12-27-95 CCCouncilmember Black introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-43
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1995 ADOPTED GENERAL FUND BUDGET
WHEREAS, in conformance with generally accepted accounting practices, it is
appropriate to amend the General Fund budget for adjustments to the originally adopted
budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Otsego City Council that the
1995 General Fund Operating Budget be amended as follows:
REVENUES
ADOPTED
AMENDED
Property Taxes
$ 603,560
$ 610,000
Business Licenses & Permits
10,000
5,000
Non -Business Licenses & Permits
60,000
39,700
Intergovernmental
297,891
292,296
Charges for Service
20,000
33,225
Rentals
24,300
23,300
Miscellaneous
43.000
23.609
$1,058,751
$1,027,299
APPROPRIATIONS
ADOPTED
AMENDED
Mayor and City Council
$ 36,000
$ 40,600
Administration
179,820
186,120
Finance
38,200
57,509
Assessing
15,000
14,076
Legal
40,000
62,500
Planning Commission
3,600
3,200
Planner
60,000
49,000
EDA
20,000
8,499
City Hall & Peavey House
71,500
71,710
Police
100,000
93,500
Building Inspection
20,000
21,000
Engineering
40,000
52,000
Street Lighting
10,000
10,000
Street Maintenance
359,025
235,307
Recycling
28,000
32,000
Community Recreation
13,000
13,000
Park Maintenance
13,000
9,813
Capital Outlay
_5.000
3,765
$1,052,145
$ 963,599
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Ackerman and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Mayor Freske, Councilmembers Black, Heidner, and Ackerman,
and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was passed
this 27th day of December, 1995.
40 A *5r
Normanreske, ayor
Cad -4 --3
ATTEST:
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Admj .
Councilmember Black introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-44
RESOLUTION CLOSING THE ROAD & BRIDGE FUND
AND TRANSFERRING RESIDUAL EQUITY TO THE
GENERAL FUND EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 1995
WHEREAS, in conformance with generally accepted accounting practices, it is
appropriate to have a limited number of funds created only as necessary for appropriate
fund accounting and,
WHEREAS, the Road and Bridge Fund and the General Fund are both general
operating funds receiving a major portion of their revenues from property taxes and,
WHEREAS, the City's auditing firm, Abdo, Abdo and Eick has recommended that
the City combine the Road and Bridge Fund with the General Fund for accounting
purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Otsego City Council that the
Road and Bridge Fund will be closed as of December 31, 1995 and the residual equity will
be transferred to the General Fund.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Ackerman and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Mayor Freske, Councilmembers Black, Heidner, and Ackerman,
and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was passed
this 27th day of December, 1995.
ATTEST:
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Ad in.
M- .. �4%00% !2C-zW.41L
Norman . reske, Mayor
William S. Radzwill
:drew J. MacArthur
..Aichael C. Court
December 20, 1995
City
City
C/o
8899
Elk
Council Members
RADZWILL & CO UPJ
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
of Otsego
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
Nashua Avenue NE
River, MN 55330
RE: Home Extended Business ordinance Review
Dear Council Members:
D
DEG 2
At your request, and pursuant to the attached portion of the
Minutes of the City Council meeting of November 27, 1995, please
find my comments regarding the proposed Home Extended Business
Ordinance. I have addressed both those issues which I was directly
asked to comment on, as well as secondary issues which have arisen
in my review of the proposal and which I feel need to be addressed
prior to final passage.
1. Suggested modifications relative to Accessory Buildings:
A. Section 20-29-4, Criteria Section, should be divided into
separate criteria for Agriculturally zoned areas and for
Residentially zoned areas. Generally the same criteria would be
listed except that the criteria would stay as listed in the
proposed version of the Ordinance in the Agricultural areas, and
would be changed, as follows, within the Residential areas to
indicate that accessory building use is not permitted.
My review of these sections also raises a few questions. Is it
intended that all areas presently zoned Agricultural be allowed to
use accessory buildings, even if the character of the area is
essentially residential? For instance, Mississippi-Riverwood is
zoned Agricultural, and certain other areas of the City have
substantial residential properties in close proximity to each other
yet are still zoned Agricultural. Is it intended that the right to
use accessory buildings be correlated with the zoning of the
Letter to Otsego City Council
December 20, 1995
Page 2
property or the use of the property? I would also note that
Properly
of the criteria, specifically h, do not appear
correlate with Agricultural uses.
B. Section 20-29-4, a should be changed to read as follows:
"The occupation shall be carried on entirely within the dwelling
unit and garage. No occupation, or related activities shall take
place within an accessory building as defined in this Chapter."
C. Section 20-29-4, 1 should be changed to read as follows (in
regards to Residential areas): "Permitted Home Extended Businesses
may use for business purposes, a cumulative amount of square
footage of a single garage, either detached or attached, not to
exceed the square footage allowed under Section 20-16-4 of this
Chapter, regardless of the total area of all existing detached and
detached garages located on the property. Additionally, attached or
detached garages must allow a minimum of 200 square feet for the
inside storage of at least one passenger vehicle."
2. Section 20-29-5 should be changed to reference both Section 4
and 35 of the zoning code. The definition of both Home Extended
Business and Special Home Extended Business need to be included in
the definition portion of the Zoning Ordinance. A new definition
must be developed since the present definition of a Home Extended
Business references Home Occupations which will be deleted from the
Ordinance upon passage of this proposed ordinance and repealer.
I would note that the Memorandum from the EDAAC dated October 18,
1995, Page 2,4 refers to a definition of a Permitted Home Extended
Business. I do not find this definition anywhere within the
proposed ordinance. I believe it is crucial that a definition for
this term be contained either within the proposed Section 28 or
within the general Definition section of the zoning ordinance.
As presently written, there are no criteria establishing an upper
limit to what constitutes a Special Home Extended Business. The
ordinance only indicates that it is any business that exceeds the
criteria for Permitted Home Extended Businesses. That means that
the proposed business, if approved, could exceed one or all of the
established criteria for a Permitted Home Extended Businesses.
While any such request must go through the established criteria for
an Interim Use Permit .(which corresponds to the criteria for a
Conditional Use Permit) it would be more helpful if some standards
were set forth within the ordinance indicating what size of
business would not be considered.
For example, should the City be wasting its and the applicant's
time processing an application for a Special Home Extended Business
which would have ten employees? Under the present definition of
Special Home Extended Business such a proposal is possible as long
Letter to Otsego City Council
December 20, 1995
Page 3
as the activities do not fall within "Prohibited Activities", since
the number of employees is merely one of the criteria set forth for
a Permitted Home Extended Business.
The above are my suggested changes and some issues that may need
discussion before they can be ironed out. In order to be properly
passed the Ordinance needs to be put in proper form. It needs to be
in the form of one Ordinance Amendment repealing and reserving
Section 28, amending Section 29 to the proposed ordinance with
appropriate changes and amending the Definition section, as well as
any Sections affected due to cross references.
It has been brought to my attention by the Planner that there are
several references to Home Extended Businesses throughout the texz
of the Zoning Ordinance. All of these references, which exist in
the text regarding many districts, would have to be correlated with
the.new definition and process.
In my opinion, the issues I have raised above need to be addressed
prior to any final Council action on this matter. The Ordinance
Amendment and Repealer also needs to be put in proper form. If it
is the intent of the Council to approve the proposed ordinance it
should also consider drafting a summary for publication, since the
proposed text and the additional necessary changes will probably
take up substantial space.
Is it possible that the Council's intent could be more directly
addressed by appropriate amendments to the existing ordinances,
rather than wholesale repeal and amendment?
If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me.
very truly yours,
A
J acAr hur
ew ��
RADZWILL & COURI
Encls.
cc: Bob Kirmis, NAC
Otsego EDAAC
Larry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson
Otsego City Council Meeting of November 27, 1995, cont'd. Page 4.
The Council further discussed they would be in favor of another employee for the home
occupations but businesses would not be allowed in the detached accessory buildings.
Some Councilmembers expressed concern allowing businesses in accessory buildings in
the residential areas.
CM Fournier motioned to support the concept of the proposed Amendment of
Home Extended Business Ordinance and send it to the City Attorney for a thorough
review and include any amendments the Mayor or Council members might have.
Seconded by CM Heidner.
All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
(Discussion occurred between the motion being made and the actual vote)
Discussion: CM Black was concerned with the comment from the Business Database
Intern Report regarding the lack of trust business owners have in the government. With
this amendment, he feels the City would be implementing a set of rules to allow a
representative from City Hall to go into homes and inspect, which would increase the lack
of trust. Also he has a concern of turning a residential area into a commercial area. CM
Heidner pointed out that the current ordinance provides for right of inspection. Mayor
Freske objected to businesses operating out of detached accessory buildings stating it is
this type of operation that causes the most complaints on junk and blight and costs of
enforcement are high. Mayor Freske agreed with the one additional employee for the
home occupation. CM Ackerman stated she feels an accessory building is on the owner's
property and owner should be able to do what they want. Mayor Freske said they are
referring to only residential and not AG.
CM Black motioned to amend the previous motion that the only modification to the
Home Occupation and Home Extended Ordinance is to allow one employee so long
as business is only contained in the home and attached garage and not accessory
buildings. Seconded by Mayor Freske.
VOTING FOR: Mayor Freske, CM Black, CM Heidner
VOTING AGAINST: CM Ackerman, CM Fournier
Motion carried three to two.
(Discussion occurred between the motion being made and the actual vote)
Discussion: CM Heidner was concerned with the definition of accessory building since a
lot of people don't have attached garages.
CM Fournier asked for a point of clarification on the amended motion. CM Black replied
his amended motion was to take this recommendation and the only changes were to keep
the one additional employee for the home occupation but to delete all references to
accessory buildings and to keep the home business under the one ordinance.
CM Heidner confirmed that motion is to use the draft ordinance the EDAAC prepared.
Bob Kirmis stated he thought it would be easier to work off the existing ordinance and
asked if this includes the AG area. Mayor Freske and CM Black replied the intent is just
for the residential area.
Otsego City Council Meeting of November 27, 1995, cont'd. Page 5.
CM Heidner stated the City Attorney will review this and Council will vote on it later and
this will not have to go through a Public Hearing. Mr. MacArthur replied that is correct,
he is to review it and remove accessory building reference for only the residential area.
CM Ackerman stated concern for the residents that do not have attached garages.
CM Black stated for clarification what we want is one home ordinance section and
whatever has been permitted in the current AG Zone is to continue. For the Residential
Zone area, the business can secure one employee outside of family but can't operate the
business in their detached accessory building.
Andy MacArthur briefly went over the Resolution and Interim Ordinance. Mr. MacArthur
informed the Council that according to the Attorney General's Office, this does not require
a 4/5 vote from council to pass.
CM Fournier clarified the Planning Commission's vote, saying it was unanimous rather
than four to one. Elaine Beatty verified that Carl Swenson called her and stated his vote
was intended to vote for the motion.
CM Ackerman stated she will vote against the moratorium since it takes the MPCA four
months to process a permit, which is adequate time for the City to review their ordinance.
CM Fournier stated moratoriums in the past have not produced results, prolonging the
process and creating hardships for residents. He feels this would be no exception. CM
Fournier stated this moratorium would not solve the problems with existing ordinance and
feels will hinder farmers from adding 20 or 30 cows to current operation. He supports the
appointment of a Citizens Committee and receive a recommendation from them.
CM Heidner stated he supports the moratorium but for no longer than six months and
with a limit of animal units.
Mayor Freske stated he supports the moratorium and agreed with the six month period
since this can't be prolonged. Mayor Freske expressed that rules need to be put in place.
CM Black supports the moratorium which he believes is the only legal way the City can
take the opportunity to come up with any changes. He agreed with the six month period
with the number of 300 animal units.
• .�•��11041 Row. owsw§TXNIMI
1EDIETRWO
Andy MacArthur briefly went over the Resolution and Interim Ordinance. Mr. MacArthur
informed the Council that according to the Attorney General's Office, this does not require
a 4/5 vote from council to pass.
CM Fournier clarified the Planning Commission's vote, saying it was unanimous rather
than four to one. Elaine Beatty verified that Carl Swenson called her and stated his vote
was intended to vote for the motion.
CM Ackerman stated she will vote against the moratorium since it takes the MPCA four
months to process a permit, which is adequate time for the City to review their ordinance.
CM Fournier stated moratoriums in the past have not produced results, prolonging the
process and creating hardships for residents. He feels this would be no exception. CM
Fournier stated this moratorium would not solve the problems with existing ordinance and
feels will hinder farmers from adding 20 or 30 cows to current operation. He supports the
appointment of a Citizens Committee and receive a recommendation from them.
CM Heidner stated he supports the moratorium but for no longer than six months and
with a limit of animal units.
Mayor Freske stated he supports the moratorium and agreed with the six month period
since this can't be prolonged. Mayor Freske expressed that rules need to be put in place.
CM Black supports the moratorium which he believes is the only legal way the City can
take the opportunity to come up with any changes. He agreed with the six month period
with the number of 300 animal units.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
Mayor & City Council
Elaine Beatty
Larry Koshak
Andy MacArthur
David Licht & Bob Kirmis
Judy Hudson
Phyllis Boedigheimer
FROM: EDAAC
DATE: October 18, 1995
RE: Response to Kirmis/Beatty Memo dated September 29, 1995
Otsego Home Extended Business Ordinance
INTRODUCTION
A. Background: After laboring over a year on this important ordinance, we
have debated the issues and are now prepared to support the council in adopting this
major change in city philosophy.
We are aware of the current home occupation and home extended business
ordinances as stated in the current Otsego Zoning Ordinance. We were asked by the City
Council and the EDA to draft a new ordinance that is more community and neighborhood
friendly to home occupations and home extended businesses. We believe from the
direction given us by the City Council and also a
ware D are tlia eohcyohange will be decided
is ready for a
change to this proposed ordinance. We are P
by the City Council.
We believe that we have addressed adequately your concerns about sound planning
principles as stated on page one of Staffs memo. We have also addressed your concerns
regarding permanent or interim uses through the licensing process and annual license fees
which the City will administer. There is also a major policy change in allowing new home
extended businesses, in contrast to the legalization of only existing businesses.
B. Objective: The objective of this proposed ordinance is to provide an
environment that encourages and incubates the development of small business in Otsego
while providing for the quite enjoyment of our neighborhoods.
Memorandum
October 18, 1995
Page 2
II. DISCUSSION
This proposed ordinance is clear in its definition of prohibited activities, while it
provides a structure for neighborhood compatible home occupations.
1. City Policy:
City Policy currently prohibits new home extended businesses and generally puts a
time limit on their existence. Even though it is the current policy, it still has not stopped
new business startups in residential areas. Our proposed ordinance preserves the
character of the neighborhoods, makes Otsego more user friendly, and gives small
businesses the opportunity to expand as needed.
2. Accessory Buildings:
As long as the current accessory building requirements are met per Section 20-16-
4 of the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed ordinance allows the use of such accessory
buildings for business purposes, subject to other conditions.
3. Prohibited Activities:
Special Home Extended businesses are not prohibited activities. Special Home
Extended Business that do not involve "prohibited activities" but that exceed the
"permitted home extended business criteria" may be allowed with the approval of an
interim use permit issued by the City Council pursuant to section 35 of the existing zoning
ordinance.
Additionally, so as to maintain compatibility and protect the health, safety, and
general welfare of the public, the City Council may impose additional limitations or
requirements as it deems necessary. (Refer to section 35-2-B and section 4-2-B & L of
existing zoning ordinance.)
4. Permitted Home Extended Business Definition:
A Permitted Home Extended Business is any gainful occupation or profession
engaged in by the occupants of a dwelling unit, within said unit, garage or accessory
building and must meet criteria of the proposed ordinance Section 20-29-4 (a-1) inclusive.
In reference to the paragraph regarding square footage of accessory buildings as
allowed by Section 20-16-4, the argument that the proposed ordinance does not establish
a size "cap" for accessory buildings is invalid since only the Council can authorize
oversized buildings pursuant to the CUP process.
5. Special Home Extended Business:
Please see Paragraph 3 above.
Memorandum
October 18, 1995
Page 3
6. District Applicability:
We recommend the inclusion of "SINGLE FAMILY" residence.
7. Revocations:
Section 20-29-7 has been revised to integrate language prepared by the City
Attorney in his 22 August 1995 letter to the City Director of Business and Finance.
8. Code Enforcement:
City Staff has indicated that there are no formal citizen complaint logs concerning
home occupations and home extended businesses. City Staff has also indicated that
complaints regarding home occupations and home extended businesses has been minimal.
Licensing fees to be set by the City Council and adjusted from time to time, will cover
administrative costs involved in enforcing the proposed ordinance and its various
provisions.
III. CONCLUSION:
We believe that we have come up with a flexible and workable ordinance. We
invite the Planning and Zoning Commission to assist us in refining this document, as
necessary. We have met the objective of creating a simplified ordinance by combining an
administrative process with a permitting process which leaves the City Council in ultimate
control.
12-11-1995 04:07PM FROM RADZWILLLAWOFFICE TO
wa am S. Rukwiu RAUMILL & COUN
1ndr,ew .% B4acf nFwr Attorneys at Latin.
Michael C. Csouri 705 Central avenue Fast
PO BOX 369
St. Midwel, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599. (FA70
December 11, 1995
4418823 P.02
City, Council Numbers
City,: of :Otsego
c/o Phyllis Boedighe,imer, Director of Business and Finance
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk iver,MN 55330
RE:roposed..Legal Services Contract
Dear Council Members:
I.ap logiie for not getting this letter to the City last week but
I wasick with the flu most of the week.
I'ha a met with both Phyllis and Ron Black regarding a'contract for
legal services with the City. To my knowledge., therehas been no
writ. en Agreement between the City of Otsego and this firm up to
this'point. After meeting with the representatives of:the City and
list ping to their concerns the following is my response, and the
outline of:a proposed agreement which I submit for your review.
�,. Lncerns were brought up regarding billing increments. At
prosnt our computer is set up for billing in increments of 15
minutes, but we are willing to adjust our billing to bill out in
six ; inute;increments, if that is the desire of the City.
2. Concerns were also brought up regarding the establishment of a
flat fee arrangement per meeting. We would be agreeable to such an
arrangement and would propose that such a fee be established at the
flat rate of $200.00, as long as the meeting does not exceed -.3 1/2
hour and that the City make a good faith effort to place us as
earl; on the agenda as possible.
3. ,The suggestion was made that the fee for general legal services
be established at a standard monthly rate. This is problematic for
a a uple of reasons; first, our hourly rate as been long
esta , lished and we do charge the same to other communities, second,
12-11-1995 04:09PM FROM RADZWILLLAWOFFICE TO 4418823 P.04
Letter .to Otsego City Council
December 11, 19:95
Page 3
partir upon 90 days notice.
i
The above';is my attempt to come up with a workable agreement.
between this law firm'and the City. I would appreciate your review
of.: is prgposal'and any comments, questions or concetns you. might
have' If you concur with this letter I would be happy to draft an
Agreement incorporating these terms.
Very truly yours;.
Andrw:: MacArthur
R2}8 IE.L & `C0III4tI'.
1
,
TOTAL P.04
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT.
MEETING DATE
LARRY KOSHAK, CITY ENGINEER FINANCE
DECEMBER 27,1995
ITEM NO: ITEM DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY
9.1 CONSIDER OPTIONS REGARDING 1996 ISTEA
GRANT FOR PARK TRAILS
P.Boedigheime
At the December 11, 1995 City Council meeting the City's engineer, Merland Otto from Hakanson
Anderson Associates reviewed the City's 1996 ISTEA grant request and the required City share of the
project. The City Council directed the City's Engineers and myself to review the Park Development
Fund, the MSA Construction Fund, various options for the trail project and to make a recommendation
to the City Council at the December 27th meeting.
I met with Merland Otto and Larry Koshak on December 19th to review the original project, various
scaled down options and the possible funding sources for the required City share. During that meeting
we discussed the uses of MSA maintenance funds and MSA construction funds and it became apparent
that an in depth analysis of the MSA Construction Fund was necessary in order to make an appropriate
recommendation to the City Council.
Larry and I will meet early in January to review past MSA construction projects, past MSA maintenance
funds, how these payments were accounted for and the current construction fund allocation to date. We
will also review possible future road construction projects to ultimately arrive at a projected MSA
construction fund balance. This information will allow us to make an appropriate recommendation
regarding the 1996 ISTEA grant including the size of the project and the possible funding sources for the
City's share.
It is recommended that the City Council table this issue until the January 22, 1996 City Council meeting
to allow a complete analysis of MSA construction and maintenance funds in addition to the possible
construction options for the project.
City of Otsego
Engineer's Agenda Items
City Council Meeting
December 27, 1995
9.1 Consider options regarding 1996 ISTEA Grant for Park Trails
Refer this matter to the Finance Director
9.2 ISTEA Grant Application for Odean Avenue
We have written a letter to Mn/DOT petitioning them to change the functional
classification of Odean Avenue from a Minor Collector to a Major Collector.
According to the Functional Classifications Engineer, we will not have a problem
making the change as long as it can be justified. This should be completed
within two weeks. We need the new classification to be able to submit an
application for Odean Avenue reconstruction through the ISTEA program as a
rural roadway.
The application would be for 80% funding to reconstruct Odean Avenue (CSAH
37 to CSAH39). The local funding (20%) can come from assessments and
MSA construction funds.
The application is due Thursday, February 1, 1996. We anticipate the cost of
our services to complete the application would be $550. We would recommend
that the Council direct us to make application for the fiscal year 1999 (July 1
1998 to June 30, 1999).
9.3 CSAH37 and Odean Avenue Improvement Project 94-2
Considered approval of Supplemental Agreement #2 and approval of Partial
Payment #4 to Buffalo Bituminous, Inc..
9.4 Any other engineering business
agenda12.27
PAY ESTIMATE 4
Buffalo Bituminous Inc.
PO Box 337
Buffalo, MN 55313
RE: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 94-2
NE 70TH STREET (CSAR 37) & ODEAN AVENUE
(MSAP 217-105-01, MSAP 217-020-02, SAP 86-637-22)
BID AMOUNT: $307,979.25
AWARD DATE: May 23, 1995
COMPLETION DATE: September 2, 1995
BUFFALO BITUMINOUS, INC.
BID SCHEDULE "A" - CITY OF OTSEGO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 94-2
Estimated
Contract
Used
Item No.
Description
Quantity
Unit Price
Amount
To Date
Extension
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021.501
Mobilization
1
Lump Sum
$1,000.00 LS
$1,000.00
1 LS
$1,000.00
2104.501
Clearing
33
Tree
35.00 TR
1,155.00
37 TR
1,295.00
2101.507
Grubbing
33
Tree
35.00 TR
1,155.00
37 TR
1,295.00
2104.501
Remove pipe culverts
188
Lin. Ft.
4.00 LF
752.00
210 LF
840.00
2104.501
Remove fence (Wire)
90
Lin. Ft.
3.00 LF
270.00
225 LF
675.00
2104.501
Remove fence (Wood)
100
Lin. Ft.
3.00 LF
300.00
100 LF
300.00
2104.505
Remove bituminous pavement
8150
Sq. Yd.
1.00 SY
8,150.00
8447 SY
8,447.00
2104.505
Remove concrete slab
155
Sq. Yd.
1.00 SY
155.00
155 SY
155.00
2104.509
Remove sign
27
Each
8.50 EA
229.50
27 EA
229.50
2104.509
Remove timber cattle pass
70
Lin. Ft.
15.00 LF
1,050.00
70 LF
1,050.00
2104.513
Sawing bituminous pavement
74
Lin. Ft.
2.00 LF
148.00
96 LF
192.00
2104.521
Salvage fence
135
Lin. Ft.
5.00 LF
675.00
0 LF
0.00
2105.501
Common excavation
34537
Cu. Yd.
1.80 CY
62,166.60
34537 CY
62,166.60
2123.503
Motor Grader (60th St. maint.)
60
Hour
60.00 HR
3,600.00
8.5 HR
510.00
2' 1
Water (60th St. maint.)
60
M Gal
15.00 GAL
900.00
117 GAL
1,755.00
2 1
Aggregate base class 5
6886
Ton
6.00 T
41,316.00
5935.1 T
35,610.60
22_ X11
Agg. base c15 (60th St. maint.)
1295
Cu. Yd.
7.00 CY
9,065.00
816 CY
5,712.00
0331.601
2" bit. wearing course (driveways)
787
Sq. Yd.
4.50 SY
3,541.50
591 SY
2,659.50
2340.508
Type 41 wearing course mixture
1482
Ton
23.50 T
34,827.00
1473.05 T
34,616.68
2340.514
Type 31 base course mixture
1977
Ton
20.50 T
40,528.50
1838.6 T
37,691.10
2357.502
Bituminous material for tack coat
919
Gallon
1.00 GAL
919.00
700 GAL
700.00
0412.602
Relocate mailbox
4
Each
60.00 EA
240.00
5 EA
300.00
2501.511
15" RC pipe culvert class V
208
Lin. Ft.
26.00 LF
5,408.00
160 LF
4,160.00
2501.511
18" RC pipe culvert class V
140
Lin. FT.
28.00 LF
3,920.00
132 LF
3,696.00
2501.515
15" RC pipe apron
10
Each
280.00 EA
2,800.00
8 EA
2,240.00
2501.515
18" RC pipe apron
4
Each
315.00 EA
1,260.00
4 EA
1,260.00
2503.511
15" RC pipe sewer class III
567
Lin. Ft.
22.00 LF
12,474.00
628.7 LF
13,831.40
2503.573
Install conc. apron storm (1511)
2
Each
280.00 EA
560.00
2 EA
560.00
2506.508
Construct manhole storm
3
Each
1,300.00 EA
3,900.00
3 EA
3,900.00
2506.509
Construct catchbasin storm
3
Each
1,000.00 EA
3,000.00
3 EA
3,000.00
2511.501
Random riprap cl III w/ geo. fab.
36
Cu. Yd.
40.00 CY
1,440.00
36 CY
1,440.00
2531.501
Conc. curb and gutter design B618
1450
Lin. Ft.
5.20 LF
7,540.00
1454.5 LF
7,563.40
2531.501
Conc. curb and gutter design D418
1264
Lin. Ft.
5.25 LF
6,636.00
1259 LF
6,609.75
2531.507
6" concrete driveway pavement
33
Sq. Yd.
26.00 SY
858.00
44.4 SY
1,154.40
0557.603
Wood fence 6' high
254
Lin. Ft.
47.50 LF
12,065.00
280.2 LF
13,309.50
0563.601
Traffic Control
1
Lump Sum
3,000.00 LS
3,000.00
1 LS
3,000.00
0564.602
4" broken line yellow - tape
864
Lin. Ft.
0.25 LF
216.00
0 LF
0.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (stop)
2
Each
165.00 EA
330.00
2 EA
330.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (stop ahead)
2
Each,
165.00 EA
330.00
2 EA
330.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (winding road)
2
Each
115.00 EA
230.00
2 EA
230.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (advisory speed)
2
Each
42.00 EA
84.00
2 EA
84.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (cross road)
2
Each
115.00 EA
230.00
2 EA
230.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (dead end)
1
Each
115.00 EA
115.00
1 EA
115.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (two way traffic)
2
Each
115.00 EA
230.00
.2 EA
230.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (hidden driveway)
1
Each
115.00 EA
115.00
1 EA
115.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (pavement ends)
1
Each
115.00 EA
115.00
1 EA
115.00
0564.602
F & I street name sign
1
Each
165.00 EA
165.00
1 EA
165.00
0564.602
Pavement mess. (left arrow) paint
2
Each
20.00 EA
40.00
4 EA
80.00
0564.602
Pavement mess. (right arrow) Paint
2
Each
20.00 EA
40.00
4 EA
80.00
OF 12
Pavement mess. (only) paint
4
Each
40.00 EA
160.00
4 EA
160.00
0 3
24" stop line white - paint
30
Lin. Ft.
1.25 LF
37.50
38 LF
47.50
0. j3
24" solid line yellow - paint
368
Lin. Ft.
0.80 LF
294.40
564 LF
451.20
0564.603
4" solid line white - paint
6680
Lin. Ft.
0.15 LF
1,002.00
6215 LF
932.25
0564.603
4" double solid line yellow - paint
4165
Lin. Ft.
0.30 LF
1,249.50
3001 LF
900.30
0565.602
Furnish and install street light
2
Each
0.00 EA
0.00
2 EA
0.00
0565.603
2" PVC Conduit
307
LF
5.00 LF
1,535.00
307 LF
1,535.00
2573.501
Bale check
160
Each
6.00 EA
960.00
35 EA
210.00
2573.503
Silt fence, preassembled
7190
Lin. Ft.
1.65 LF
11,863.50
5220 LF
8,613.00
2573.508
Bituminous lined flume
21
Sq. Yd.
20.00 SY
420.00
19.3 SY
386.00
APPROVALS
CONTRACTOR: Certification by Contract: I certify that all items and amounts shown are correct for the work completed to
date.
The Contractor agrees that no futher claims for work associated with the project (except for work associated
with Supplimental Agreement No. 1) will be made against the Owner. The Contractor agrees to perform all
corrective and warranty work as required by the contract documents.
BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC.
Signed:
Title:
ENGINEER: HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES INC.
Signed:
Title:
OTHER: CITY OF OTSEGO
Signed:
Title:
OT323PE4.wk3
Date:
Date:
Date:
Estimated
Contract
Used
Item No.
Description
Quantity
Unit Price
Amount
To Date
Extension
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2575.501
Seeding
3.41
Acre
$100.00
AC
$341.00
3.5 AC
$350.00
2575.502
Seed Mixture 800
170.5
Pound
3.00
LB
511.50
200 LB
600.00
2575.505
Sodding, type lawn
5265
Sq. Yd.
1.50
SY
7,897.50
6312 SY
9,468.00
2575.511
Mulch material type 1
6.80
Ton
150.00
T
1,020.00
7.9 T
1,185.00
2575.519
Disc anchoring
3.41
Acre
25.00
AC
85.25
3.5 AC
87.50
2575.523
Wood fiber blanket type regular
1100
Sq. Yd.
1.00
SY
1,100.00
1920 SY
1,920.00
2575.531
Commercial fertilizer, 20-10-10
0.86
Ton
300.00
T
258.00
1 T
300.00
Supplemental Agreement #1
1
LS
11,472.50
LS
11,472.50
0 LS
0.00
Supplemental Agreement #2
1
LS
1,962.08
LS
1,962.08
------------
1 LS
1,962.08
--------------
TOTAL BID SCHEDULE "A" - Total work completed
to date
$321,413.83
$294,136.25
Contract
Work
Amount
Completed
SUMMARY
Schedule A
------------
$321,413.83
--------------
$294,136.25
Less 5% Retainage:
14,706.81 .
Less Pay Estimate #1
144,158.61
Less Pay Estimate #2
108,697.64
Less Pay Estimate 43
------------
21,567.38
--------------
TOTAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT DUE TO CONTRACTOR:
$321,413.83
$5,005.81
WE RECOMMEND PARTIAL PAYMENT OF:
$5,005.81
APPROVALS
CONTRACTOR: Certification by Contract: I certify that all items and amounts shown are correct for the work completed to
date.
The Contractor agrees that no futher claims for work associated with the project (except for work associated
with Supplimental Agreement No. 1) will be made against the Owner. The Contractor agrees to perform all
corrective and warranty work as required by the contract documents.
BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC.
Signed:
Title:
ENGINEER: HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES INC.
Signed:
Title:
OTHER: CITY OF OTSEGO
Signed:
Title:
OT323PE4.wk3
Date:
Date:
Date:
i
!portion
All
All
Wright
City of
Otsego
lural Urban Otsego
Wright
County
Cosi Item 1
want
Quant------- Quant
County
,,os
------------
--'
-- -------------
$i�0.11
00 $135.00
84.21 202i.�
8130.00 2101..
+.^OOge)
20.00
27.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 $735.00
140.00
$ '
8$0.30
2101..
.
5,00
+3.00
63.00
0.00
0.00 5651.60
0.00 $675.00
$0.00
?104,:
25,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00 $0.00
;1,001.00
z
;-90.00
2104.-
2164.;
41 00 1950.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
$178.50
;8.�0
2104.5
11.00
5,60
0,00
9.00
0.00
0.00
.0.00 ;1,050.00
$0.00
$0.00
2104.5
2104.5
70.00
0
X0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00 $144.00
0.00 $ 0.00
;0.00
2104.:
0.2
i 9.00
0.00
0.00
c.^ �a � 2$6.44 x'2105.5
0.00 ;,40,612.,.. 3.., 42.36 212 c
f1^009`
$ +228.81
$141.79
2?30.^.
ntagal
11?1.00
;16.70
0.00
0.00 8$3 457.
,999.40
$2$481.00
2211.5
---ntage)
' 100
0.00 581.00
0.00 ;0.00
0,00 ;25,752.24
2 614.50
S-,
;1,950.44
331.E
2340.:
`163.00
416.05
527.29
0.00
0.00
0.00 ;23,035.46
$2,161,39
$40.60
2340.`
2351.5
9,5.80
353 ,00
293.60
2.00
0.04
0.00
0.00 $525.40
0.00 5215.00
;24,00
;0.00
2501..
2.00
162.00
6,00
0.00
0.00
0.00 $4,160.00
0.00 50,696.00
$0,00
2501.5
132.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 $.,. 40.00
0,00 $1,260.00
2501.5
$;00
0,00
O,QO
0.00
0.00
0.00
62a.10 513,831.40
$5550.00
$0.00
$0'.00
2503.E
Q.QO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
3.00 $3,100.00
;3,900.00
$0.00
0.00
2.06::
2506.`
0.00
24.00
0.00
0.00
9.00
0.00
3.00
0.09 $.$0.00
$0,00
$0,00
$
2511.5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
288.50
1259.00
0.00
0.00 $
$0.00
0,609.75
$8
2531:`
?5^-7.6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.40
0.00
0.00
0.70 $2,10 .52
;0.00
$252.63
563.5
r:entaga)
0.00
C1,00
0.00
0 00
$165.00
$0.00
503.0`
1
0,00
0.00
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00 $165.00
$0.00
$0.00
553.°
I.00
0.00
0.00
Q.Qo
0.00
0.00 $0.00
0.00
$0.00
554.5:
564.5.
0.00
2.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
�i0.00
0.00 ;. 0.00
0.00 $115.00
$0.00
564.0"
1 1.00
i 2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 ;230.00
VIS.00
$0,00
564.6.
564.5[
1.00
1.00
0.00
0,00
0.00 $115.00 00
$0.00
564.6.
0.00
.00
1.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 $132.00
0.00 $64.00
$16.00
16.00
564.6`
564.`x"
0.00
0.0;0
41CO
0.00
0.00
0.00 $54.00
0.00 $123.00
$32 00
564.11
0.00
0.00
4.00
0.Q0
0.00 80.00
0.00 $428.64
$22.56
564.6,
00.00
42
11?5.00
141.00
2350.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 5615.95
;511.40
10.80
$44 .0
$50,00
564.5:
564.6
is=.S .00
140.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
O.dO
0.00 ;O.QQ
565.6:
550.6�
0.00
24:.70
1.00
00.60
0.00
1 414.00
0.00 $ ,� r
.551.00
;0.00
213.5'-
5 nn
0.40
0.00
0.00 3600 8^5.11
�..�
3316.53
.0.00
203.
? 33
n.22
0.09
O.Q�
�7,G
^5n.
2 ;.i
..14.00
0.'7:
0.00
0.0v
�a5 �'3Q
n r;0 :�.00;.^�
6.00 3 , ...,a:.
$1 1�: 2n
$27.00
�� 1
?::.
?5'
^4-:
2
'.43
O . uO
C, n0, :; :
%1, .14
n r, $1.1'.0,^�
3c.
Mn/DOT TP -02134-03 (5/88) 86-637-22, 217-105-01
STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Supp. to Contract No. & 217-020-02
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT No. _2_
Sheet 1 of _2—
Contractor:
Federal Project:
State Project No.:
BUFFALO BITUMINOUS, INC.
N/A
SAP #86-637-22
SAP #217-105-01
SAP #217-020-02
Address:
Location:
BUFFALO BITUMINOUS, INC.
BOX 337
THE INTERSECTION OF CSAH37 AND ODEAN AVENUE IN OTSEGO, MINNESOTA.
BUFFALO, MN 55313
Pro. No.
F.Y.
Account I.D.
Dept/Div.
Sequence No.
Suffix
Object
Vendor
Type
Amount
01
V
Purchase Terms
Asset No.
C.CD.1
C.CD.2
C.CD.3
C.CD.4
C.CD.5
OOONET
rYPEOF A40 ( 1 A41 ( ) Dated Number Entered by
SACTION: A44 ( 1 A45 ( ) A46 ( ) Dated Number Entered by
I his contract is amenaea as roiiows:
The contract is amended to allow for changes in work during the course of construction. The following items
require payment, but do not fall within the bid schedule list:
Castings - Revise castings specified to match manholes required on project.
6 EA @ $93.00/EA = $558.00
2. Culverts - Restocking fee of 15% required for culvert delivered to job -site
but not utilized. Pouti driveway was converted to dry entrance.
(48 LF of 15" RCP and 2 FES) Cross culvert on CSAH37 Sta 5 +42 was
shortened by 8 LF.
Pouti = 0.15 x $604.80 + 0.15 x $882.10 = $223.04
CSAH37 = 0.15 x $119.60 = $17.94
3. Sewer Pipe - Bid Schedule listed Class III Pipe Sewer. Plans required Class V.
Pipe Sewer. Difference in cost: 628.7/LF @ $1 .85/LF = $1,163.10
TOTAL
The above items shall consitute all changes in work incurred by the Contractor, his sub -contractors, his suppliers,
and all other parties doing business with the Contractor during the course of this project. No further claims will
be made by the Contractor against the Owners for additional work which may or may not have been performed
during the course of the project.
The Contractor agrees to hold the Owners harmless against further claims put forth by any sub -contractor or
supplier for any other cost incurrances associated with this project.
The contractural project completion date associated with the "as -bid" project is extended to September 15,
1995. The reason for the contract extension is the substantial rainfalls which occurred from August 15, 1995
to September 1, 1995. The "as -bid" project was subsequently deemed to be substantially complete by
September 15, 1995.
The project completion date is hereby extended to May 17, 1996 to allow for construction activities associated
with Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to be completed. The delay is a result of Owner negotiations with a
landowner for easement dedication.
Mn/DOT TP -02134-03 (5/88) 86-637-22, 217-105-01
STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Supp. to Contract No. & 217-020-02
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT No. 2_
Sheet 2 of 2
(Continued)
Cost associated with this agreement will be prorated based upon the city/county agreement signed for the
project. The proration and associated costs were determined to be as follows:
Project Owner Cost
SAP 217-105-01 City of Otsego $223.04
SAP 86-637-22 Wright County $1,739.04
TOTAL $1,962.08
The contract amount for the three State Aid Projects will be revised as follows based upon this agreement:
Project No.
Original Contract
SA #1
SA #2
Final Cost
SAP 86-637-22
$214,553.59
$5,059.37
$1,739.04
$221,352.00
SAP 217-105-01
67,014.78
6,413.13
223.04
73,650.95
SAP 217-020-22
26.410.88
0.00
0.00
26,410.88
TOTAL
$307,979.25
$11,472.50
$1,962.08
$321,413.83
APPROVED:
APPROVED:
Original Contract
Commissioner of
Commissioner of
Dated
Adminisraton
Finance
Approved as to form
Owner - City of Otsego
and execution
Dated
Wright County Engineer
Dated
Project Engineer - City of Otsego
BY:
BY:
Dated
Contractor
Dated
Assistant Attorney
General
District Engineer
Dated
Dated
Dated
Agency Head
Original to State Auditor - Copy to Agency
OT323-1.sa
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION:
DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE
10. COUNCIL ITEMS
Dec. 27,1995 6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER:
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
10.1. Discussion of
NAC Fee change (SEE NAC CONTRACT) (Cont.12/11/95)
Elaine Beatty
City Clerk/Z.A.
10.1.
Background:
I believe this has been on the Council Agenda five times and been continued. Larry Fournier has talked
to Dave Licht and he has made some changes in the Contract RE: exclusive clause and notification if
working on a project with surrounding Cities that has the potential to be considered a conflict. This was
copied to the Council after the 12/11/95 Council Packet went out and was asked to be continued to this
agenda.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the updated contract.
Thanks,
Councilmember Black introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-45
RESOLUTION APPROVING A TAX LEVY FOR
19% OPERATING BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Otsego City Council that there is
hereby approved for budgeted expenditures from general taxes, the following sums for the
purpose indicated:
General Government
$ 799,019
Park Development
15,000
Bonded Indebtedness
35,210
Total Levy $ 849,229
Less HACA 140,579
Total Levy To Be Certified $ 708,650
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that as required by Truth in Taxation Legislation,
the City Clerk shall certify to the Wright County Auditor a copy of this resolution
approving a proposed levy of $708,650 for the City of Otsego.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Heidner and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Mayor Freske, Councilmembers Heidner, Black and Ackerman, and the
following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was passed this 27th
day of December, 1995.
ATTEST:
Laine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoningdmin.
40 nn" S ;YMA4
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
Councilmember Heidner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-46
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1996 GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Otsego City Council that the
appropriations budgeted for General Fund Operations for the calendar year 1996 shall be:
Department Amount
Mayor and City Council
$ 52,410
Administration
202,452
Finance
58,600
Assessing
14,060
Legal
28,200
Planning Commission
3,300
Planner
52,250
EDA
14,005
City Hall & Peavey House
74,180
Police
96,360
Building Inspection
20,000
Engineering
40,000
Street Lighting
10,000
Street Maintenance
267,633
Recycling
30,000
Community Recreation
17,777
Park Maintenance
32,770
Historical Society
1,550
Transfers To Other Funds(Capital Equipment)
35.910
$1,051,457
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Otsego City Council that the source of
financing the sums appropriated shall be:
Property Taxes $ 658,440
Business Licenses and Permits 5,000
Non -Business Licenses and Permits 42,150
Intergovernmental 285,772
Charges for Service 18,800
Rentals 19,300
Miscellaneous 21,995
$1,051,457
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Black and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Mayor Freske, Councilmembers Black, Heidner, and Ackerman
and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was passed this
27th day of December 1995.
14.0" S ar~4
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
ATTEST:
aine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Ain.
Councilmember Black introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-47
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1996 WATER FUND BUDGET
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Otsego City Council that the
appropriations budgeted for the Water Fund for the calendar year 1996 shall be:
Debt Service $ 28,200
Utilities 900
Repair & Maintenance 5,500
Miscellaneous Engineering 1.000
Total Expenditures $ 35,600
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Otsego City Council that the source of
financing the sums appropriated shall be:
Property Taxes $ 15,000
Charges for Service —1,15
Total Revenues $ 16,155
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Heidner and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Mayor Freske, Councilmembers Heidner, Black, and Ackerman, and the
following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was passed this 27th
day of December 1995.
i
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
ATTEST:
I
r
'•t 1
o/�
�4�/� Y..MNw�uuYy�V�� ♦� i
RESOLUTION NO. 95-42
CITY OF OTSEGO, COUNTY OF WRIGHT
A RESOLUTION STATING THE INTENT OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO TO APPEAL TO THE
DISTRICT COURT THE DECISION OF THE STATE MUNICIPAL BOARD RE: D-312
OTSEGO/A-5402 ALBERTVILLE (FRANK D'AIGLE) AND D-311 OTSEGO/A-5384
ALBERTVILLE (KENT ROESSLER) PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414, AS
AMENDED
WHEREAS, The City of Otsego received Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law and Order and Memorandum from the Municipal Board of the State of Minnesota,
Robert J. Ferderer, Chair, Paul B. Double, Vice Chair and Lea De Sousa Speeter, Vice
Chair, which are attached, and
WHEREAS, The City of Otsego does not agree with the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order and Memorandum from the Municipal Board of the State
of Minnesota regarding the Annexation of the two properties in D-312 Otsego/A-5402
Albertville and D-311 Otsego/A-5384 Albertville and,
WHEREAS, The City of Otsego does agree with the initiation of
consolidation proceedings between the Cities of Otsego and Albertville.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, The City of Otsego
hereby states their intention to pursue appeal to the District Court of the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order and Memorandum in the matter of the petition for the
detachment of certain land from the City of Otsego and Annexation of certain land to the
City of Albertville pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414 as per attached copies of D-312
Otsego/A-5402 Albertville and D-311 Otsego/A-5384 Albertville as stated above.
Dated this 27TH day of December, 1995.
CITY OF OTSEGO
1!:�7R 011 -IX
Norman F Freske, Mayor
AT -TEST;
Elaine Beatty, City C1erk/Z trator
(City Seal)
Attachments (2)
INIONTICELLO
Office of the Cite AL111L111iStYLINO
250 East Broadway December 13, 1995
Monticello, MN 55362-9245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Metro: (612) 333-5739
Ms. Elaine Beatty
Cler?i
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
Re: Policy on fire calls --false alarms
Dear Elaine:
Lc�
•ALJ .}
At a recent meeting of the Monticello Joint Fire Board, one of the items discussed
concerned the increase in the number of false alarms that the fire department is
responding to. While the department has always had to expect a certain number of false
alarm calls, there appears to be an increase in the total number due to the popularity of
homes and businesses installing security systems that trigger fire calls. While the number
of incidents is not yet a large problem, the Joint Board did note that each false alarm costs
the department money for salaries and even some equipment cost if a response is initiated
before it is cancelled. In some cases, we are noticing that the false alarm is because of
malfunctioning equipment within the security system that could be fixed by the security
company or the business/homeowner. When not attended to, there have been a few
occasions where the department will receive additional false alarms in a short period of
time. Because there's no incentive for a business, homeowner, or security company to
promptly correct any problems, the Joint Board felt it may be wise to consider establishing
a policy allowing the fire department to charge a property owner for a false alarm if more
than 2 occur within a 12 -month time period. The policy as currently drafted would only
apply after ample warning has been given to the person causing false alarms notifying of
our intent to seek reimbursement if the problem isn't fixed.
The above policy was recently discussed by the Monticello City Council and is going to be
reviewed by the Monticello Township Board as part of the joint agreement. While this
policy is only intended to be in effect for persons residing within the city of Monticello or
Monticello township, we wanted our contracting jurisdictions to be aware of this policy.
Within your jurisdiction, you may want to discuss implementing a similar type
arrangement in that it will be beneficial for all jurisdictions if we can keep our operating
Ms. Elaine Beatty
December 13, 1995
Page 2
budget to a minimum. Even though we currently have a fixed fee amount within our
contracts for your fire protection, as our fire department costs rise, so will future contract
renewals because of this increased cost. As a result, if your residents and businesses are
aware that repeated false alarms are costly to the fire department, you should eventually
see the benefits of any efforts we can utilize to reduce the number of calls in future
contract renewals.
In discussing the false alarm occurrences, a new issue has come to light in regard to
alarms for carbon monoxide detectors. Again, many security systems also feature methods
of determining carbon monoxide in the air, and many homeowners are now purchasing the
simple carbon monoxide testing strips that indicate there may be a problem if the color
changes on the detector. The fire department is now experiencing a rash of calls
concerning possible carbon monoxide existence in a structure, with just three calls
occurring already on Monday, December 11. While the department has not come up with
any ideas on how to address this rash of calls, the bottom line is that each call that the
department responds to costs money and will eventually be passed on to not only the city's
and township's citizens, but also to those communities we contract with.
The City Council has decided to table any action on establishing a firm policy regarding
false alarms at this time but is seeking any input contracting jurisdictions may have
concerning our possible implementation of a policy. Your thoughts would be appreciated
and are encouraged.
Yours truly,
PFf"F MONTICELLO
L5�44
Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
RW/kd
Enclosure
cc: Mark Wallen, Fire Chief
Fire Contract File
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Policy Establishing Billing Procedures for Fire Department Respon :es to False
Alarms
This policy is intended to outline the conditions under which the Monticello Fire
Department will charge property owners for responding to false alarms. With the
fire department experiencing an increase in the number of false alarms because of
the increased popularity of home and business security systems, the Joint Fire
Board has recommended a policy be established to allow for reimbursement of
expenses associated with responding to these false alarm calls. The Joint Fire
Board does not feel it's appropriate for the taxpayers of the jurisdictions supporting
the department's services be responsible for the added costs these false alarms
generate and therefore, proposed to implement the following policy effective
January 1, 1996 as it relates to charges for responding to repeated false alarms:
1. All property owners within the Monticello Fire Department coverage areas
will receive up to (2) two fire responses to false alarms within each 12 month
calendar year at no additional charge.
2. Any property owner within the jurisdiction responsible for (3) three or more
false alarms within the 12 month period shall be billed a response fee of $250
for each false alarm above (2) two.
3. All property owners responsible for a false alarms will be notified in writing
of this billing procedure policy.
4. All false alarm charges remaining unpaid at the end of a calendar year may
be levied as a special assessment against the responsible property to the
extent allowed by State Statutes.
FALSETOL: 12/05/95
Claims List for Approval
For the period 12/19/95 to 12/19/95
CLAIM TOT<
TO WHOM PAID FOR WHAT PURPOSE DATE NUMBER CLA-
TrMA RFTTRPMPNT TP11"T Pr=R1Qp EA.Dr-P , —
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND PAY PERIOD ENDED 12/16/95 12/19/95 1198 849
MN DEPT OF
REVENUE
DECEMBER
WITHHOLDING
12/19/95
1200
903.
STATE CAPITAL CREDIT UNION
DEDUCTIONS WEEK, ENDED 12/16/95
12/19/95
1201
100
BONESTR00,
ROSENE,ANDERLIK & ASSOC
50% CITY
SHARE OF FEASIBILITY STUDY
12/19/95
1203
2,100
AFFORDABLE
SANITATION
DECEMBER
RENTAL
12/19/95
1204
106.
$r I" oil- QQMPAPP4
C = CARRON
REIMBURSE
HAYRIDE EXPENSES
12/19/95
1206
20.
Ek— TONKA
SANITATION
NOVEMBER
RECYCLING
12/19/95
1207
291
G & K TEXTILE LEASING SYSTEMSvv UNIFORM S,SHOP TOWELS,MATS 12/19/95 1209 201
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOC INC NOVEMBER ENGINEERING SERVICES 12/19/95 1210 1,648.
THE HARDWARE STORE
BULBS,COUPLING,BATTERY,FILTER
12/19/95
1211
24.
M9TRGPG6iTAP' GRAVE -6 C-9 lHe
MINNESOTA BOOK STORE
STATUTE BOOKS AND 1995 UPDATE
12/19/95
1213
191.
MINNESOTA MUTUAL
JANUARY LIFE & SHORT DISABILITY
12/19/95
1214
117.
MONTICELLO FORD MERCURY
PARTS
12/19/95
1215
25-
NORTHERNHYDRAULICSINC
ADAPTER HOSE,ICE MELT
12/19/95
12/19/95
1217
1218
40.
31740.
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
NOVEMBER SERVICES
RADZWILL LAW OFFICE NOVEMBER LEGAL SERVICES 12/19/95 1219 4,712.
Claims List for Approval
For the period 12/19/95 to 12/19/95
WRIGHT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPT SALT & SAND MIX, SALT,SUPPLIES 12/19/95 1227 4,41:
MEDICA JANUARY HEALTH INSURANCE 12/19/95 1228 1,48E
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE SHARE 12/16/95 12/19/95 1229 8:
w,r,
643.E
TOTAL YEAR TO DATE
71
0
n
U'
CLAIM
lei
TO WHOM PAID
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DATE
17/19/95
NUMBER
CLP
847
120
JACQUIE ROGNLI
FEES—ANI�IEXl1TT�N
DECEMBER NEWSLETTER
12/19/95
12/19/95
1221
1222
32`
2=
SCHARBER & SONS
REPAIR TIRE
Trn.iFi S
1 2/19/95
1 2,)j
20E
5UPERIOR GHEMIGA6
H G WEBER OIL COMPANY
pTgu�n�,�LEr1NER ,Pt3pFa
FUEL OIL,GAS,PDF,GREASE
12/19/95
1224
1,491
494
WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITOR -TREASURER
COST FOR T -I -T NOTICES
--._-- ---"---_
12/19/95
17/1O/OF
1225
1717,Fi
.7.78E
WRIGHT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPT SALT & SAND MIX, SALT,SUPPLIES 12/19/95 1227 4,41:
MEDICA JANUARY HEALTH INSURANCE 12/19/95 1228 1,48E
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE SHARE 12/16/95 12/19/95 1229 8:
w,r,
643.E
TOTAL YEAR TO DATE
71
0
n
U'