficial impact upon the designated disaster area, whether or not located in the
designated area.
3) Be in confonnance with 44 CFR Part 9, Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands, and
44 CFR Part 10, Enviro=ental Considerations.
4) Solve a problem independently or constitute a functional portion of a solution where there is
assurance that the project as a whole will be completed. Projects that merely identify or analyze
hazards or problems are not eligible.
5) Be cost-effective and substantially reduce the risk offuture danzagge, hardship, loss, or suffering
resultingfi-oin a major disaster. The sub -grantee inust demonstrate this by documenting that
theproject:
a. Addresses a problem that has been repetitive or a problem that poses a significant risk if left
unsolved. 0
b. Will not cost more than the anticipated value of the reduction in both direct damages and
subsequent negative impacts to the area if future disasters were to occur. Both c 0
1 osts and
benefits will be computed on a net present value basis.
c. Has been determined to be the most practical, effective, and environmentally sound alternative
after consideration of a ranae of options.
0
d. Contributes, to the extent practicable, to a long-terrn solution to the problem it is intended to
address.
DPS-DENI Page 2 of 5
Hazard Mitigatim Grant PrograrnApplication Packet
July 1999
e. Considers Ion—terrn changes to the areas and entities it protects and has manageable future
maintenance and modification requirements.
6) Be in alignment with overall state intentions for the HN4GP project including, but not limited to:
a. Geographic distribution of proposed projects;
b. Projected cost of a proposed project;
c. Relative cost-effectiveness of a project compared to other proposed projects; and
d. Conformity of project with existing local hazard mitigation plan and land use/building
re2ulations in the community. (Sub -grantees who do not have a plan will be required to
develop a mult�hazard hazard mitigation plan.)
6. Questions?
Please read the application instructions thoroughly. If you have questions, please contact:
Terri Smith Mary Donohue
State Hazard Miti-ation Officer Grants Specialist
C
Phone: 651/296-0469 Phone: 651/282-5395
terri.smithCa state. nin. us marv.donohue(Z't state.mil.us
7. Application materials and attached documentation
1) Application Form
Applicants should submit this form to DEM at the address listed above. As a part of this
application, applicants should also submit a resolution and all information needed for benefit/cost
analysis. Please type or print clearly your responses to all questions.
1. 4pplicant and Contact Information
Answer all questions completely. The applicant should be an elicrible entity. The contact
should be someone from the eligible organization.
2. Resolution
The State of Minnesota requires potential HMGP sub -grantees to pass a resolution indicating
their desire to participate in this program. This resolution serves as verification of a potential
sub -grantee's interest in participating in the HMGP, empowers the potential sub -grantee to
enter into a Sub -grant Award Agreement with the State of Minnesota, and authorizes an
individual to sign the Sub-Lyrant Award Acyreement and other related documents on behalf of
the sub -grantee. Attachment 4 is a sample resolution.
3. Project Location
Provide a road or street address. Include a leeible map/drawing of the location. If possible,
the map should be 8 V2 x 11. 0
4. Project Description
Provide a 1-3 sentence description of what will be done. Include available site photos,
diagrams, plans, etc.
0
5. Purpose ofProject
Provide a detailed description of the problem to be solved and damacre to be
reduced/eliminated as a direct result of the project. Take into account damage to public and
private property, threats to public health and safety, govemment response expenses, etc.
Additionally, please specify the total number of persons, homes, commercial buildings, and
acyricultural acres that will benefit from the project.
0
DPS-DE.%l
I lazard Mitigatim Grant Program Application Packet Page 3 of 5
July 1999
6. Justifli cation forselection of the project
Explain how the project will solve the problem and why it is needed.
7. Alternatives considered.
Describe other possible means of solving the problem AND why they were rejected. You
C:
MUS provide at least one other alternative besides the "do nothing alternative."
8. Proposed work schedide and total time needed to coniplete project
Provide a tentative work schedule, i.e. within four weeks of FEMA approval, within eight
weeks of FEMA approval, etc.
9. Event fflood, Tornado, etc.) histoiy and daniages
Provide a history of damages. Include month and year of occurrence, a description of the
event and physical dama ' g�s it produced. Additionally, indicate the actual/estimated (by
whom) dollar losses for each event, government response expenses, and threats to public safety
incurred as the result of the event. Be creative with your sources of information; utilize
government documents, police and fire records, newspaper accounts, and resident/business
property surveys.
10. Anaylsis of the project's cost-effectiveness
Describe any qualitative benefits such as environmental or historical considerations that are
otherwise not included as part of the benefit/cost analysis performed by DEM or FEMA staff.
Attach a separate Fact Sheet for Acquisition/Relocation/Elevation Projects (Attachment 2) for
each property, if any, that will be acquired, relocated, or elevated as a result of this project.
DEM or FEM.A, staff will perform benefit/cost (B/Q analysis of proposed projects. Since
mitigation projects are designed to reduce or eliminate future damages, cost-effectiveness
evaluations of them will estimate damages which are likely to be avoided over the entire
expected life of each project. Projects with B/C ratios >1 are cost-effective and will be
approved by FEMA, assuming, they meet all other criteria of the HMGP. Projects with ratios
between 0.7 and 1.0 may be approved if they possess substantial qualitative benefits not
included in the B/C analyses, including factors such as environmental and historical
considerations.
11. Environmental Information
Indicate if project would affect or be in a wetland, floodplain, Wild and Scenic River or
Endangered Species area. Also indicate if an archaeologically or historically significant site
0
would be affected.
Projects funded under the HMGP must comply with all appropriate environmental
requirements. This includes the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), P.L. 91-190, as
amended; Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; Executive Order 1289S,
Enviroru-nental Justice in Minority and Low -Income Populations, and Executive Order 11990,
Protection of Wetlands. (Minnesota is a NEPA compliant state.). The SHMO will ensure that
all required environmental review is per -formed. The extent of such review will depend upon
(1) the nature of a project, (2) the envirorunental contractor assistance, if any, made available
by FEMA or funded by the state, and/or (3) the environmental requirements imposed by other
agencies participating in a project (if any). Approval to initiate a project will not be granted,
0 Z�
nor will any HMGP monies be expended prior to the completion and satisfactory outcome of a
required environmental review. It is FEMA's responsibility to prepare the environmental
document, although the project applicant will be required to provide much of the basic
C7
information, including any special studies that need to be performed.
ZD
DPS -DEM Page 4 of 5
Hazard Nlitigatbn Grant Program Application Packet
July 1999
Some types of projects have been determined by FEINIA through review of nurnerous similar
projects to pose little likelihood of significant environmental impacts. FEMA has adopted
ZI
revisions to its regulations which identify 19 categories of projects/actions that are excluded
1 0
from the need for further environmental review. Many mitigation projects qualify for such
categorical exclusion."
12. Estin7ated Project Budgget
Complete the estimated project budget listing both cash and in-kind fundincy sour . ces for each
0 1-7
category. List the expected providers of all funding.
13. Fundinc, Sources
0
Provide amount of funding anticipated from each source. The state share should include only
I
funds allocated to DETNI from the General Fund (when available). Funding from other state
aaencies should be listed under Other Sources.
14. Annual iVaintenance
Provide an estimate of annual maintenance costs and indicate whether the applicant can and
Nvill provide project maintenance.
15-4dditional Comments
Provide any additional information in support of the project or additional information
recrardinor one of the above questions that you feel is appropriate
16. Certification
Certify that infon-nation included in the application is complete and accurate to the best of
certifier's knowledge and belief
Z�
2) Preliminary Application Form
Applicant briefings will provide infonnation on whether or not this form is required.
3) Fact Sheet for Acquisition/Relocation/Elevation Projects
Complete a fact sheet for each property, if any, in the project that will be acquired, relocated, or
elevated. These completed fact sheets should accompany the application and will be used in the
benefit/cost analysis.
4) Sample Resolution
Attachment 4 is a sample format for such a resolution. An enacted resolution should accompany
the completed project application submitted to DEM.
I)PS-DEM Page 5 of 5
Hazard Nlitigatim Grant PrograniApplication Packet
July 1999
Attachment I
MINNE101A Disaster Declaration Number: FEMA DR IN
Date Application Completed:
STATE OFIMINNESOTA
Division of Emer-ency Management (DEM)
APPLICATION FORAI
for the Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
1. CONTACT INFOR-NIATION
APPLICANT NAME (OrganizationjEntity):
STREET ADDRESS/P.O. BOX:
CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE:
COUNTY:
NAME AND TITLE OF CONTACT PERSON FOR THE PROJECT:
PHONE NUMBER OF CONTACT:
FAX NUMBER OF CONTACT:
E-MAIL OF CONTACT:
2. RESOLUTION
Applicant has passed or is in the process of passing a resolution authorizing participation in program and
1-) 0
designating a signatory. This resolution is attached
—pendincy other (explain).
3. PROJECT LOCATION
Road or street address. Include a legible map/drawing of the location. If possible, map should be 8 1/2" x I I".
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1-3 sentence description of what will be done. Include available site photos, diagrams, plans, etc.
DPS,DEM
Attachment I—Application Form Page I of4
July 1999
5. PURPOSE OF PROJECT Attachment 1
A detailed description of the problem to be solved and damage to be reduccd/climinated as a direct result of the project.
0
6. JUSTIFICATION FOR SELECTION OF THE PROJECT
How the project will solve the problem and why it is needed.
7. ALTER -NATIVES CONSIDERED
Other possible means of solving the problem AND why they were rejected.
0
8. PROPOSED WORK SCHEDULE AND TOTAL TIME NEEDED TO COMPLETE PROJECT
Provide a tentative work schedule.
DPS.DEM
Attachment I—Applicition Fomi Pa.,,e 2 of 4
July 1999
Attachment I
9. EVENT * (FLOOD, TORNADO, ETC.) HISTORY AND DAMAGES
History of damages.
10. ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT'S COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Describe any qualitative benefits such as environmental or historical considerations that are not included as part of the benefit/cost
analysis. Attach a separate Fact Sheet for AcquisitioriiRelocatiom�Elevation Projects (Attachment 2) for each property, if any, that fits
within this category. DEM or FEMA staff will conduct the benefit/cost analysis based on this information and attach results to this
application.
11. ENVIROX.NIENTAL INFORMATION
Indicate if project would affect or be in a wetland, floodplain, Wild and Scenic River or Endangered Species area. Also indicate if an
archaeologically or historically significant site would be affected.
DPS.DEM Page 3 oN
Attachment I—Application Fonn
July 1999
12. ESTENIATED PROJECT BUDGET
Category
Cash
In-kind
I . Project Mana gernem
2. Le -al Costs
I Engineering/Design
'D Z�
4. Property Appraisal
S
5. Property Acquisition
S
S
6. Asbestos Abatement
S
S-
7. Demolition
S
8. Materials
S
9. Equipment
S
10. Labor
11. Transportation
12. Other
$
TOTALS
$
13. FLT-NDING SOURCES
A. HMGP Federal Share Requested (Cannot exceed 75% of
estimated total cost in question 12)
B. Non-federal Share
1. State Share (total from all agencies)
2. Applicant Share
3. Other Source Share (please specify source[s]):
14. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
Estimate of annual maintenance costs:
0
Attachment I
Provider(s)
Applicant can and will provide project maintenance, as appropriate, following completion of the project?
Im
Yes No
15. ADDITIONAL CO'NIMENTS CAN BE MADE ON A SEPARATE PAGE.
Include any additional information in support of the project or additional information regarding one of the above questions that you
feel is appropriate.
16. TO THE BEST OF 111Y KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, DATA IN THIS APPLICATION AND ANY
SUPPORTING DOCU.NIENTS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT.
Signature of Applicant
DPS-DE,Ivf
Attachment I -Application Fonn
July 1999
Date Signed
Page 4 of4
Attachment 2
Disaster Declaration Nurnbcr: FENJA DR -N I N
Date Application Completed:
STATE OFINIENNESOTA
Division of Emergency Management (DEM), Phone: (651)296-22')3
PRELEVIINARY APPLICATION FORM
for the Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
NOTE: The purpose of this abbreviated pre -application is to determine if a proposed project has the potential for
consideration for funding under the HI'VIGP. If, on the basis of information provided on this form, the proposed project is
cleterminect to have such potential, the applicant will need to submit a full HMGP A
APPLICANT NAME (Orcranization/Entity
STREET ADDRESSiP.O. BOX:
CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE:
NAME AND TITLE OF CONTACT PERSON FOR THE PROJECT:
PHONE NUMBER OF CONTACT PERSON:
I. PROJECT LOCATION
2. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEMS TO BE SOLVED
4. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
5. PROPOSED SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING FOR NON-FEDERAL SHARE
Form.
DPS.DEN1 Page I of I
Attachment 2— Preliminary Application Form
July 1999
STATE OF MINNESOTA Attachment 3
Division of Emergency lWanagement (DEM)
Hazard Miti(yation Grant Program (HMGP)
6 6
FACT SHEET FOR ACQUISITION/RELOCATION/ELEVATION PROJECTS
Community Name:
Property Address:
Owner's Name:
Renter's Name:
1. Attach a map showing the location of the property (preferably using FEvIA's flood boundary and floodway map or
equivalent map).
2. Use of Property:
Residential — Commercial Industrial Non -Profit Public
Agricultural — Other (please specify)
3. Ty
pe of Structure
— (A) I -story without basement
— (B) 2 -story without basement
— (C) Split level without basement
— (D) I or 2 story with basement
— (E) Split level with basement
(F) Mobile home
(G) Other (please specify)
4. Provide recent flood history for the structure, utilizing the following fonnat:
Date Damaoed
Dollar Damage (structure and
contents)
First Floor Damaged
First Floor Depth of Floodinor
0
Yes / No
Yes / No
Yes / No
Yes No
Yes No
DPS-DE%f Pa.,,c I of 2
Attachment 3 - Fact Sheet for Acquisitioii.Relocation.T-le%,ation Projects
July 1999
5. Flood Insurance coverage (discuss with o-wrier/renter): Structure Insured'? Yes No
National Flood Insurance Program Policy #.
Current Coverage Amounts
Structure Contents
List past Insurance Claim Payments to Owner
(attach additional sheet or list in -t"r 16 if necessary)
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Attachment 3
6. Has this structure been substantially damaged (to 50% or more of its pre -flood market value)? Yes No
0
7. Is this structure currently condemned or otherwise currently unoccupied due to flood damage? Yes No
01
S. Is this structure located in a regulatory floodway (see FEMA's flood boundary and floodway map for your
community)? Yes No
9. Square footage of habitable space of structure (do not include porches, decks, etc):
I
10. First Floor Elevation (TNGVD 1929) (of top surface of flooring):
11. Estimated pre -flood market value of the land and structure: S
12. Replacement value of the structure: S per square foot
ft.
13. Estimated cost of equivalent rental property: S per square foot per month
14. Has the property owner been notified of this potential project? Yes No
If yes, does the property owner support it? Yes No
15. Are there any obvious environmental or historic issues for this structure: Yes No
16. Please list any other pertinent information about the structure.proposed project below and attach a photo if available.
DPS -DEM Page 2 or2
Attachment 3 - Fact Sheet for Acqu isi i iorLRelocation.'Elevat ion Projects
July 1999
Attachment 4
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUB -GRANT AGREEMENT
Be it resolved that enter into a sub - crant
(Name of Orpnization,'Local Unit of Government)
Z
agreement with the Division of Emergency Management in the Minnesota Department of Public
Safety for the program entitled Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for Presidential disaster
1 0
declaration FETNIA -DR-IvfN.
(Disaster Number)
(Name and Title of Authorized Official) is hereby
authorized to execute and sign such sub - grant agreements and any amendments hereto as are
1Z C) I=
necessary to implement the project on behalf of
(Name of Or.-anization/Local Unit of Government)
I certify that the above resolution was adopted by the -
on
(Name of Organization./Local Uriit of Government)
SIGNED:
(Signature)
(Title)
(Date)
of
(Executive Body)
(Date)
WITNESSETH:
(signature)
0
(Title)
(Date)
DPS -DEM Pzu'e I of I
Attachment 4 - Resolution Authorizing Execution of Sub -grant Agreement
July 1999
MEMO
Date: March 7, 2002
To: Mayor & Council
From: City Administrator Mike Robertson
Re: Police Department Information
The enclosed report contains a variety of information
on the issue of starting a Police Department. it
contains copies of studies that have been done by other
cities that have looked at this same issue such as
Monticello and Delano. It contains information about
communities that have recently started their own Police
departments, such as Kasota, Nisswa, and North Branch.
I had sent an e-mail to all City Administrators in
Minnesota who are tied into the League of Minnesota
Cities list serve asking them if they knew of any
Police departments that had been started recently. One
of the e-mail responses I received is enclosed. As you
can see from the small number of examples starting up a
Police Department is something that does not happen.
often..
RECENT POLICE DEPARTMENT STARTUPS
KASOTA
Kasota is located in SW LeSueuer County between St.
Peter and Mankato and has a population of about 750.
spoke with their City Clerk and their mayor. They
started a Police Department in 2000 with one officer
using a federal COPS grant as the main source of their
funding. The COPS grant requires matching funds of
more than 50% of the cost for three years, and the city
must pledge to keep the officer after the grant runs
out. As of today they still have just one officer and
have no plans to add additional officers.
NISSWA
Nisswa is located in Crow Wing County and has a
population of about 2,000. 1 spoke with their
receptionist and their City Clerk. They started their
department in 1996 with a federal COPS grant. They now
have 4 full-time officers including a Chief. The
Police Department is now 100% funded through the
general fund as the COPS grant has run out. Their
budget was $294,000 -in 2001. That includes equipment
and secretarial but does not include prosecution and
they did not know how much they paid for prosecution.
NORTH BRANCH
North Branch is located in Chisago County and has a
Population of over 8,000. 1 spoke with their former
City Administrator and their current City Clerk. They
started a Police Department in the early 1980's when a
defeated County Sheriff needed a job. The department
consisted of two officers until the early 1990's when
it began to grow as the city did. It currently
consists of 7 officers including the Chief. The budget
for 2002 is $658,000, which includes equipment and
secretarial support but not prosecution.
2
Otsego City Hall
Page I of I
From:
To: CUy-Ffi7al cr s
Wly��
Sent: Tuesday,J Sta ry 15, 2002 8:13 AM
Subject: RE: [mNrSNtai g a Police Department
CONFIDENTIAL
Mike: The City of AlMis a contract city with theAWSheriff's Office. I can tell you from
my experiences with both contract and department police services that our current arrangement is
a sweet deal, financially and from a personnel perspective. No unions, no personnel issues, they
deal with all the service related issues as identified in the contract and the costs are unbelievably
low. No City facilities, no arguing over equipment, uniforms, no rotating squads, limited liability
because they are a contract service and no worker's compensation claims�'As most of my career
has been with Police Departments, I like the present arrangement. Oh yeah, very little ' 1* ical
involvement because it is a contracted service. I guess it all depends on who's running t?eos'htow
with Sheriff's Office. We have a great sheriff who's committed to providing excellent police
services in the community. Keep in touch. (Mike, my comments are off the record, I don't want
to offend former city police denartments or Chiefs I liave served with so please keep the source of
these comments confidential)
-----Original Message -----
From: Otsego City Hall [mailto:cityhall@ci.otsego.mn.us]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 1:57 PM
To: MN C&C Mgr Assoc
Subject: [mcma] Starting a Police Department
Dear Learned Colleagues:
Otsego is considering dropping its' contract with the County for police protection and starting its
own police department. Is anyone aware of a community that has done this recently? If so,
please send me their name.
Thanks.
Mike Robertson
Otsego City Administrator
city aIl(cD_ci.otseqo.mn.us
MEMO
Date: March 6, 2002
To: Mayor & Council
From: City Administrator Mike Robertson
Re: Delano Police Department Study Information
The Delano Police Department report consists of a variety of
information, some of which is not well explained'so I thought I
would add some explanations by way of this memo. I've numbered
the pages of the report to make things clearer.
Page 1 is the e-mail from Delano's City Administrator. it
summarizes the report. Note the comment about our tax rate.
Page 2 is Delano's cover page for its, citizen survey, and it
notes the formation of a Public Safety Task Force. This task
force gathered the information that follows.
Page 3 is Delano's 2000 Sheriff Contract information and
comparisons with selected cities.
Page 4 continues the comparisons.
Pages 5,6, and 7 summarize the information Delano received from
surveys of selected cities.
Pages 8,9,10, and 11 are a copy of a study done by a consultant
on this same issue back in 1993.
The rest of the document is a summary of the survey of residents
done in late 2000 on the Police issue.
Otsego City Hall
From: Phil Kern <pkern@delano.mn.us>
To: <Cityhall@ci.otsego.mn.us>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:02 AM
Subject: RE: Police Department
Hi Mike -
Tired of the wonderful Wright County Sheriffs Department? Delano went
through this last year, and we formed a citizen group to discuss the idea
of starting a new PD or contracting from another entity other than Wright
County. The group ended up recommending to the City Council that Delano
stick with Wright County. As part of their recommendation, they shared
with the Council research on the other communities in the area, operating
costs of other departments, etc. If you send me your address, I'll send
you a copy of all the research that group assembled. It may not be
entirely relevant to your situation in Otsego, but hopefully some of the
information could be of use.
Hope everything's going well up 'there in Otsego. Hey, I forgot to "thank
you" for bumping Delano from the position of the second -lowest City tax
rate in Wright County. The Council here has always taken a lot of pride in
having the second -lowest tax rate in the County for many years, and they
made sure to jab me several times for letting another city bump us to
third!!
See you on the 23rd for our first Salverda session!
Phil
Philip M. Kern
City Administrator
205 Bridge Avenue
PO Box 108
Delano, N4N 55328
763-972-0565
i1i
Page I of I
1/15/02
e]La a place to grow
CITY OF DELANO
PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE
The City of Delano has recently formed a Public Safety Task Force to
review the police services that are needed to protect the residents of Delano.
To better understand what the residents want in their police services, the
following survey is being mailed to each residence/business in Delano.
t.1;1
Under Minnesota State Law, the Wright County Sheriff's Department is
required to handle all emergency and non -emergency calls from anyone
within the City limits of Delano. The Wright County Sheriff's Department
provides this 24-hour service and county taxes pay for this service.
One "area" patrol deputy is assigned to Delano, Rockford, and Franklin
Township all at the same time. The City of Delano recognizes the
possibility that a deputy may not be in Delano at all times so they went to a
separate contract with the Sheriff's Department that contracts for a specific
number of hours. This contract costs the City of Delano $154,998 dollars
per year on the City taxes. To help you compare Delano to the other cities,
the following outlines the number of hours that other cities contract with the
Wright County Sheriff's Department:
City of Delano 11 hour contract
City of Rockford 12 hour contract
City of Montrose 2 hours in the winter, 5 hours in the summer
City of Cokato 16 hour contract
City of Albertville 5 hours now, 8 hours effective 1-1-01
City of St. Michael 24 hour contract
City of Monticello 24 hour contract
The Task Force will review the surveys and make a recommendation to the
City Council in March, 2001. Please take a few minutes to fill out the two
page survey and return in the self-addressed, stamped envelope, or you may
drop off your survey at the City Hall office, 205 Bridge Avenue East,
between 8:30a.m. to 5:00p.m. Monday through Friday.
CitY Offices: P.O. 108, Delano, Minnesota 55328 * Ph: 763-972-0550 Fax: 763-972-6174
DELANO CONTRACT LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION
(Prepared 12-1-00)
Calls for Service per population:
Estimated 2000 population
3600 Average increase since 1995 = 123/yr
Estimated calls for service
1800
CFS/population 2000
.50
CFS/ pop. Comparison's 1999
Delano
.56 Annandale .66
Buffalo
.89 Howard Lake .57
Monticel.lo
.75 Albertville .54
Contract costs 2000
4,052.23 hrs/year @ $38.25/hr = $154,997.80 calculating per capita cost = $43.05/person
11. 1 hours/ day
Qy Pormlation
2000 Law Enf. Budget Per cgpita cost CFS HLs/day
Annandale 2496
$281,667 $112.85 1645
20
Buffalo 9950
$1,005,601 $101.07 8889
24+
Cokato 2495
$167,994 $67.74 1640
12
Howard Lake 1770
$181,410 $102.49 1016
20
Rockford 3015
$167,994 $55.72 1374
12
Recommended Contract Coverage
for 2001
Delano 3725 est.
$233,600 $62.71 NA
16
Albertvil.le 3800 est.
$233,600 contracted $61.47 NA
16
Ratio of officers/ population
Rural 1.3/1000 pop.
These ratios are considered a national standards.
Suburban 1.6/1000 pop.
Federal grant writing require calculations to include approx.
Urban 1. 7/1000 pop.
1864 hrs of available time on patrol per officer.
City of Delano Law Enforcement Contract
The city of Delano began contracting law enforcement services with the Wright County
Sheriff s Office in 1973. In 1974, with a population of approximately 2, 100, Delano contracted for
5,840 hours per year (16 hours/day). In 2000, with a population exceeding 3,400, Delano contracts
for 4,052.23 hours per year (11. 1 hours/day). Eight of the 11. 1 hours are one continuous shift. The
remaining 3+ hours are covered at various times of the day by the southeast area squad. See table
below for a summary of the contracting history.
Costs for the year 2000: 4,052.23 hours/year @ $38.25/hour for a total cost of $154,997.80.
This is an approximate per capita cost of $45.90 ($154,997.80/3,377, 1998 pop. est.).
City of Delano Law Enforcement Contracting History
Year
Number of Hours
Population
Calls For Service
1978-1986
4,628
2,480 (1980 est.)
1,799
1987
4,368
Cokato
2,480
1988-1991
4,108
2,709 (1990 est.)
1,660 (1990)
1992-1994
3,328
.60
11.16
1995
4,380
2,989
2,276
1996
4,247
2,877
2,483
1997
4,062
St. Michael
7,64' )
1998
4,075
3,377
2,018
1999
4,073
2000
4,052.23
Law Enforcement Coverage Com arison 2000
city
Population (1998)
CFS (1998)
CFS/pop.
Hours/day (2000)
Annandale
2,472
1,799
.73
20
Cokato
2,480
1,542
.62
12
Delano
3,377
2,018
.60
11.16
Howard Lake
1,749
1.013
.58
20
Rockford
2,877
2,483
.85
12
St. Michael
7,64' )
2,323
.30
24
rRZN : CITY CIF --"EL2NC
PHONE 6129726174 Oct. 26 2.200 10:51AM P1
nn M 9 E,-:- 0 VJ M nn
OCT 10 2000
Ea pt�eto grow
i[,# e, ca n "'0iTY'0PDi-L 14
CELANO, N;NrJ�SOTA
City of St. Michael 763-497-5306
City of'Rockford 763-477-4393
City of Monticello 763-295-4404
City of Montrose 763-675-3032
City of Watertown 952-955-2695
City of Loretto 763-479-2685
City of Albertville 763-497-3210
City of Independence 763-479-0528
City of St. Boniflacious 952-446-9265
City of Crookston 218-281-5609
FROM: Marlene E. Kittock, City Clerk/Treasurer (612-972-03-66)
DATED: October 6,2000
RE: Sheriff Contract
The City of Delano has formed a public safety task force for the purpose of exploring
options regarding police protection. This committee to requesting copies of your
current law enforcement (police/sheriff) contract. Please fax the City of Delano a copy
of your most current contract document to 763-972-6174
Is your city generally happy with the services received under your current contract?
V-15
Please list the type of services you are currently receiving.
/ . � houl-w C� (k_� pil, day aqXA edjj—
Please list the type of services that you would like to rec.eive.
jk et�
Narne and phone number of the individual to contact regarding these question
\\NT-SER%T,R\U�SERS�K-ttock\FCRNIS\o,,;rieypolic - txkict.doc -f�za i i�6u�\
0 -1 (0 3 -- (4 -7 -7 - �-, 5, �- S_
L-UM=1 iU U11Y HALL PAGE 02
FR:M : CITY OF DE --AK PH�'�NE HO. : 6121372-tI74 Oct. 06 2WO io:5TgN p,
113elano a place to grow
TO: City of St, Kchael 763-497-6306
City of Ffzckford 763-477-4393
City of Monticello 763-295-4404
City of Montroaa 783-675-8032
City of Watertown 952-955-2695
Loretto 763-479-2686
ity ot'AlbertviUe 763-497-3210
City of Independence 763-479-0528
City of St, Boniflacious 952446-9265
City of Crookston 218-281-5609
FROM: Marlene E. Kittock, City Clerk/Treasurer (612-972-0666) '77)69-&'rzj
DATED: October 6,2000
RE: Sheriff Contract
The City of Delano has formed a public safety task force for the purpoi* of exploring
optiorA regarding police protection, This committee W reqlerting oopier, of your
current law enforcement (police/sheriff) contract, Ple&se fax the City of Delano a copy
of your most c!urreDt contract document to 768-972-6174
13 your city gonerally happy with tile services raceived under your current contract?
Please list the type of Bervices you are currently receiving, �U�
Flease list thq type of services that you would like to receive.
Narne and phone number of the individual to contact regarding theAe questions.
1-7 9
CiEV Offices: P 0. 108, Delano, Minnesota 55328 e -Ph: 763-972-05.50 fux� 763-972-6174
V
Notes regarding phone calls received regarding rnini-city survey on police contract.
Independence - They wanted the council to answer the questions, Everyone there is very
very pleased with the service they get.
Watertown- 'Fhey are in the process of renegotiating their contract. 11ey have the same
types of nuisance items, ie junk yards, dogs or cats, speeding, doors unlocked, kids just
hanging. They are exploring having the sheriff hire a local individual to do these things at a
rate most less that what the sheriff get to handle these things.
Montrose - Charlie wanted to know "what's up". They have the same nuisance type things.
Suggested we contact Monticello to see how they are doing things, since they would be
closer to our population level. Montrose contracts for 5 hours in the summer and 3 in the
winter. They have no problems with Wright county. Maybe someone should attend the
monthy mayor's meeting and have this discussed. Also setting down with the new sheriff
would be good.
Elp
\\NT—SERVER\USERS\Kittock\CHAiNfBER\poUce notes.doc
IV. The administrative headaches of operating your own police depart-
ment are greatly reduced.
A. Most police departments are -unionized.
B. You have no police hours, vacation accruals, sick leave
accruals, P.O.S.T. certifications, etc. to keep records
of.
C. You have no grievances or arbitrations to consider.
SUMMARY
The ' City should try everything possible to eliminate or minimize the problems
associated with contracting for law enforcement services with the county. Through
good communications, your current system could work.
0
DELANO TASK FORCE SURVEY
Are you satisfied w'ih the quality of poli
ice service in Delano?
Yes No
409 1 �s
2. If you are dissatisfied, check the specific areas below:
113 Speeding and traffic related issues
31 Timeliness of response to police calls
;-3 Investlaacion of criminal activity
Drucr sales and use in the community
Handling of domestic disputes
40 Juvenile related issues
ient patrol time
Insuffici
Enforcement of local ordinances
31 Nuisance behaviors and disturbing the peace
Tobacco and alcohol use by minors
E 13 Fear of harm from intimidation, harassment or intrusion
3. Should the City of Delano increase the current contracted dailv hours with Wrighc
County Sheriff's Department'? The City curren�ly contracts eleven (11) hours per
day.
Yes No
33q
4. If you answered -yes- to question 3, how much more time should be added:
L- 10 1-4 hour a day service
L 31 12 hours per day
A 1 Double the current eleven hours
45 Other suggestions (Please list below)
,�ez E—�CA U—MM e r—%Ts--
11
5. If you are willin- to see the number of contract hours or dollars for public safety
0
allocated go up in the City of Delano, how much money are you willing to see
added to your City taxes per year- C�
1- 3 3 Zero Approximate tax rate increase/Household
$50,000 S .00
$50,000-$100,000 34.65
$100,000-$200,000 69.38
9 $200,000-$300,000 138.77
208.14
i S300,000 -S400,000 277.52
1- $400,000-3500,000 346.90
S500,000 -S1,000.000 693.78
6. If you have called 911 or asked for a deputy to respond to an incident within
Delano were you satisfied with the response time you received from the Sheriff's
officeo
7i'es No
g�o
Do you feel enforcement of traffic laws (moving violations) is important to the
safetY Of Our City Streets)
es N o
q51 - 60
Do you have other la%k enforcement issues in your neighborhood that you would
like to see be addressed?
�'es - No
If It'es, please list: 10� 301
9. Please rate Your perception of the incidence of crime in Delano. 1 through 5 with
one the highest.
q - Very hi gh/oul of control
5 . . -
ah/above av
erage for Wn'cyh[ Count-,
C,
moderate/about as much as other communities Ir Wri ght Countv
1 Low/occasional not a problem
3 Non -ex* I I
istentino si-0-mificant cri'me occurs
10. Please rate \our perception of Police services (nuisance pets. traffic complaints,
lock outs, Permit violations, ordinance violations, suspic*
ious activity, vandal'
Juvenile complaints). 1 through 4 with one the highest. ism,
I Quick responses, thorough handling, resolved - dealt with
2- OK response, might be h'andled often, not resolved I
-3 Poor response, oftten not handled (arrived long after fact) poor resolution
- It No response, reporting party not contacted, unresolved
11. Please priohtize the followin2 list Of City services as to the importance to your
fami I y. I through 6 with one the most important.
Police and fire protection
Citv water, sewer, electric
3
Cltv street ma'
intenance
4 Cil\. perrn,
its, administration, ordinances
City business and development promotion
-5- City housing and sen*
ior center activities
12. Do you have suggestions as to how pol'
ice service can be improved In Delano?
Public Safety Task Force Survey Results
(Written Comments)
(Second Batch of Responses)
I . Are you satisfied with the quality of police ser -vice in Delano?
New resident. Only been here 6 weeks.
We live outside the city limits of Delano. We have no complaints on the police performance
from our standpoint. George and Leona Fake
Paying too much. Don't see them around much,
14"' St - Rebecca Estates — lots of speeding. We even have a Wright Cty. officer living in our
development. I -Es daughter is a very bad speed violator.
The quality is great but we need more hours of patrol. I live on main street — fast traffic going
out of town.
Monitor more on Shadywood Lane.
2. If you are dissatisfied, check the specific area below:
Vehicle break-ins. No response back from Sept.
Patrol main street by ball fields. Excessive speeding
Bass on stereos in vehicles.
On Elm.
Speeding on Elm St. should be monitored.
3. Should the City of Delano increase the current contracted daily hours with Wright
Z:7
County Sheriff's Department? The City currently contracts eleven (11) hours per
day.
Just do more with the time we already have contract.
Absolutely not!
State laws- passing on shoulder w/painted white solid line present.
I'm only aware of 8 hour coverage.
City should have own law enforcement.
Don't increase the number of hours. Change the services provided.
4. If you answered "yes" to question 3, how much more time should be added?
Restore the hours you have cut each time the city raises (?) the hourly rate. In order to keep
contract amounts equal you have to cut services.
Add five hours.
I don't know enough about any problems to make an appraisal.
Delano should staff their own department -- I or 2 officers.
18 to20 hours.
At least as much as Cokato which has 16.
18 hours — 6 am to midnight.
How much police service do we get out of the I I hours?
Analyze the historical services by type and select protection required.
One squad 24 hours still less expensive than our own police dept.
At school start and end — too many speeders and reckless drivers, and County Rd. 30 by the
schools to County Line Rd. Lots of speeding all the time.
Page 2
As Delano grows maybe there should be one patrol full time.
During school (summer breaks) 24 hours.
16 hours
Double current for spring & summer & early fall. 12 hours on late fall and winter. Less likely
to be out in cold, trying to commit crime.
Not sure
Around school time.
15 hours
24 hours
Higher in summer during evening and nights when schools out. Be more stern about kinds
loitering.
I feel that 24 hours is a must for a community to feel safe/secure. We recently moved here from
Plymouth and any time of day there was an officer local and on call.
Delano should get their own police force.
20 hours.
I don't exactly know how much time it would take to better these issues (above). Can a study
be done?
5. If you are willing to see the number of contract hours or dollars for public safety
allocated go up in the City of Delano, how much money are you willing to see
added to your City taxes per year?
Emphatic — Zero
Nobody needs more money tacked on to there taxes.
We already pay taxes equal to other cities that have all the services.
With a contract of $154,998 per year, this is a sufficient amount of funds to even have our own
city police dept with an on-call service.
Can't answer question. Not enough info provided.
6. If you have called 911 or asked for a deputy to respond to an incident within
Delano, were you satisfied with the response time you received ftom the Sheriff's
office?
Never have called 911.
Haven't called.
No one ever came to investigate neighborhood break-ins of vehicles!! This happened twice.
7. Do you feel enforcement of traffic laws (moving violations) is important to the
safety of our streets?
I feel this enforcement is already adequate.
Passing cars and speeding by the high school students on Elm Avenue.
This town is so small actual street/city area. I fail to see the use for traffic enforcement to
exceed the minimum.
Crosswalks!! The new law is being violated regularly. Check out the corner of Elm and 2 nd
I don't believe we have a problem here.
Haven't called.
Speeding on Shadywood Lane.
Paae 3
0
Who thouQht of this) Al Gore?
Zone laws not being enforced.
8. Do you have other law enforcement issues �n your neighborhood that you Would
like to see addressed?
The speeding of traffic. Drugs being made and sold near by. With children near by the
atmosphere for the children is scary.
Not by comparison to drugs or gang activity,
Residents car parked often in front of fire hydrant. Curb is not painted yellow which should be
painted but resident should know not to park here and is never ticketed. Speeding. Also,
children playing in the street. Bicyclists riding on wrong side of the road (sometimes adults), or
all over the road. Large trailers parked in street (for longer than a short period of time).
Clean up main street. Those old store fronts are a disgrace to the community. It discourages
people from visiting or moving to town. Why does that owner on the corner of River Street and
Bridge Avenue get by with that eye sore for so many years. Make him finish refurbishing that
place. Who wants to start a new business across the street when the dilapidated place scares
people away?
Kids behind the dike by river, parties, kids walking down the dike behind my house. No one
can see them.
Vandalism.
Speeding in residential areas.
Curfew time should be more enforced.
I feel my neighborhood is patrol regularly.
Speeding on Elm Avenue.
Kids our after curfew.
Not off hand, but something always happens.
Loud music at night (summer). Unleashed cats and dogs roaming about.
Speeding up and down Elm St.
Teenage driving and speeding in neighborhoods where there are a lot of children.
Pet control.
Parking tickets issued form Nov -Apr ordinance.
Elm avenue traffic.
3 0 mph zone on County Line Road from Hwy 12 to end of pavement should be 45 mph.
Cops that are rookies shouldn't try to be heroes but do their jobs to the fullest extent.
Drug use and sales in Delano City Park.
Barking dogs.
DARE programs w/children. More one-on-one contact w/public. Visibility!
Speeding, barking dogs, semis parking overnight in town in parking lots all night long
0*
9. Please rate your perception of the incidence of crime in Delano. I through 5 with
one beincy the highest.
How about one response?
Confusing. I feel crime in Delano is moderate. Why should I rate low or high?
Shouldn't we just check the one we feel applies?
Not sure.
Pace 4
0
Lawless snowmobilers; ban them from driving in Delano.
Keep control of drug selling and delinquent minors.
Speeding during hours students are going to and from school.
Snowmobilers driving through front vards.
Community safety — neighborhood watch.
More stop signs on residential streets.
Patrollincy for excessive speeding
Kids use our street as their play area.
Speeding and careless driving on Rucks Farm Road.
I think there should be a stop sign on corner of Maple and 2 d Street.
Burning rubbish, etc.
10.Please rate your perception of police services (nuisance pets, traffic complaints,
lock outs, permit violations, ordinance violations, suspicious activity, vandalism,
juvenile complaints). I through 4 with one the highest.
Always handled very well,
During "on-call" hours; however, if there is an incident hat occurs during the day, I do not feel
you can get here on time.
I I.Please prioritize the following list of City services as to the importance to your
family. I through 6 with one the highest.
Our street is terrible — Northwood Drive. No storm sewers where needed, Cracking/need repair.
It's all important.
Fire and police -- most important.
Never had to call.
There has always been a good response.
12.Do you have suggestions as to how police service can be improved in Delano?
Get more involved with young people in our community.
Teen drivers need to be monitored more. Drinking and driving — drinking and drugs at parties
especially those held after school functions.
Drugs are far too easy for children to buy. I believe marijuana is far more serious than popular
belief Dope destroys kids. The officers spend a lot of time at the fire station, perhaps they
could spend more time out on the sreets.
We need police to patrol more instead of sitting at the fire station.
Beef it up and accept that this is a growing area. The way the City was managed 15 years ago
does not work in 2000-200 1.
Try investigating a problem and not assuming that someone is in the wrong just because they
look suspicious. It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
No.
No.
Our children are out of school now and we both work out of town. I'm sure there are instances
of crime in Delano but we're not aware of it.
Even more patrol when youth are driving erratically during summer months.
C
Page 5
Not too long ago council member moved to cut the hours of patrolling done by Wright County.
Now you want to create the need for more protection with the ultimate goal of a City police
department. Crime is very low in Delano due to the size of the city. You want the city to get
big. All that does is bring up the crime levels. Seems all you have to do is keep being a small
town.
Stop spending my tax dollars on return postage. How could that money have been better spent9
A good citizen will gladly pay the postage. It is not yourjob, with our monay, to over
compensate for people who don't care. It would be interesting to see how many of these wee
sent out and how much money was wasted because of those who did not reply.
Community involvement. Neighborhood awareness and meetings"
Police should patrol Highway 12 & Bridge Avenue intersection. Not the bottom of Gilmer's
Hill (Co Rd '30 & the park). Everyone has a tendency to coast down the hill faster than 30 mph
and don't really harm anyone. The Highway 12 intersection has a red light speeder every ten
minutes. Police should make their presence knows and get out of the squad car. A policeman
on foot once in awhile would make some of Delano's delinquents at least not do their smokng
and loitering in public.
They should make themselves more visible and start pulling over the people that are speeding
down my street, at 45 — 50 mph when speed limit is 30. My children can't even ride their bikes
in front of their own house (River Street).
They patrol Maplewood Estate quite regularly. We love it.
Since my children have reached the age of reason, my need for police intervention has been
minimal. I feel strongly that a youth program for management of social activities and positive
direction would best benefit Delano.
Pull more peopte over for speeding on Elm.
I notice equipment to measure your speed is parked on Elm and it says limit is 30, but actually
where this is parked by the school entrance, I thought the limit was 20.
Need more police visibility.
I would really like to have a police officer in Delano and on duty 24 hours a day. I realize there
is not as much crime activity here as in our previous community, but I still want to feel safe at
all hours. I feel that at the rate we are growing (new housing developments and community
members) we need to be pro -active to our safety issues/concerns.
Delano should staff its own law enforcement. Other towns small than Delano have town cops.
Eleven hours of service is plenty. They need to spend more time out of the fire department
building and the public parking lots and spend more time patrolling for speeders and law
breaking. The high school parking lot needs a full time patrol in the morning and afternoon.
When kids come back from Buffalo, there should be someone patrolling from Buffalo to
Delano. The pedestrian crosswalks are never covered???? These are some things that should bo
looked at, not increasing the number of hours, but how time is spent.
I don't feel Delano needs to change its police protection to a local patrol.
No, I don't have behind the door information on how things work or what they may feel is more
important.
Even hours for business and home owners. We pay for the protection also.
More patrol at school dismissal and tickets issued not warnings. Anyone stopped should have
parking and driving on school property revoked.
Increased coverage.
Nope!
If we have a problem in Delano, why is it we don't know about it?
Page 6
Really need to watch our dead area hangouts, down dead end streets, walking the dikes, canoe
launch – great for people -with pets but scary w/teenagers, parks more lite up at night. Delano
parking lot at late ni ht, down by the tracks and lumber yard, back of strip mall, school area, not
9
school hours – from Janet Sandquist.
Police should cite people violating the law especially when it is done right in front of them. A
sidewalk should be put in so the town kids could walk on it and be safe from the unsafe drivers
(Elm Avenue)
Do their jobs—not parked behind bldgs. Visiting with other officers.
Be more visible—more one on one with the community. Be seen! Kids are to believe they can
get away with things because you seldom see an officer around.
Our own police dept.
No improvement needed.
Maybe a series of signs in some of the speeding traffic areas life – slow down (one sign),
children at play (another sign – 50 ft), They could be yours! (5 0 – 100 ft from previous sign).
Seem to be just fine.
Week -end survalence (sp?) near the bars at closing. Same or more security around the holidays.
Nope, things seem fine to me.
Our own dept!!!
I just moved into Delano –Would have to have more time to think about it.
Lectures at school on speeding through residential areas with a lot of children playing outside.
Delano needs to prepare itself for the future – growth expansion as well as influx access to
suburb s/m etropol itan area's expansion. Police services need to expand according to growing
needs. When will Delano acquire its own police dept (as a result)? Benefits of City of Delano
Police Department will soon outweigh costs if municipal growth is to continue. This will
provide outreach education/services as well as public safety. Volunteer lolice? Reserve police.)
Already stated in four, political football – Whatever came of survey done by police commission
10-15 years ago?
Could enforce snowbird ordinance more strictly.
I see a lot of Maple Plain Police in town. Can they do more for Delano? I know some do live
here.
Patrol the evening hours where most of the crimes involving minors and drugs start to occur.
Speed trap (control) on Cty Rd 30, between Cty Line Rd and Cty Rd 17 is great. Many people
drive too fast down this road where there are many pedestrians. I would like to see more of that.
Public awareness of how the Sheriff supports Delano. Response times, resolutions, etc.
Patrol more frequently.
I have lived here not quite 2 years and our contact ahs been very good.
The City of Delano needs to shred its coat of "cheapness."
Encourage community and family values.
Have our own police force.
[L:hII
MONTICELLO
mmm��
I Send to: Mike Robertson
Company: City of Otsego
Fax Number; -1
From:jeff O'Neill
Message:
Hi Mike
Fax
Senders initials, 4�
Cover Sheet
City of Mom Icello
��bfflj
I
Here is the report that you requested. Since 1995 things have gone fairly "ll and
there has been no further push for development of a local police department. However,
over the years we have added patrol hours and eventuall it may make sense to look at
this topic again,
Call if you have any questions.
Sheet 1 of many Irl, Date: Nov 15, 2001
AN.NALYZr*LN-G THE PROS A.ND CONS OF A POLICE FORCE
THE MON77CELLO POLICE COBZUSSION"S
COMPARISON STUDY OF COUNTY CONTRACTING
VS.
EST-Aj3LLsnLN,-G A LOCAL POLICE DEPART5MNT
MA-RCH 1995
Members of the Monticelio Police C�mmission,
Warren Sinith, Chairperson;
James Menjing, Vice Chalrpe�rson
David Gerads, Secretary
Liz Desmarais, Assistant See'retary
Brian Stumpf, City Council -Ptepresentative
The number one question asked of the Police Co
.regarding pubLic safety i's ==izsion and the City Council
-Why doesn't the City of MOE �ticeilo have a local Police
department?" The question is reaRy comprised of two specific allegations:
Wouldn't we be better off with OI= own force from bod� a publi
and an e a 8�al
ety
conomic s§Indixint? The factors of considerati�on in trying to answer
these implications are complex. In a major effort to UER our assignment to he an
advisory coramittee to the City Council, the Pohee Commission has undertaken a
Comprehensive study of these issues to anive at a de '
te��tion.
CO-N-MNTS
1. Brief historical background of the police contrac�_
2. Data froin other cities and counties in
demographics to Monticello. Mnnescta with comPazable
I
Some practical, politicaL and Philcsopbical consideratio= of police
protection,
4. Esti=te of start-up and continuing costs in'esta I blishing a city police
department.
5. Conclusions.
POLS7UDY.- a/17/95
Page 2
1. Brief hjst0ri,,,1 tract
In early 1971, the Monticello Village Council beg . am debating the possibility
Of switching to a contract with the Wright COumty SheriEs Department for
police coverage. Debate focused on four main considerations --cost,
equipment, co-verage, and traffic control. Th -e vMage had concerns about
controlling all foul of these factors. Final approval for the county contract
came latex in the year, and on October 1 the ne
w system became operative.
The cost of operating the city police department was $28,000 (in 1970). The
new 1972 county contract was set at $20,400.
At the time of the change, Monticello employed a polir
�e chief and one
officer. They were "in uniform 17 hours per day ... including the time it takes
them to complete paperwory, CNIonticello Times, August 12, 1971). The
new county coverage gave Monticello 16-18 hours of patrol time in two
shifts. For the first RZ year (1972), the contract ww fbr 5,840 hours.
Monticello was the third city to sign on with the �"CountY for police services.
The cities of Waverly and Cokato had be, ontracts with the County in
1970 -
The original county contract was renewed acraiu january 1, 1972, and has
0 1
been continually renewed since then by succeeding City Councils.
0
CHART ON CON -TRACT EUStORY
Year Amount Ho-uxs
1972
$3.65
5'8�0
1976
6.00
6,564
1977
7.25
6,5 1
1978
9.00
6,504
1979
10.50
6,504
1980
11.50
6,50 1 4
1981
12.50
6,5014
1982
13.25
6,50.4
1983
15.52
6,564
1984
16.50
6,901�5
1985
17.00
6,90 Z
1986
18.00
1
6,9Q5
1987
18.50
6,905
1988
19.50
6,96,5
1989
19.75
6,90 5
1990
20.50
6190Z
1991
23.50
7,3k
'1992
26.00
7,3211
1993
28.50
9,1716
1994
30-50
9,17 6
1995
32.00
9,116
POLSTUDY: ;YI7195
Pags 3
Data from other cities and c
demo raphics to jNfo-:a--ticeUo.
In order to look at the cost of runnina-
, a city polmice department, the police
C"missiOn chose to study our two nearest neighhors (Buff�jo and Bi�,
Lake) and at least one other city of similar size :(Waite park). In addition,
we wanted to sEe how other similar county sher�ff departments cora
cOstwise to t1ae services cffered b Wright Coun I pared
y �Y- For that we received
data from Anoka and Carver Counties. (Infornation, was also received frora
Sherbume County-, hut because Sherbu--ne Cou�tY Only Provides a contr=t
with one sinall city, it doesn't appear to offer much for Comparison sake.)
The following, charts present the information th� I it was gathered- In the
categories that list ite=:dzed expenses, it was difficult to"determine whether
1. apples were being compared to apples." NVUe lihe Police Commission spent
a great deal of time discussing the validity of specific expenses, it was
(renerally agreed that the bottom line "total expenditures" represents
0
reasonably accurate figures with which to make:'Comparizons.
I
One Particular line ite= was analyzed in detail,, and that was whether fine
money has a significant impact an lowering a�i� net operating costs of a
Police department. Right now, under the county contract, the city of
Monticello gets no money &o= fines, nor does the City Pay any expenses for
prosecution. In reviewing the information from �cther surrounding
Communities, it appears that, generally speaking, the fine monies generated
are offset by the legal cost of prosecuting the offenses. For ex
I amPle, the
City of Buffalo estimates it will generate'. $26 , 500 in fine revenue, but it
expects to spend $20,000 in court/progecution/le ial costs. The net result is
not a large revenue source for the City of Buffalp ($6,500) in compaxison to
their overall budget. Likewise, the City of Waite Park expects to collect
$56,000 in fines but will spend $42,000 in legal �ees,
Generally speaking, it does not appear that bme� money by itself can be used
as a substantial source of revenue to offset operating cost because legal fees
absorb most of the revenue generated.
In analyzing the fine money that is currently be . �ng generated in the city of
Monticello that is returned to the County, we are averaging approximately
$25,000 in revenue. If this is an accurate reflection of what we could expect
with our own police department, then it also could be assumed our legal
expenses to obtain this revenue would likewise be $20,000 or more.
It should be noted that the annual police budget's for those communities
with their own departments do not include any costs for general
administration by city hall.
POLSTUDY: 3/17/95
Page 4
,When cOmParing contracting versus a city department, some other
noilvisual" behind -the -scenes activities should be kept in mind, in,cludi-cg:
a) investigators for difficult crimes
b) backup for emergencies
c) additional patrols for special events
d) administration and secretarial services
e) union grievances
f) DA -R -E. (Drug Awareness Resistance Education)
9) Liability concerns
h) training
This study makes its comparisonz based upon th, e 9,176 Patrol hours the
City of Monticello has in its cu=ent contract, The Police Commission
assi,-rn d that the City would want to continue operating with 9,176 hours of
patrol coverage. The above list Points out that there are significant factors
iavolved in police services above and beyond pat�ol tirae. The result would
be that additional employees would be needed in' order for a city police
department to Traintain the current levels of services offered by the county
contract.
POLSTUDY: 3/17/95
Page 5
CITY OPERATED
POLICE DEPARTMENT
COST COMPARISON SUMMARIES
1994 Budget
q-- J 8 u ff a I a Si Lake
fS
01RECT EXPE "ES ��L ak, e
Estim, ated 3nnual -Patrcl"hcurs
13,440 9,080
1) Personnel
a) P011ce chief, Patrclmen, etc.
1q;2in �.—akdown
2) Benefits
— b)
Clcthirg allowance
C)
Ofhgr - trmi,,;m�
3) EqUipment
S16,750
New vehicle(s) ariC/cr annual decrec.
$25,000
c=
GaS, oil, maintenance
—C)
Insurarice (,vehicle & general liability)
d)
Other 2LL—
e)
Office NOP - COMOLters. tymwriters, etc.
4) Office/Suilding Costs
a) Rem or building costs
Utilities, heat. phone
c) SY00lies - QfficG Gxpei
I miscel
laneous
CCLrt/PrcsemAnrj1 wmi t-,
TOTAL EXPENCIrMFIES
POLSTMY: 3/17/95
9'ecc
I . ( I -LC-
(=nrac-)
9,176
@ ac-"
$402,736 S1 8:Z'600 $273,875 1 S279,a(58
$75,114
S44,000
$17,000
S86,4C4
S16,750
S34,411
$25,000
$ S6,5()o
6,500
$2,350
S23,000
$01
fT—n
.0
�—�910no
$17,000
S11,0C I
S16,750
S34,411
$25,000
$ S6,5()o
6,500
$2,350
S23,000
2201
_§7
$2,OCO $2,60C $5,908
$15,250 55,1 cc 1 $1 60
S21,450
$633,111 7$314,ST2()
0 3t4 7 �StAz a $279,868
tdow not fpci
Page Sa
!REVENUES
1_)State aid
2) a) Ccun firiq-,
b) PaArq fires
3) Cth8r - miscellaneous
a) Train I na ccsts reirrIbLrsement
---*) �Izlllll
b) PolicL, reccrts (ccoiss)
C) scecial Pclice services
d) Ct]�Ier. Dare Procrarn,
revenue, etc.
ANNUAL NET OPERAMING COSTS (19S4)
DATA -NUMBER
Chief
Sorgeant(s)
Investigator(s)
Patrolmen - F -r
Patrolmen - PT
Secretary(s)
POLST=Y: 3/17/95
Suffalo Bi Lake
C. U U.�,'_L s2o.occ.
$215,000 $50,occ
$1,500 $500
$2,500
$50C 7,7
S CO
HZCELZ!�l
Sl 5,OCO $4,SCO
S2. C C 0
FLOYEES
7 3/� 711
1 1/4
_7F;12 8
I
(ccnEr2cl
Z I
'its P3rk Mcriftellc
'At- Z
LS32.70C S24,CCC
szo, -0
4_�G
-�C)j
S;6. 3 E 0
$2,300,
0
0
1
(9176 hrs ,a
Page 5b
3. Some 'nrAr-fJf-nI 1,�144-; cal. and Philosoohi
r)oiice departxnent. aL2onsi
I
I
fky--Practical consideratioas included start-up costs in organizing a new
i
department and budgeting; forming a committee to determine procedures in
establishing a new police department, as well asi a departmental operating
manual; making decisions on how large the local force would be; siting an
office; drafting an operating budget; purchasing� equipment t7
supplies, uniforms, etc-; setting police coverage, cars, radios,
�conducting background
checks, liabffity questions, and arranging for the prosecution process.
Countv--T-hese things are in place.
There are two sigr1ificant Political consideratioa to be addressed. The first
is, does having a local force improve public's t
CZe�'� SeconcIlY, is having a
Police chief directly answerable to the City raore or less
advantageous to the communit
y's benefit?
One Drimary political problem the Police Colnm�ssion discussed at length
was whether or not puhlic safety is i=proved be,cause ho
I Metown officers are
familiar faces to local residents and business owners. Strange faces make
us wary-, unfamiliar faces wearing police uniforx4ls can make us
uncomfortable. It goes without saying that familiarity adds a degree of
comfort. How important is this to public safety7 It seems to be a matter of
degrees. Cold and distant officers—ao matter w�o they represent—put
people off. Overly -Friendly deputies run the risi of becoming non-objective.
The major point in favor of having local police 1�1 that citizens feel that the
force is a part of the community, not an outsider entity that comes in to
enforce the laws. However, it should be noted that it is the taxpayers that
if own" either of the two systems being discussed�here—city or county.
I
On the subject of familiarity, Wright County Shlriff Donald Hozempa,
several years ago, responded directly to -Monticello's concern by initializing a
Policy that officers patrolling the streets of Mont�cello consider it a longer-
term position. Currently, the plan is to rotate deputies in and out of
Monticello on a regular, longer-term basis to ha�e a sizable group of officers
familiar with the needs and geographies of the �ommunity.
I
If Monticello were to hire a new police chief and deputies, chances are cr od
that these people would come from outside of Molnticello; hence, the poi -not of
familiarity would be negated. Also, in any depa I rtment, city or county, there
Will always be turnover, as deputies (and officer�'s) come and go. It's also
possible a city police department could become a' "training ground" for
deputies that stay for a short while and then m love on to bigger
departments. Another factor is growth. As a ciiY's Population base
increases, individual identities become less fami&r, Rather than being
concerned that officers of the law are recogniza*e to local citizens, it is
more important that deputies on patrol are fan#liar with the city.
POLSTUDY: 3/17/95
Page 6
10
-9
r . I L I I C
I
One Potential advantage that a local police foro I may generate is the ability
of the longer-term patrol officers to establish contacts and informants
within a community. Discussions with area p4ce chiefs that the
commission surveyed indicated that they did fina this to be beneficial in
their COIrmnnities by allowing their patrolmen �o obtain information for
helping and solving some crimes from informan6. This is not to say this
isn't being accomplished through our Current co�tracting arrangement;
however, it is perhaps more likely that a long-term in1brmant type
relationship would be established with a local pol lice department.
From a logistic standpoint, a local police department would Pnvide our
citizens with easier access to Mes and records s,�'ch as crime reports and
accident reports that are now obtainable OnlY through the sheriffs office in
Raffalo. While the commission members ha�e nbt �eceived any complaints
regarding the current access to this information, it only stands to reason
that a local police station in Monticello would probably be more accessible
by our citizens than making a trip to the county' courthouse.
Is it better to have a police chief directly answerable to the Council
Coulacil—or an independent county sheriff in chixge of enforcing the laws?
This is a subjective political question that cannoi be answered with
statistics. it is possible that a police chief wM try to keep a city council
happy with his or her performance by telling them things they want to
hear; hence, the risk Of politics influencing iusti�e. The county system
places police work beyond those particular politics; yet, there is no system
that eliminates politics completely. Under the P!resent county system, the
City is not without a voice because the City is PiYing the bill and, therefore,
has direct input into public safety matters. Ind�ed, the establishment of
this Police Commission was to =eate improved dommunication and broader
understanding between the County and the City, The track record of 24
years has been exemplary. There have been no major disagreements
between the City Council and the Sherifrs Dep"ent, and the County has
always responded to the Cit-
�s needs, working t6gether to fbrtge solutions to
public safety problems.
in-establishinL, a
Beyond comparing operatin- costs of different ;
t3l S*stems, a sigMffiCant factor
in analyzing whether it would be feasible to revert back to a city polim
department is the start-up costs involvecL Obvi6us items would include
Purchasing automobiles, radios, radar equipment, guns; telephones,
computers, furniture, office equipment, and otheIr normal supplies for the
department personnel. While much of this cost 'Would be a one-time
expense, the arn unt would be substantial. it is! estimated that the cost of
Purchasing and equipping five patrol cars (which would be the bare
minimum of cars needed) would be well over $160,000.
POLSTUDY: 3/17/95
Page 7
r. 1,:f/j,-
Dispatching costs were not Considered to be a st��_up factor because under
current conditions, all dispatchina. is handled by:�the County for both City
depart=ents and County contra;L
Another significant concern is space. The establi-shment of a local police
department would Likely result in the City building or acquiring additional
space for the Police department. Current government facilities would not
appear to have sufficient space for a police department- Either city ha.0
would need to be expanded, or a separate facility would have to be rented or
Purchased- Although the cost is unk=wn, it wo�ld probably add hundreds
of thousands of dollars to the initial s
Police departme7at. t-Ilt-uP cosi if a facility was built for a
In addition to start-up cost, it can be anticipated'that annual operating
expenses will be comparable to a city the size of ��
Waite Park, which would
acid more than $jo0,0()0 to the Present contract. �
Conclusions.
NO system employed by the City Council is going� to eliminate Crime, stop
speeding, and guarantee complete public safe s a fact of life. The
--when wei
question before us is about degrees tY. thae
ghing the factors Of cost and
effectiveness, what is the best system for the best price to fight crime,
loaonitor traffic, and ensure public safety in Mon#cello? UPon examining
and considering the information available to us �he Monticello Police
COmrrdsaion makes the B0110wing statements: ' ;
1. The present system of contracting for Polici
6 services with the Wright
County Sheriffs Department is dearly th '
0 most cost-effective means
available to the City Of Monticello for providing public safety_
2. The hopes of the 1971 Vifflage Coundi
-tha� switching, from a local
police force to the county system would Imp'rove efFectiveness and
lower overall costs -have been crene
Of over two decades. rally co�firmed by the track record
I
Not only is the county system a more cost-, 4fective system for law
enforceinent tham a local Police deparbmen�, but Wright CounWs
rates are competitive 'when compared to similar neighboring county
systems. I
4. At the Present time, all things considered, �ere are no CoInpeIling
reasons for the City of iNjonticello to consider establishing a local
Police department. I
POLSTUDY: a/iv95
Page 8
COST COMPARISON OF CONTRACTED sEI4 I YICES
FOR POLICE PROTECTION
1994
(24-HOUR DAILY COVERAGE)
Anoka Sherburne
Hourly Cost
$34/hr
$24
Cifies Servicecl
7Harn Lake
= L-
Zmmerman
11 Co rJrnunites
E�. Sethel
only
Andover
Examples:
(1) Other
Chanhassen
Chaska
Norw,ccd
Young Arn edca
Vi�rcria
I
Wat�rtcwn
Callogne
Harilburg
Mayer
Wa6cnia
Lak� Twc)
NC TE., Anoka and Carver Counges may ailow SOmL
, of their
contrac,,
Wles to keSP sOm8 Of the fine dcil,?r revenue. butorOsecution costs '
aia also
th'? r"OSPcf7sibilitY Of the community.
POLSTUDY; 3/17/95
r- . Z;/ L C
Wright
$30.50
Monticello
Albemille
Clearwater
Cckato
Delano
Franidort
Hanover
Maple Lake
Montrose
ctsego
RacMord
SL Michael
South Haven
Page Sc
P. 4 - �2-
Wayne Becker
13580 70th St. NE
Otsego, MN 55330
Home Phone: 763-441-5659
Work Phone: 763-494- 1907
February 22, 2002
LarryFournier
Mayor, City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Ave. NE
Otsego, MN 55330
Dear Sir:
I am writing to complain about the recent snowplowing service of the street on which I live After the Feb.
9 snowfall, 70th St. was adequately plowed on Sunday, Feb. 10. On Monday, Feb. 11, it was plowed again even
though there was very little snow remaining on the road and the weather forecast called for an extended warm
period. Not only do I think that the second plowing was unnecessary, but a substantial amount of gravel was
plowed onto my lawn. It appears that the person who plowed the road that day actually lowered the blade in
front of my house and continued to leave it that way until he was beyond my mother's yard down the street.
11iis is the second time this Winter that this has happened. The first time, I raked it up and threw it back on
the road. As you can imagine, the gravel is wet and heavy and very hard to clean out of the grass.
I can understand that a certain amount of gravel gets thrown onto the lawn throughout the year, but this
was beyond normal and could have been prevented. In some places the row of gravel is over six inches high
and two feet wide over a considerable length of my lawn. I would much rather have a little extra snow on the
road in front of my house than all of that gravel in the yard.
I invite you to drive down 70th St. to the West of Cty. Rd. 37 after the snow melts and look at the amount
of gravel in everyone's yards. Especially in front of both my house and my mother's farm yard. I'm sure you
will agree that this is beyond ordinary and purely due to carelessness or lack of attention or experience. I've
always been able to clean up my lawn every Spring and since my mother is not able, I've always done her yard
too. I do not feel that I should have to clean this up this year since I don't have the equipment nor the time to
move such large amounts of gravel. I'm also concerned that I will damage my lawn in the process.
Please communicate my concerns to the city maintenance staff in hopes of preventing this from
happening again. I would also appreciate a response to this letter from you either by phone or in writing.
Sincerely,
Wayne Becker
February 27th, 2002
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Ave. NE
Otsego, Mn. 55330
Attn: Mayor Larry Fournier,
City Planner, Daniel Lich,
& City Council Members
Dear Sirs & City Council Members,
We are writing this letter in regards to the Public Hearing held on 2/12/02 in which we
attended. This Public Hearing was in regards to the Water & Sewer Sanitation expansion.
We feel Daniel Lich and Ron Wagner's presentation on the sewer expansion was very
informative and well organized.
After hearing the need for sewer and water at Riverwood Inn & Conference Center and also
for the Greninger properties, we would be interesed in sharing part of the costs of extending the
sewer and , water lines to make it more cost cffective for all parties involved. With the help of the
City of Otsego, we would ask you to allow development of our properties.
Thank You for your time, we will contact Mayor Larry Fournier in the near future to discuss
this matter with him and to hear your thoughts and concerns.
(2� -
- t �11
V
Sincerely,
ZSaw-
1-0-�
Memo
TO: Otsego City Council
From: Andy MacArthur
CC: Judy Hudson, C Clerk
Date:03/08/02
Re: Hazard Mitigation Grant
As a follow-up to information previously submitted to the City Council
regarding the Hazard Mitigation Grant program, I spoke with Brian Wolf of the
State office to get further information regarding the program. I spoke with Mr.
Woltz for about an hour today and received the following information.
1. The program currently has about 5 million dollars available for flood relief
grants. Mr. Woltz indicated that the office was not overflowing with
applications at this time and that the City would have a pretty good chance at
the funds if the houses in question qualified.
2. He indicated that the typical project proposed by a City involves more than
one house, and usually several. He has no problem with processing grants for
one house at a time, but the City should be aware that these applications will
be processed in future funding cycles and there is no guarantee that the
program will be funded at that time.
3. At this time grant applications have been received from the cities of
Montevideo, Wabasha, Austin, Spring Valley and Mower County among
others. Most include a number of homes, for instance Montevideo has applied
for acquisition of four properties.
0 Page 1
4. If a property is damaged to more than 50% of its value, it will automatically
qualify. If the property is not damaged to that extent, a cost benefit analysis is
done. The cost benefit damage relates to the ongoing damage to the property
related to future federal payments to fix the problem. It appears that the
properties in this area would be subject to a cost benefit determination.
5. The initial material submitted would include property owner narratives
regarding flooding and ongoing damage to the property, and any amounts
expended as a result of the damage. A formal appraisal is not required initially,
W some proof of fair market value would have to be submitted. Public safety
is more interested in the flood history and elevation of the property.
6. The grant is administered by FEIVIA and the State of Minnesota is the
grantee. The City would be a sub -grantee. Woltz indicated that the time -
period for action on the grant would range from two months to a year since the
grant has to be processed by FEMA.
7. The open space left after acquisition is subject to restrictions imposed by
both the State and by FEMA, see attached. It appears that these restrictions
are generally consistent with the City's plan for the property and would be
consistent with the use of park and trail funds.
It appears that the most efficient wayto approach this process would be to
attempt to get other homes to apply this year, if possible. Prior to actual
acquisition of the property, it appears that all information necessary for the
application could be cheaply and efficiently gathered and put together by City
staff. In the event that the application is approved, included in the federal
share is 75% of the cost of City Administration, defined as 3% of the project
cost.
I will be available to further discuss this matter at the City Council meeting on
Monday.
0 Page 2
w I . I
Akabol &
GaMbNAW
Ektrcau c4
. Qif� -
AppnOmsion
Reawnse
Fka
FAMrst)w
rotikV6 Safety
Stats paw
'frame SQ%TY
Division of Emerg�-,ncy Managei-nent
En-tergency Response Cornrinigs'ion
4" Cedar S &%L Suite 223, St. Paul, Mi nesta 55 101-622g
Ptw": 6,5V2913-2233 FA>L- C51.2-96-0459 TTY- 65 W82-655 5
InCOMOK'fattP;�IYY,vywAlps.stat&tnn.us
1-1 . FAX COVER SHEET
TO:
FAX ZX
FROM.
JDAT)K:
RE:
PAGES SEINT qNCLUDING- Turs PAGE)
L- L I-,, P I i -
N.
T14 &MMUKS) UOOMPaftying f3b COM ShOd nuy c"tmiq ooM55MW infagmsem is legany prGWA&
The iufmwAdon is kkvJW 00br for tho nn of tho bgftdcd rodpicat =mod kovt lf�w = not tcjnlpu�
rmpimt. Ym am hcreby Dotified dLak my disd=nr, cqTxt& dsta�aa of wizing of Nay octim in R46-COCC
to 16 cvukutv qf d1b kkcop'W k"SUMSE04 �.Yyou is Arkdy polaita Ifyou $xw rcaiYod k4 frK im
ft-mr, pkxc notify w ja=cdjW4 by tcIc#*m Jo xruge rchua of Iho dgc=�Qj to m
MAL OPPORTUNIry EMPLOYER
I
11". 1 i1ju I . I
PHA5E IV Open Spcice Moiagement
CHAPTER I — OPEN SPACE USE
QUESTIONS A ANSWERS
How MAY WE USE OUR OPEN SPACE?
For the most part, you can use your newly acquired open space however
your community wants to use it, as long as you maintain it as open space.
Examples include:
27 1 FA 71 "M - I N T "IrM, T
13 Greenway
U Recreat�ional area for athletic fields, hunting and fishing areas, trails,
etc.
C3 Campground (provided adequate warning and evacuation time exists)
Q Community farm or garden
0 Wildlife refuge
U Bird samtuwy
C3 Environmental and ecolog[cal education center
As you can see, your newly acquired open space can be used in many
ways. Usually, you can combine uses. For example, ycu can restore
property to wetlands and e5tablish an educational center where people
can learn about the impact of wetlands on the environn-ent and ecosys-
tem, You can establish a greenway with a trail that leads to an existing
park or historic site. You can developa recreational area complete with
baseball and soccer fields and playgrounds. You can establish a camp-
ground complete with fishing areas, hiking trails, and canoeing. The
Tool rv- I possibilities are endless. Tool IV -1 identifies some �asic open space
uses, and the pros and cons of each.
After clearing the land, all subsequent costs incurred related to it; use, or
non-USe, are the community's responsibility. Those costs are not part of
lxoject COB.
October 1998 IV -3
�1116'1 I ri V. I J I I�F. ` --
Open 5pace M&=ernP_r1
PHASE I V
WHAT 3:5 PROHISMO ON OPEN 5PAcE?
Generally, odevelopmentm of any type is pro*hibited if it:
0 Alters the area's natural appearance (e.g., removes natural veSetation)
11 ImPedes the area% ability to convey flood flows (including building
fences that might trap debris)
U Reduces the arears caPacitY to StO(e R00dwater5 (e.g., paving)
13 Increases downstream velocities
0 Restricts access into and out of the area
In addition, commercial inventory storage (e.g., automobiles) and
cemeteries are Prohibited.
HowCAN OPEN SPACE BENEPIT MY
COMMUNM?
OPP-n spacecon contribute to your community's
economic well-being.
Prop" values tend to increase in areas adjacent to open space, which
increases the tax base, In addition, statistics show that pecpie are &pend-
ing more money on racreatioral activi�es, which can lead to related jobs
TV -4
October 1998
4
C
C
) c
c
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C