09-11-95 CCCITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT.
MEETING DATE
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS FINANCE
SEPTEMBER 11,1995
ITEM NO: ITEM DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY
4.1 DAN GREENE, PRESENTATION OF THE 1995/96
GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE PROPOSAL
P.Boedigheimer
The City's Comprehensive Municipal Property and Casualty Insurance Policy is due for renewal effective
September 25, 1995. Dan Greene, First National Insurance has received quotes for the coverages
necessary and as in years past, the League Of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust has provide the best
coverage at the best price.
The following is a premium summary comparison for the last three policy years.
COVERAGE
1995/1996
1994/1995
1993/1994
Property
$ 2,339
$ 2,055
$ 2,191
Inland Marine
519
545
609
Municipal Liability
10,553
9,690
9,365
Automobile Liability
850
850
640
UMIUIM
55
55
inc.
Auto Physical Damage
809
741
442
Crime
89
91
91
Bonds
355
381
381
Open Meeting Law
500
500
111(partial yr.)
TOTAL
$16,069
$14,908
$14,032
Workers Compensation
5,649
7,558
6,693
The renewal premium quote is based on a $500 deductible just as in the previous two years. The
property limit has increased from $1,062,773 to $1,342,000 for this year. This increase includes the city
well and an increase in values of approximately 4%, therefore the premium has increased approximately
$300. The Municipal liability has increased $863 due to a general rate increase by the Insurance Trust.
The League Of Minnesota Cities is now able to issue bond coverage as a part of its program this year.
The new quote is written with the LMCIT under a blanket coverage.
I requested that Dan Greene also provide a quote based on a $1000 deductible policy. Dan indicated that
the premium would be reduced by approximately $987. This deductible is a per occurrence deductible,
therefore, if there were two separate claims there would be two deductibles. To help in the decision
process we reviewed the losses for the last four policy years. In the 91/92 year there were no claims, in
the 92/93 year there was one loss at $390, in the 93/94 year there were no claims, and in the 94/95 year
there is the possible lightning damage at the well.
I would also like to point out the dividend advantage of the LMCIT. The City received a $1,415
dividend in 1994, a $880 dividend in 1993, and a $175 dividend in 1992. A dividend is also anticipated
for 1995.
I have also attached for your review the workers compensation renewal information page, with
comparisons to last year's payroll, rates, premium and experience modification rate. The two major
factors in the reduction of the workers compensation premium is the reclassification of clerical and
elected officials and the experience modification reduction. The reclassification was also reflected in the
workers compensation audit with a return premium of $1,419 for the 1994/1995 year.
Mr. Dan Greene will be present to review the insurance proposal with you and answer any questions you
may have regarding the City's proposed coverages and possible options, including the deductible increase.
It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Comprehensive Municipal Property and
Casualty Coverage as presented and to further consider the possibility of increasing the deductible to
$1,000 per occurrence.
Lez a of Minnesota Cities Insur. --e Trust
Group Self -Insured Workers' Compensation Plan
Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Agreement
Administrator
Berkley Administrators
a member of the Berkley Risk Management Services Group
P.O. Box 59143 Minneapolis, MN 55459-0143 Phone (612) 544-0311
Information Page
RENEWAL
1. The "City"
OTSEGO
8899 NASHUA AVE N E
ELK RIVER MN 55330-0000
2. The Agreement period is from 12:01 a.m. 07/01 /1995 to 12:01 a.m
address.
Agreement No. 02-000875-4
"City" is: pty
Joint Powers Entity
Other (describe)
07/01/1996 at the "City's"
3. A. Workers' Compensation Coverage: Part One of the Agreement applies to the Workers' Compensation Law of
any state of the United States of America and the District of Columbia.
B. Employers Liability Coverage: Part Two of the Agreement applies to work in each state listed in item 3.A.
The limits of our liability under Part Two are: Bodily Injury -Each Claimant $200,000.
Bodily Injury -Each Occurrence $600,000.
Bodily Injury by Disease -Agreement Limit $600,000.
C. This Agreement includes these amendments and schedules:
1. Retro -rating option selected? NOT APPLICABLE
5. Elected Officials Covered? YES Boards and Commissions Covered (List) NONE
6. The premium for this Agreement will be determined by our Manuals of Rules, Classifications, Rates and Rating
Plans. All information required below is subject to verification and change by audit.
PREMIUM BASIS ESTI-
MATED TOTAL
ANNUAL
REMUNERATION
RATES
PER $100 OF
REMUNERATION
CODE
NO.
ENTRIES IN THIS ITEM, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED
ELSEWHERE IN THIS AGREEMENT; DO NOT MODIFY ANY OF THE
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
PREMIUM
91/�s 85000. 7w7 7.20
$y,soo
5506
STREET CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE
61
170000. a•21 0.65
8810
CLERICAL
-&33
il'
36000. '�' 0.69
31,aov ���='
9411
ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIALS
7/,0
2'
Manual Premium
961el
74'
10% Sick, Holiday, & Vacation Allowance
9&&
7i
Adj. Manual Premium
q;p
67E
Experience Modification 0.85
.°O
Standard Premium
57'
Managed Care Credit 0%
Deductible Credit 0%
AGENT F-416021790
0.00
Premium Discount
FIRST NATL INS AGCY
Discounted Standard Premium
^'.`"= '
56i
729 MAIN STREET
LMC Insurance Trust Discount 0'%
56-
-
ELK RIVER. MN 553-0
Net Deposit Premium
-
CITY OF OTSEGO
I?FnTTCTPnR C'nTTNC'TT. AC'TTON
AGENDA SECTION:
DEPARTMENT:
MEETING DATE
6. Consent Agenda
Clerk
September 11,1995
ITEM NUMBER:
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
6.1 Set
A.
Fire Service Amounts
Elk River
Elaine Beatty,Clerk/ZA
S.
Albertville
C.
Monticello
BACKGROUND:
These Fire Service Amounts are set each year for Special Assessment for
the following year. This Fire Service amount is for 1996 payable year.
After discussions with Lori Johnson, Elk River, Linda Houghton, Albertville
These two cities have informed me that their Fire Service for 1996 will not
increase in price.
Monticello has a contract with Otsego for 1994, 195 and 196 So setting
their amount is just a formality.
REVIEW OF THE ISSUES
ALTERNATIVES/IM PACTS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation is to approve the Fire Service Amounts as follows:
Elk River:
$40.00 - Same as last year (We have 18 new parcels to add for 1627 parcels Total
X $40=$65,080.)
Last years amount was $64,360. so there is a cushion there
Monticello:
$35.00 - Same as last year (We have 3 -yr contract ending after 1996)
Two new parcels have been added for 192 X$35.00 =$6,720.
Last years amount was $6,650., but they do charge by parcel so we will break even
Albertville:
$58.00 - Same as last year we have 6 new parcels to add for 249 parcels Total
X $58.00=$14,442.00
Last years amount was $13,985.32 so there is some cushion there
From: Wally Klus To: Elaine Beatty Date: 9/7195 Time: 12:12:23
September 7, 1995
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue N. E.
Otsego, MN 55330
Alt.: Elaine Beatty
Clerk/Zoning Administrator
RE: Mary R. Dare/Christ Lutheran Church
Preliminary and Final Plat Approval MRD Commercial Park 10.33 Acres
Rezone 6.4 Acres from B-2 Highway Commercial District/R-1 Residential Long
Range Urban Service to INS, Institutional District
Dear Elaine:
This will serve as a formal request for a continuance of the subject item set for the City Council
Meeting of September 11, 1995 . We would assume this can be reset for Monday September 25,
1995?
Thank for your assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
W. W. Klus Realty, Inc.
Walter W. Klus
Walter W. Klus
Agent For Mary R. Dare, Property Owner
cc: Greg Pagh, Pastor
Jack Holmes
Allan Barnard
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT.
MEETING DATE
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FINANCE
SEPTEMBER 11,1995
ITEM N0: ITEM DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY
10.3 DISCUSSION OF LONG HAUL TRUCKING
P.Boedigheime
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION IDENTIFICATION
SIGN
At August 28, 1995 City Council meeting, NAC was directed to investigate possibilities to allow a
development/construction sign for Long Haul Trucking, All Metro Builders, and the City of Otsego on
the I94 side of the site. Attached for your review is a memorandum from NAC reviewing various options
followed with their recommendation.
I have reviewed the memorandum with Chuck from All Metro Builders. He fully understands the time
constraints in the processing of a zoning ordinance amendment and is interested in the pursuit of a Real
Estate sign which is allowed within the City's current zoning ordinance. His concern is NAC's
recommendation that All Metro Builders' name would be removed from the sign. He has indicated that if
his company name cannot be on the sign he would not be willing to contribute financially to the sign.
I have not had the opportunity to discuss this issue directly with Bob Kirmis from NAC, but anticipate
that he will be prepared to discuss his recommendation with the City Council at the City Council meeting.
Chuck, All Metro Builders, further discussed with me the OSAH required guidelines regarding signage at
a construction site and indicated that the required guidelines do not fit within the City's current sign
ordinance. Bob Kirmis's memorandum also points out that the City's current ordinance does not allow
for development/construction signs in industrial districts, although they are allowed in residential districts.
It is staff recommendation that the City Council direct City Staff and the City Planner to review the City's
current sign ordinance, research other cities regarding signing in industrial development districts, and
make a recommendation for a zoning ordinance amendment to allow for construction/development signs
in industrial districts.
FAC
Northwest Associated Consulta
C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING DESIGN MA RKE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Elaine Beatty
Phyliss Boedigheimer
FROM: Dan Licht/Bob Kirmis
DATE: 1 September 1995
W
RE: Otsego - Long Haul Trucking - Development/Construction Identification
Sign
FILE NO: 176.11 - 95.01
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The Otsego City Council, following a recommendation from the Otsego EDA, has directed our
office to investigate possible courses of action to allow a development/construction sign for the
"Long Haul Trucking" facility. A 23 August 1995 memorandum from Phyllis Boedigheimer,
states that All Metro Builders (developer/builder of the Long Haul project) would like to
construct a 12' x 16'(192 sq. ft.) development identification sign to be located along the
northern border of the Long Haul site in a manner to be visible from Interstate 94. The
memorandum does not specify the height of the sign proposed. The memorandum states that
the sign will read: "The City of Otsego and All Metro Builders welcomes Long Haul Trucking
to the City of Otsego". In addition to the City of Otsego and All Metro Builders, eight sub-
contractors would be identified on the sign. The intent of the sign is to bring attention to Long
Haul Trucking and the industrial park in Otsego. The Otsego EDA has approved a
contribution of $500.00 towards the construction of the proposed sign.
Recommendation
Our office has identified three issues involved with the proposed Long Haul Trucking
development sign. These issues are summarized below:
1. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow the type of sign proposed within an industrial
district.
R C H
5775 Wavzata !31vd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
1. The sign would be allowed to be two sided, offering exposure to people
traveling in both directions on I-94 with a maximum of 64 square feet of sign
area.
2. Because the sign would be related to the sale of lots within the Long Haul
Industrial Park, the sign would most likely be permitted for a longer period of
time.
3. Approval of the sign may be quickly processed administratively for only the
cost of the sign permit.
Our office also recommends that any sign for which a permit application is submitted be
subject to the following conditions. The City is justifiable in requiring these additional
conditions as a result of its financial involvement in the project.
1. The applicable provisions of Section 20-37-2 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfactorily
Feet.
2. All Metro Builders submit a mock-up of the sign copy for review and approval.
3. All Metro Builders remove itself and the names of the eight sub contractors from the
sign.
4. Comments of other City staff.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Zoning. The Long Haul development is located in an I-2, General Industrial District.
Development/construction identification signs are not listed as a permitted or conditional sign
within industrial districts. This is different from an initial reading of the Ordinance which
suggested that these types of signs are allowed. A more detailed review of the Ordinance has
revealed that these signs are permitted in residential districts only. Thus, a sign such as the
one purposed by All Metro Builders would not be permitted.
Sign Content. It is the stated purpose of this sign to welcome the Long Haul Trucking facility
to the City and make note of the existence and location of the Long Haul Industrial Park in
Otsego. All Metro Builders is requesting a sign that is over 6 times larger than the maximum
size of the signs discussed in option #2 (All Metro Builders request is 6 times larger than the
maximum area allowed for one side of a two sided sign and three times larger than the total
area allowed). The primary reason for this is to provide space to list All Metro Builders and
eight sub -contractors associated with the project. It is our office's opinion that the advertising
of the contractors is totally contrary to the philosophy of the ordinance and is not vital to the
3
purpose of the sign. We believe that the placement of a sign the size requested with the
contractors identified would be more in character with a billboard advertising sign, rather than
a sign welcoming Long Haul Trucking or identifying the Long Haul Industrial Park.
Size of Sign. The primary reason for requesting a larger sign is related to listing the
contractors associated with project. Our office believes that the sign area permitted under
option 2, is sufficient to accomplish the stated intent of the sign. Our office would
recommend that City Officials make a point to observe signs along I-94 and the fact that there
are a substantial number of real estate type signs which range from 32 to 64 square feet in
size. Based on these other examples of these signs along I-94, the Otsego Sign Ordinance is
not unduly restrictive or out of character with what other communities and private real estate
companies utilize in promoting their land development areas. The City however, may make a
determination that a larger sign area is appropriate when located adjacent to the Interstate
corridor and pursue an amendment to allow a larger sign area along the Interstate corridor.
An amendment to allow a larger sign along the I-94 and possibly Highway 101 corridors
would protect areas within the City from potential negative impacts associated with larger
signs while allowing larger signs where impacts would be minimized. It should be noted that
no inadequacy of the existing standard has been demonstrated. The fact that the property
owner wants a larger sign than is allowed does not render the existing standard inappropriate.
Further justification for an amendment would be warranted. Approval of a Zoning Ordinance
amendment without reasonable justification would establish a dangerous precedent which
would expose the City to numerous challenges of existing Zoning Ordinance standards.
Options to Accommodate. With regards to actions that may be taken to accommodate the
proposed sign at the Long Haul site, our office has identified four options. These options are
detailed below:
Option #1 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment
The first option to allow the proposed sign at the Long Haul development is an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Such an amendment would involve adding a
provision to allow development/construction identification signs in commercial and
industrial districts. This amendment would involve adding language such as in Section
20-37-5.B which allows this type of sign in residential districts, or the drafting of
entirely new language. The existing residential district language is included below for
reference.
3. Real Estate Development Project Signs. Signs involving temporary
identification of a new subdivision or development located upon the
project site.
a. Each subdivision or development shall be allowed the following
signs by permit:
El
(1) One (1) sign not to exceed sixty-four (64) square feet in
surface area and a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet.
(2) Directional signs as authorized by sub -section 5.13.4 of
this section.
b. The permit shall be renewable annually and conditioned upon
documentation allowing such a sign of structure by the property
owner upon which it is to be located, and a vacancy rate of the
subdivision greater than ten (10) percent.
Because such an amendment would involve an entirely new provision of the
Ordinance, the City would be able to establish maximum area and height standards
which it deems appropriate for these types of signs to be located in commercial and
industrial districts.
This option presents several drawbacks as it relates to the Long Haul situation. The
time table for approving a sign for this development is short. Construction is set to
begin on the project and will likely be completed within 3 months.
Development/construction identification signs, such as the one proposed, are intended
to be temporary in nature and serve to identify the development while it is under
construction. Following completion of construction, it is assumed that permanent on -
sight signage will serve to identify the development and the temporary sign should be
removed. An amendment to the Ordinance would involve drafting an ordinance, staff
review time, Planning Commission consideration, public hearings, and City Council
consideration. Given the amount of time it would take to process an amendment, the
period of time during which the sign could be placed and when it would be required to
be removed would be brief. In addition, the responsibility for costs associated with
processing this amendment would need to be considered.
Option #2 - Real Estate Sign
A second option which may be pursued to accommodate a development/construction
identification sign for the Long Haul development would be to include in the copy of
the sign mention of the Long Haul Industrial Park and the availability of lots. The
proposed sign then would be classified as a real estate sign, which are permitted within
industrial districts. Real estate signs are subject to the following conditions within
industrial districts:
1. No more than one (1) double sided sign allowed per lot or per building
for sale.
2. The sign area shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet of space on
5
each side.
3. The sign shall not be illuminated.
The benefit of pursuing this option is that this type of sign can be processed quickly by
administrative permit. The obvious drawback to pursuing this option, at least from All
Metro Builders' perspective, is the maximum sign area allowed (64 square feet) is three
times smaller that the proposed size (192 square feet).
Option # 3
A review of the conditions which must be satisfied to grant a variance from the Zoning
Ordinance suggests a variance is not a viable option in this case. The omission of
these signs is not a hardship imposed only on the Long Haul development. No
development in any commercial or industrial district may place this type of sign. Also,
this sign is not prohibited because of any unique characteristic associated with the Long
Haul site. In light of these considerations, the granting of a variance would most likely
not be justifiable.
The amount of time required to process a variance request would also be a deterring
factor. As with Option #1, a variance request would involve time for staff review,
public hearings, Planning Commission consideration and City Council Consideration.
Option #4 - No Action
The City may choose a fourth option, which would be a determination that the current
ordinance standards are satisfactory and that no action should be pursued.
CONCLUSION
Our office believes this issue is a policy matter best decided by City Officials. It is our
office's opinion, however, that the sign proposed by All Metro builders is not in keeping with
the stated intent of the sign or the intent of the Ordinance. The identification of the
contractors as part of the sign represents an advertisement which is not related to welcoming
Long Haul Trucking to the City or identifying the industrial park. The size of the proposed
sign is directly related to the desire to advertise the contractors. Our office believes that the
stated purpose of the sign may be accomplished within existing provisions of the Ordinance by
pursuing Option #2, the establishment of a real estate sign. Although the requirements of this
type of sign do not accommodate the dimensions of the sign proposed, it does satisfactorily
accomplish the stated purpose of the proposed sign. The benefits of pursuing option 2
include:
rel
1. The sign would be allowed to be two sided, offering exposure to people
traveling in both directions on I-94 with a maximum of 64 square feet of sign
area.
2. Because the sign would be related to the sale of lots within the Long Haul
Industrial Park, it would most likely be permitted for a longer period of time.
3. The sign may be processed administratively for the cost of the sign permit.
Any sign for which a permit application was submitted would be subject to the additional
provisions of Section 20-37-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Because of the City's financial
involvement, the City should be entitled an opportunity to review the content of the proposed
sign. Prior to the issuance of a sign permit, All Metro Builders should be required to submit a
mock-up of the proposed sign for review and approval by the City.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call.
PC. Andrew MacAurthur
7
villiam S. Radzwiu
,redrew J. MacArthur
Michael C. Court
September 6, 1995
RA.DMILL & CO URI
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
City Council Members
City of Otsego
c/o Phyliss Boedigheimer, Director of Business and Finance
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: Long Haul Trucking - Agreement Regarding Funding
Dear Council Members:
Enclosed for your review please find a revised draft agreement
regarding proposed rebate of a portion of the City share of real
property taxes from the Long Haul Trucking. This agreement has been
redrafted to incorporate the concept proposed and approved by
Council Member Heidner at the last Council meeting.
Basically, the agreement, as revised, allows Long Haul to receive
a $6,500.00 rebate of the City share of real property taxes on the
Long Haul property over a ten year period. Additionally, said
rebate can potentially be enhanced upon development of other lots
within the plat and receipt of additional tax revenues from those
parcels by the City of Otsego.
The agreement calls for an additional $500.00 per year of rebate
from the affected parcel for each of the other lots developed and
paying taxes within the ten year rebate period. The additional
rebate would occur only over any remaining portion of the rebate
period on the Long Haul site.
I am providing a copy of this Draft Agreement to Attorney John
Gries who represents Long Haul Trucking, Inc for his review and
comment.
If the Agreement appears to be satisfactory, I would request that
the Council approve the form of the Agreement and adopt the
accompanying resolution which was previously forwarded to your
Letter to Otsego City Council
September 6, 1995
Page 2
attention. If you have any questions regarding this matter I will
be available at the September 11 Council meeting to respond.
Very truly yours, /
An- rew J acArt r
RADZAILL & COURI
Encls.
cc: John Gries, Attorney at Law
Bob Kirmis, NAC
Larry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson
September 6, 1995
DRAFT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF OTSEGO AND LONG HAUL TRUCKING, INC.
REGARDING THE REBATE OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE CITY SHARE OF REAL
PROPERTY TAXES ON LOT 2, BLOCK 2, OTSEGO INDUSTRIAL PARR
AGREEMENT made this day of , 1995 between the City of
Otsego ("City"), a municipal corporation under the laws of the
State of Minnesota and Long Haul Trucking, Inc. ("Developer"), a
Minnesota corporation, regarding rebate of certain portions of the
City share of real property taxes on the following described
property:
Lot 2, Block 2, OTSEGO INDUSTRIAL PARK, according to the plat
on file and of record at the Wright County Recorder's Office,
Wright County, Minnesota.
1. Developer is the owner of the above described property and has
thereon constructed buildings valued at approximately $750,000.00.
The land described above and improvements thereto are valued at
approximately $100,000.00.
2. Developer has also platted that subdivision known as OTSEGO
INDUSTRIAL PARK, and has thereon constructed a roadway and various
drainage facilities to improve the property. The estimated cost for
construction of the street and drainage facilities within the
subdivision is $65,000.00. Said subdivision contains four (4)
platted lots in addition to the site described above. Developer is
the owner of Lot 2, Block 2, and has an interest in the other four
(4) lots within said OTSEGO INDUSTRIAL PARK.
3. The City has committed to provide assistance to Developer in an
amount, not to exceed $65,000.00, by rebating to Developer, on a
yearly basis, a portion of the City's share of real property taxes
on the above described property.
4. Said rebate shall not take place until the taxes for each
respective year are actually paid. If taxes for a specific year are
not paid, or only partial payment made, there shall be no rebate
for that year and the amount of the City's commitment for final
payment shall be reduced by $6,50400 for each year when taxes are
not paid or are only partially paid.
5. The County Assessor's estimate of the value of the property is
approximately $850,000.00. Based upon that valuation, the City has
estimated that the City's yearly share of property taxes for the
foreseeable future, assuming a tax rate similar to at present and
no drastic circumstances which would materially affect the
property's valuation, should be approximately $13,000.00 per year.
6. Accordingly, the City will rebate a portion of the property
taxes due to the City pursuant to the following schedule, and
subject to restrictions contained in this Agreement:
REBATE SCHEDULE
Year 1- $6,500.00
Year 2- $6,500.00
Year 3- $6,500.00
Year 4- $6,500.00
Year 5- $6,500.00
Year 6- $6,500.00
Year 7- $6,500.00
Year 8- $6,500.00
Year 9- $6,500.00
Year 10- $6,500.00
7. In addition to the rebates listed above, Developer may qualify
for rebate of additional portions of the City share of real
property taxes actually paid on the above described property as
follows: For each additional lot within the plat of "Otsego
Industrial Park" which is developed for commercial/ industrial uses
and commences paying real property taxes within the time frame of
the Rebate Schedule above, and commencing from that year when said
real property taxes are actually paid, the City will rebate an
additional $500.00 per year of the City's share of real property
taxes from Lot 2, Block 2, OTSEGO INDUSTRIAL PARK for the remainder
of the term of the Rebate Schedule remaining on the date that said
additional rebates commence. In any year when there is no payment
or only partial payment of taxes on any one of the lots in the
plat, or all of the lots , or any combination of lots, the
respective rebates related to those particular parcels will not be
made, and the City's commitment for additional payment shall be
reduced by the amount committed for that particular year or years.
8. Events Of Default.
Events of Default Defined. The following shall be "Events of
Default" under this Agreement and the term "Event of Default" shall
mean whenever it is used in this Agreement any one or more of the
following events:
A. Failure by the Developer to timely pay any ad valorem real
property taxes assessed with respect to the property herein
described.
B. Failure by the Developer to cause the installation of the
Project to be completed pursuant to the terms, conditions, and
limitations of the Developer's Contract- Otsego Industrial Park as
previously executed and recorded.
C. Failure of the Developer to observe or perform any other
covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part be
observed or performed under this Agreement or under the Developer's
Contract- Otsego Industrial Park.
D. The holder of any mortgage on the above described real
property or any improvements thereon, or any portion thereof,
commences foreclosure proceedings as a result of any default under
the applicable mortgage documents.
E. If the Developer shall
1. file any petition in bankruptcy or for any
reorganization, arrangement, composition, readjustment,
liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United States
Bankruptcy Act of 1978, as amended or under any similar federal or
state law; or
2. make any assignment for the benefit of its creditors;
or
3. admit in writing its inability to pay its debts
generally as they become due; or
4. be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent; or if a
petition or answer proposing the adjudication of the Developer, as
a bankrupt or its reorganization under any present or future
federal bankruptcy act or any similar federal or state law shall be
filed in any court and such petition or answer shall not be
discharged or denied within sixty (60) days after the filing
thereof; or a receiver, trustee or liquidator of the Developer, or
of the Project, or part thereof, shall be appointed in any
proceeding brought against the Developer, and shall not be
discharged within sixty (60) days after such appointment, or if the
Developer, shall consent to or acquiesce in such appointment.
5. petition or apply for detachment from the City under
existing law, or any amendment thereto.
8. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to
in this Agreement occurs and is continuing, the City may take
anyone or more of the following actions after the giving of thirty
(30) days written notice to the Developer, but only if the Event of
Default has not been cured within said thirty (30) days:
A. The City may suspend its performance under this Agreement
until it receives assurances from the Developer, deemed adequate by
the City, that the Developer will cure its default and continue its
performance under this Agreement.
B. The City may cancel and rescind the Agreement.
C. The City may take any action, including legal or
administrative action, in law or equity, which may appear necessary
or desirable to enforce performance and observance of any
obligation, agreement, or covenant of the Developer under this
Agreement.
9. This Agreement shall be filed for record in the office of the
County Recorder of Wright County, Minnesota, and such filing shall
constitute notice to any subsequent encumbrancer or purchaser of
the above described property (or part thereof), whether voluntary
or involuntary, and such Agreement shall be binding and enforceable
in its entirety against any such subsequent purchaser or
encumbrancer, including the holder of any mortgage.
10. This is a full and complete recitation of the Agreement between
the parties and any and all prior agreements, whether written or
oral, are merged into this document.
CITY OF OTSEGO
Dated:
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
Dated:
Dated:
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
By
Its
LONG HAUL TRUCKING
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 1995 by
Norman F. Freske, Mayor and Elaine Beatty, City Clerk on behalf of
the City of Otsego pursuant to the authority of the City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 1995 by
the of Long Haul
Trucking, Inc., a Minnesota corporation on behalf of the
corporation.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
RADZWILL LAW OFFICE
705 Central Avenue East
St. Michael, MN 55376
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROVISION OF CITY FUNDING ASSISTANCE TO
OTSEGO INDUSTRIAL PARK AND LONG HAUL TRUCKING, INC.
WHEREAS, Long Haul Trucking, Inc. and John Daniels have received
City approval for that plat known as OTSEGO INDUSTRIAL PARK within
the City of Otsego, and are currently in the process of
constructing a trucking facility on a portion (Lot 2, Block 2)of
that property; and
WHEREAS, in order to achieve proper access to the various lots
within the plat, Long Haul Trucking, Inc. and John Daniels must
construct an internal road within the plat, said road being
constructed to City specifications, as well as on site drainage
facilities; and
WHEREAS, the costs of construction of said road and drainage
facilities amount to approximately $65,000.00, and
WHEREAS, said road and the plat of " Otsego Industrial Park" will
benefit the City of Otsego by raising the tax base of the City and
providing a place for business and industry to locate within the
City, and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of Otsego to encourage
commercial and industrial uses within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has made a commitment to Long Haul Trucking and
John Daniels to provide assistance in funding the internal access
road and facilities mentioned above; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that said assistance will be in
the form of a rebate of a portion of the City share of real
property taxes received from Lot 2, Block 2, OTSEGO INDUSTRIAL
PARK, pursuant to the terms and conditions of that Agreement
attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City has further determined that the Developer will be
offered additional incentive for full development of the plat in
the form of an additional rebate of the City share of the real
property taxes received from said Lot 2, Block 2, OTSEGO INDUSTRIAL
PARK, based upon development of the other platted lots and the
commencement of taxes being paid on these additional lots, all
pursuant to the terms and conditions of that Agreement attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
WHEREAS, said assistance is not to be construed as the
establishment of any general policy to provide assistance to
Developers, but is, rather, a singular decision based upon the
unique circumstances of this proposed development and the benefits
that it can provide to the City of Otsego.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
OTSEGO that the City will provide assistance to the Developer of
"Otsego Industrial Park" for the construction of the above
mentioned internal access road and improvements in the form of a
rebate of the City share of real property taxes received from Lot
2, Block 2, OTSEGO INDUSTRIAL PARK in an amount not to exceed
$65,000.00, and will also offer the incentive of possible further
rebate of an additional portion of the City share of real property
taxes received from said parcel based upon further development of
the plat, all upon the terms and conditions contained within that
Agreement designated as Exhibit A, and approved as to form by the
City Council.
ADOPTED this day of , 1995 by the Otsego City Council.
IN FAVOR:
OPPOSED:
CITY OF OTSEGO
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
09/1111995 09:11
2188291726
Mx. Andrew MacArthiu
RADS- & COURI
705 Ceatral Avenue Bast
P.O. 13ua 369
St. "chael, MN 55376
PAUL S. JACOBsr=N
ATToar+er AT t..sw
3.177 -VOCM Lac
$RAIMi M, MMNE OTA 56401
TtLEPHOHWFAX MW 820-1726
September 11, 1995
Ka: Contract between Bouestrno, Rnsene:, Andeaic & Assaa. and the
Communities of Qtwga, Dayton and F ranldirt
Dear Mia'. MacArthur
PAGE 02
This letter follows our phone cotzversaticm of September 8, when we discussed
certaiut provisions. of the proposed contract between the Bonewoo firm and tt three
comrmmitiea.
.As we dis«issed, 330ACStma will agme to the changes th& you suggest in
paragraphs 1, :2� 3 and 6 of your August 24 letter to Tome Noyes_ However, Bonestroo
cannot ag= to the deletions suggested by paragm bs 4 and S.
Paragraph 4 requests the deletion of section 5.7.3. As Svc discussed, section 5.7.3
sourly clarifies that Banesu*o agxcs to meet the standard of care of similarly situated
design pro&smoosis, but that it cnanot be held to a Mnndard of guanwiceing certain
resuita. '1'h+e law don not hold =Y professional, whether it be a doctor, lawyer, or
=46neer, to a standard in wbdch certain results aro guaranteed. Ste City of Eveleth v.
AVnb e, 302 Minn. 249, 225 N.W.2d 521, 524 (1974), CYtYOf1 OwAdtview v. Watlya?W,
263 N.W.2d 420, 424 O&M. 1978). 1 have had retina oases in which litigants argued
(unsuccessfufty) that an engineer guaranteed a result. !Section 5.7.3 avoids Haat argument,
and clarifies the duties at the begWring, of the rr aria LSWP.
You also requested the deletion of section 5. I 1, wkcb ihuiis Hom*troo's Eability
to its inwmnre coverage. Your better ommssed a toners that the clause, as drafted,
potentially Puts your clierrts in the muddle of POtentisi OOvOruge betwom
Bonestrou and its carrier. To meet your 00=41ns, yet to preserve thO essence of the
clause's intent, Y told you that vire would modifjr the clause so that it was not eoxntingaA on
coverage issuaiL Because Sonestroo's rates are determined based oat a cap on their
liability, an upper limit of 31 m0ion of liability must be pre=Nrd. .AccordkWy, section
5.11 cm be mocl ed to read as fbilows:
VO, d 74101
The F.ngineex's babgk to Ownu for my and ,'ill des, losses or
d=agw arising out of MY PmJea or th& Armawn' from `
but not tkniterl to the Ba&aees mss~ or Qunsimm
the total combbwd seam of $l million.
Please inform ane if this mndif caf= is a Ocxgtable.
I believe that this addres= the issues raised 'A ymr letter and in our phone
conversation. If you hw.,V MW f vtber rommonts or quesdons, Plein eon rnc.
r
aul Z.
CC Thornes Noyes
David Loskvta
City of Otsego
Engineer's Agenda Items
City Council Meeting
September 11, 1995
9.1 Stormwater Impact Fee
(Refer to attached letter for recommendations)
9.2 Improvement Project 94-2 CSAH37 and Odean Avenue
a. The work on the project should be completed by September 5, 1995.
Sodding, seeding, and fence are nearly completed.
We anticipate a Change Order by next meeting to construct a storm
water pond to retain storm water runoff from the new construction.
The final contract amount is anticipated to be less than the bid amount.
b. Considered recommendation to approve Partial Payment #2.
Refer to a copy of the pay estimate attached. The amount of
$108,697.64 is the recommended partial payment.
5.3 Municipal Well Update
a. School started without a problem with the water supply.
We have distributed the Emergency Services information to the School
staff.
Our major event for the last week has been proving that the well pump
delivers adequate flow and pressure for fire flow.
The State Fire Marshall spent several days at the school attempting,
along with the school's fire service consultant, to get approval of the
system.
A test taken on August 31, 1995 failed to produce results that the
Marshall's could live with. The test was not correctly conducted. In the
meantime, we were tied -up by the School District to address the
problem. Finally, on September 1, Kevin determined the error in the test
Agenda
Page 2
September 11, 1995
procedures and demonstrated that the pump did what we knew it would
do.
All is well to date, however, it has taken a long and tense time to
convince the district that our well is adequate to their needs.
b. Financial
Phyllis, with our assistance, has a preliminary summary of the well
bonding balance.
C. Maintenance
An agreement proposal submitted to the City by EH Renner & Sons is
attached for your review. The alternative we researched for obtaining a
replacement pump motor is described in Renner's letter. He has four
supply warehouse's locally, and in the worst case could obtain a motor
within 36 hours.
An agreement with Custom Electric for electrical related services is
pending.
Kevin will be meeting with Duane Fiedler to transfer the information
about the well and components.
9.4 Variance to setback from Wetlands for Mound disposal systems.
Applicants are requesting variance to setback line (see attached finding of
factor).
a. Moore, 7905 Ochoa Avenue
b. Touhey, 8511 Nashua Avenue NE
9.5 Any other Engineering Business
agenda9.11
SEP 11 '95 12:34 HAKANSON ANDERSON
Hakanson
Anderson
I-10Assoc., Inc.
September 11, 1885
M9. Elaine Beatty, Clerk
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue.
Otsego, MN 55330
RE. Lin -Bar Preliminary Plat
Dear Elaine:
222 Monroe Street
Anoka. Mlnnesnta 55303
612/427-5660
Fax 612/427.3401
We have received a revised grading and drainage plan dated August 31, 1995,
submitted by Meyer-Rohlin, Inc. on September 5, 1995. We also have a copy of the
Final Plat received on August 8, 1995. Our comment and concerns are listed below:
1. The July 28, 1995 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan showed
extensive site grading. The plan showed drainage direction.
We met with the Developers and engineer Thor Meyer on August 29,
1995 at the City Hall. At the meeting we related our concerns about the
drainage plan which lacked ponding and runoff from Lots 2 and 3, Block
2 flows directly to a low area In the adjacent property.
The developer and engineer were informed that any additional runoff due
to development must be ponded and released at a rate not greater than
existing condition. In the case of Lots 2 and 3, Block 3 providing just an
easement is not adequate to address the potential runoff problem.
Ponding is a requirement per the subdivision ordinance. The runoff from
the street must be ponded and not directed overland by undetermined
means.
2. The revised drawings dated August 31, 1995 provide less grading and
drainage plan than the previous one.
This plan does not meet the requirement of the ordinance.
The ponding for the street runoff may be in a temporary pond but must
be in an easement area dedicated to the City for drainage purposes.
Engineers Landscape Architects Survvyon
P.1
SEP 11 '95 12:35 HAKANSON ANDERSON
Elaine Beatty
Page 2
September 11, 1995
3. We are in agreement that it is necessary to provide undistributed soil for
sewage disposal systems. However, it may not be necessary to preclude
to entire lot from locating necessary drainage swages, ponds, etc.
4. We require a 20' easement at the side of the plat that is adjacent to
unplatted land. If a 10' easement exists an the unplatted property this
required will be waived.
5. We concur with the future subdivision plan for Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 3,
Block 3 due to the building set back distance from a County Highway.
6. Both the County Highway Department and City are requiring that an
easement be provided for the drainage adjacent to the highway in the
area of Concept Plan lot 6, 7, and 3, Block 3. The location, description
and quit claim deed are being prepared and will be available within the
next week.
If you have any questions, please contact me a and if I an not available, contact Mr.
Kevin Kielb at our office.
Yours truly,
WHAKANS ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC_
.
steak, PE
ilg
cc: Wilfred Lindenfelser
Hilary Barry
Bob Kirrnis, NAC
Andy MacArthur, Attorney
Virgil Hawkins, Assistant County Engineer
OT2134.ob1
P.2
Item 9.1
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
September 7, 1995
Honorable Mayor & Council
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue
Otsego, MN 55330
RE: Storm Sewer Impact Fees
Dear Mayor & Council Members:
222 Monroe Street
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-3401
As direct by Council at the regular council meeting on August 28, 1995, we have
studied the "impact fee" proposed on developments for future storm water
improvements. Our recommendations are based on review of future needs to improve
and/or construct new facilities to manage storm water primarily to allow for new
development and to improve drainage in the watershed.
Resolution 95-13 allows for the Council to set a impact fee on development. The fee
needs to be fair and equitable. It also must be substantial enough to provide funds to
solve the problem successfully.
It is our opinion that if impact fees are collected in this time frame, the fund should be
spent in a reasonably short period of time. Ten to twenty years in the future is
perhaps too long of a holding period for these funds.
It appears that with the Vantatenhove development it would be necessary to consider
storm drainage facilities to outlet from west of Odean Avenue to the Mississippi River.
We have estimated the cost of the improvement to provide an outlet to the Mississippi
River to be $60,000. These are 1995 dollars. The potential for development of large
undeveloped parcels in the North Mississippi and nearby Halls District is approximately
60 acres.
The Hall Pond District is the one district that needs to reduce its watershed size due
to the limited capacity of the Hall's Pond. Our recommendation is to ultimately
En4ine-rs Landscape Architects Surveyors
Honorable Mayor & Council
Page 2
September 7, 1995
transfer a portion of Halls District to the North Mississippi District. This will be done
where the drainage can be redirected by development. See attached exhibit.
We therefore recommend an impact fee of 51,000/acre for property to plated or
subdivided in old subdistrict #1 of Halls Pond District (now in North Mississippi
District), Subdistrict 5C in Halls Pond District and subdistrict 3 in the North Mississippi
District.
The Lin -Bar plat, as proposed lies in both the Lefebrve and Rice -Foster Lake Watershed
District. The proposed plat is 5 one acre lots and is a fraction of the concept plan for
the 52 acres. The drainage from the proposed plat will affect the overall system in
both Watershed Districts. An impact fee is recommended.
Presently, an easement for drainage is requirement adjacent to CSAH37 at the east
end of the new CSAH37. The easement will provide a ponding area for runoff from
the newly constructed intersection at Odean Avenue and CSAH37 and for future
reconstruction of CSAH37 east of the present project.
The proposed easement is approximately 380' x 65' or .57 acres. The appraiser for
the Intersection project allowed 51,800/acres for permanent easement in the fall of
1993 on this same land. Assuming a value increase based on the two years total
inflation of 6%, the value per acre would be approximately $1,910/acres.
We recommend the City accept the easement from the Lin -Bar Development in leu of
storm water drainage impact cash fees. The ponding easement will ultimately be part
of the drainage facilities for the 52 acres and will drain water downstream to the south
to connect to an existing agricultural drain system. The pond is needed now to
warrant against possible property damage from high intensity storms to adjacent land
and to reduce the stormwater flow rate off site.
The Otsego Creek Watershed District has a main creek study in place however, the
tributary drainage systems have not been analyzed.
In the case of Long Haul Trucking plat it is not within our ability without extensive
study to estimate and recommend an impact fee for that development.
Otsego Creek Watershed may need to rely on the Taxing District Method to finance
future storm water drainage projects.
Honorable Mayor & Council
Page 3
September 7, 1995
Each of the proposed future plats will need a review and recommendation if not
included in the above areas.
We will be available at the council meeting to present the recommendations.
Yours truly,
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
a ence G oshak, PE
jlg
Enclosure
cc: Elaine Beatty, Clerk
Phyllis Boedigheimer, Finance Director
Andrew MacArthur, Attorney
Bob Kirmas, Planner, NAC
OT413
PROPOSEDDRAINAGE PROPOSED
EASEMENT LIN BAR PLAT
QP
z
j'S. H. (N.E. 70th ST.) NO. 37
FT -1 F_7
w
z
w
Q
POND
v1_7__z
N.E. 67
WAYS
Of
a
DITCH
PRAUGHTFUTUREDRAINAGE
WETEXTSTING
eD
NE 62nd ST.
�T
Id
d
500 0 500 1000
CITY OF OT 'O RICE-FER LAKE
S ,N FEE7
DATE: SEPTEMBER 1995 _: OT413 WATERSH DISTRICT
Variance Approval
(Shoreland Setback)
GTTY OF OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MZNNESOTA
IN RE: FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
Application of Robert and Linda Moore to allow a variance from the City's shoreland setback
requirements for sewage treatment systems.
On 11 September 1995, the Otsego City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider
the application of Robert and Linda Moore to allow a variance from the City's shoreland setback
requirements for sewage treatment systems.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is legally described as:
Lot 20, Block 1, Walesch Estates Second Addition
2. The subject property is zoned R-3, Residential Immediate Urban Service and lies within
the Shoreland Overlay District of an unnamed recreational lake (Protected Water 107 #86-
331W).
3. Section 20-71-8.A.2.b. of the Zoning Ordinance establishes a minimum setback of 75 feet
(from ordinary high water mark) for sewage treatment systems within the shorelands of
recreational development lakes.
4. The provisions of the City's adopted sewage disposal ordinance are consistent with the
aforementioned Zoning Ordinance requirement.
5. Due to the physical features of the subject property, it is not possible for the applicants to
comply with shoreland setback requirements.
6. The applicants are proposing to locate a sewage treatment system (drainf'eld)
approximately 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark of protected water #86-331 W.
7. The proposed sewage treatment system shall replace a failing system which currently exists
upon the subject property.
8. Section 20-5-2.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance stating statutory requirements and judicial
precedent provides than a variance may not be issued unless certain criteria are satisfied.
The criteria and findings regarding them are:
a. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
Approval of the requested setback variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to adjacent properties.
b. Unreasonably increase the congestion of the public street.
Approval of the requested variance will not result in the allowance of any
additional development rights upon the subject property. Thus, approval of the
variance will not increase congestion upon Ochoa Avenue which serves the subject
property.
C. Have the effect of allowing any uses which are prohibited, permit a lesser
degree of flood protection than the flood protection elevation for the
particular area, or permit standards which are lower than those required by
State law.
Approval of the variance will not have the effect of allowing prohibited uses or
permitting a lesser degree of flood protection than required by State law.
d. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
Approval of the requested lot width variance will not increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety.
e. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the
neighborhood, or in any way be contrary to the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The requested setback variance has been prompted by a need to replace a failing
sewage treatment system which currently exists upon the property. The elimination
of an existing environmental hazard upon the subject property will not impair area
property values. The correction of a documented environmental hazard is
consistent with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
`A
f. Violate the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan.
By correcting a failing sewage treatment system, approval of the requested setback
variance fulfills the intent of purpose of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
9. Section 20-5-2.B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance further states that a variance shall not be
granted unless it can be demonstrated that:
a. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of
special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure,
or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures
or buildings in the same district or area.
If the requested setback variance is denied, on-site sewage treatment for the site's
existing dwelling cannot be reasonably provided. An evaluation of physical site
conditions has determined that construction of such facility in compliance with
applicable shoreland requirements is not possible. As such, undue hardship will
result if the variance is denied.
b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parties in the same district
under the terms of this Chapter or deny the applicant the ability to put the
property in question to any reasonable use.
While still operative, numerous sewage treatment systems (legally non -conforming)
in the area fail to meet applicable shozeland setback requirements. Thus, denial of
the requested setback variance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same district. Denial would further deprive the
applicant the ability to put the subject property to reasonable use.
C. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship are not
the result from the actions of the applicant.
The physical conditions of the site, which warrant the request for variance, are not
a result of actions of the applicant.
d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by the Chapter to other lands, structures or buildings
in the same district under the same conditions.
The location of the existing sewage treatment system was legally established. The
granting of the requested variance will correct an existing environmental hazard
and allow the continuance of residential use of the subject property. Granting of
3
the requested variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is
denied by the ordinance to other lands, strictures or buildings in the same district
under the same conditions.
e, The request is not a result of non -conforming lands, structures or buildings
in the same district.
The variance has been requested as a result of an inability to locate a new sewage
treatment within the required 75 foot shoreland setback. The request is not a result
of non -conforming lands, structures or buildings in the same district.
f. The variance requested is the minimum Variance necessary to accomplish the
intended purpose of the applicant.
The variance being requested is the minimum necessary to accomplish the intended
purpose of the applicant.
10. Comments dated 12 June 1995, prepared by Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. are
incorporated herein.
11. On 11 September 1995, the Otsego City Council conducted a public hearing to consider
the proposed variance application preceded by published and mailed notice.
DECISION
Upon review of the variance application, evidence received at the public hearing and other
information, the applicants' request for variance from the City's shoreland setback standards is
approved in its present form subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions outlined in the 12 June 1995 letter prepared by Hakanson Anderson
Associates Inc. are satisfactorily met.
2. Quarterly inspections of the soil treatment unit (the mound) are conducted :for signs of
failure for the first year of operation. Said inspections shall be by a designated City
representative.
4
ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this 11th day of September 1995.
CITY OF OTSEGO
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Flaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zonmg Administrator
5
ItEM_
SEP 11 195 15:17 HAKANSON ANDERSON
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
September 11, 1995
Mr. Jerry Olson, Building Official
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Otsego, MN 553330
RE: Septic System Review
Touhey, 8511 Nashua Avenue NE
Dear Jerry:
Z72 Monroe Street
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
6121427-5860
Fax 612/427.3401
P.1
We have visited the site this day at 8:30 a.m. with the applicant and designer and have
found no need to delineate the wetland boundary as stated earlier. Said boundary is
sufficiently evidenced in the field, such that we concur with the designer as to amount of
setback and location of the mound.
Please note tho amount of variance shown in September 7, 1885 letter was incorrectly
shown at 325'. The correct amount is 35'.
Sincerely,
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
.-- P'
4/
Ross D. Abel, PE
jig
cc: Lawrence G_ Koshak, PE
Elaine Beatty, Clerk
OT2133.io1
En&leeo Ulid5cape Ar chi tec is Surveyors
SEP 07 195 13:57 HAKANF^^I ANDERSON P.1
ZZZ Monroe Street
Hakanson Anaka, Minrx tiota 55303
Anderson 617J42*1-5860
Assoc., (nc. Fox 612/427-3401
September 7, 1995
Mr. Jerry Olson, Building Official
City of Otsego
$899 Nashua avenue NE
Otsego, MN 553330
RE: Septic System Review
Touhey, 8511 Nashua Avenue NE
Dear Jerry:
We have completed our review of the system design prepared by ECO systems Inc.
representative Kevin J. Kloeppner dated August 30, 1995, and have the following
comments and concerns:
• Insufficient readings by which to complete the 10% Calc. for pert tests 2, 3, & 4.
No determination with regards to sizing thr; purnp station for volumes needed to
cover the pump and actuate the alarms.
We recognize the need for a variance from the Shoreland Managernent Act and recommend
a variance in the amount of 325' such that the proposed setback will be approximately
115' from DNR Wetland #332W.
We recommend the site plan be corrected to show the wetland boundary (DNR Natural
Environment Lake 332W) which shall be delineated by a qualified individual, appropriate
setback from the building and overland drainage patterns (GAsting and proposed).
We recommend that the designer complete sufficient readings for perk tests 2, 3, and 4
by which to complete the 10°/0 calculations. We concur with the designer that a 1,000
gallon lift tank is of sufficient size.
Sincerely,
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC,
Ross D. Abel, PE
A
cc: Lawrence G. Koshak, PE
Elaine Beatty, Clerk o72138.yo
Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors
SEP -07-1995 13:570 NAC
CITY OF OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
IN RE:
612 595 9837 P.02i06
Variance Approval
(Shoreland Setback)
FMINGS OFFACT
AND DECISION
Application of Doug Touhey to allow a variance from the City's shoreland setback requirements
for sewage treatment systems.
On 11 September 1995, the Otsego City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider
the application of Doug Touhey to allow a variance from the City's shoreland setback
requirements for sewage treatment systems.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is legally described as:
part of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 and part of the NE 1/4 of Sec 20, Twp 121,
R23, Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota.
2. The subject property is zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural Service and lies within the
Shoreland Overlay District of an unnamed natural environment lake (Protected Water ID
#86-332W).
3. Section 20-71-8.A.2.b. of the Zoning Ordinance establishes a minimum setback of 150
feet (from ordinary high water mark) for sewage treatment systems within the shorelands
of recreational development lakes.
4. The provisions of the City's adopted sewage disposal ordinance are consistent with the
aforementioned Zoning Ordinance requirement.
5. Due to the physical features of the subject property, it is not possible for the applicants to
comply with shoreland setback requirements.
6. The applicants are proposing to locate a sewage treatment system (drai.nfield)
approximately 115 feet from the ordinary high water mark of protected water #86-332W.
SEP -07-1995 13:51 NAC
7.
3
612 595 9e37 P.03/06
The proposed sewage treatment system shall replace a failing system which currently exists
upon the subject property.
Section 20-5-2.B.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance stating statutory requirements and judicial
precedent provides that a variance may not be issued unless certain criteria are satisfied.
The criteria and findings regarding them are:
a. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
Approval of the requested setback variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to adjacent properties.
b. Unreasonably increase the congestion of the public street.
Approval of the requested variance will not result in the allowance of any
additional development rights upon the subject property. 'Thus, approval of the
variance will not increase congestion upon Nashua Avenue which serves the subject
property.
c. Have the effect of allowing any uses which are prohibited, permit a lesser
degree of flood protection than the flood protection elevation for the
particular area, or permit standards which are lower than those required by
State law.
Approval of the variance will not have the effect of allowing prohibited uses or
permitting a lesser degree of flood protection than required by State law.
d. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
Approval of the requested lot width variance will not increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety.
e. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the
neighborhood, or in any way be contrary to the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The requested setback variance has been prompted by a need to replace a failing
sewage treatment system which currently exists upon the property. The elimination
of an existing environmental hazard upon the subject property will not impair area
property values. The correction of a documented environmental hazard is
consistent with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
2
612 595 9837 P.04i06
SEP -07-1995 13:51 NAC
f, Violate the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan.
By correcting a failing sewage treatment system, approval of the requested setback
variance fulfills the intent of purpose of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
9. Section 20-5-2.B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance further states that a variance shall not be
granted unless it can be demonstrated that:
a. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of
special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure,
or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures
or buildings in the same district or area.
if the requested setback variance is denied, on-site sewage treatment for the site's
existing dwelling cannot be reasonably provided. An evaluation of physical site
conditions has determined that construction of such facility in compliance with
applicable shoreland requirements is not possible. As such, undue hardship will
result if the variance is denied.
b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parties in the o put the
ct
under the terms of this Chapter or deny the applicantthe ability t
property in question to any reasonable use.
While still operative, numerous sewage tnmtment systems (leggy non -conforming)
in the area fail to meet applicable shoreland setback requirements. Thus, denial of
the requested setback variance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same district. Denial would further deprive the
applicant the ability to put the subject property to reasonable use.
C. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship are not
the result from the actions of the applicant.
The physical, conditions of the site, which warrant the request for variance, are not
a result of actions of the applicant.
d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by the Chapter to other lands, structures or buildings
in the same district under the same conditions.
The location of the existing sewage treatment system was legally established. The
granting of the requested variance will correct an existing environmental hazard
and allow the continuance of residential use of the subject property. Granting of
3
SEP -07-1995 13:52 NAC
612 595 9837 P.05/06
the requested variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is
denied by the ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district
under the same conditions.
e, The request is not a result of non -conforming lands, structures or buildings
in the same district.
The variance has been requested as a result of an inability to locate a new sewage
treatment within the required 150 foot shoreland setback. The request is not a
result of non -conforming lands, structures or buildings in the same district.
f. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the
intended purpose of the applicant.
The variance being requested is the minimum necessary to accomplish the intended
purpose of the applicant.
10. Comments dated 7 September 1995, prepared by Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. are
incorporated herein.
11. On 11 September 1995, the Otsego City Council conducted a public hearing to consider
the proposed variance application preceded by published and mailed notice.
DECISION
Upon review of the variance application, evidence received at the public hearing and other
information, the applicants' request for variance from the City's shoreland setback standards is
approved in its present form subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions outlined in the 7 September 1995 letter prepared by Hakanson Anderson
Associates Inc. are satisfactorily met.
2. Quarterly inspections of the soil treatment unit (the mound) are conducted for signs of
failure for the first year of operation. Said inspections shall be performed by a designated
City representative.
4
SEP -07-1995 13:53 NAC 612 595 9837 P.06/06
ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this 11th day of September 1995.
QTY OF OTSEGO
By:
AI -MT:
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
By:
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator
W
TOTAL P.06
PAY ESTIMATE 2
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.
Item 9.2b
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
1155.00
37.00
TR
1295.00
2101.507
Grubbing
33
Tree
35.00 TR
1155.00
37.00
TR
1295.00
2104.501
Remove pipe culverts
188
Lin. Ft.
4.00 LF
752.00
210.00
LF
840.00
2104.501
Remove fence (Wire)
90
Lin. Ft.
3.00 LF
270.00
225.00
LF
675.00
2104.501
Remove fence (Wood)
100
Lin. Ft.
3.00 LF
300.00
100.00
LF
300.00
2104.505
Remove bituminous pavement
8150
Sq. Yd.
1.00 SY
8150.00
8447.00
SY
8447.00
2104.505
Remove concrete slab
155
Sq. Yd.
1.00 SY
155.00
155.00
SY
155.00
2104.509
Remove sign
27
Each
8.50 EA
229.50
27.00
EA
229.50
2104.509
Remove timber cattle pass
70
Lin. Ft.
15.00 LF
1050.00
70.00
LF
1050.00
2104.513
Sawing bituminous pavement
74
Lin. Ft.
2.00 LF
148.00
96.00
LF
192.00
2104.521
Salvage fence
135
Lin. Ft.
5.00 LF
675.00
0.00
LF
0.00
2105.501
Common excavation
34537
Cu. Yd.
1.80 CY
62166.60
34537.00
CY
62166.60
2123.503
Motor Grader (60th St. maint.)
60
Hour
60.00 HR
3600.00
8.50
HR
510.00
-' 501
Water (60th St. maint.)
60
M Gal
15.00 GAL
900.00
117.00
GAL
1755.00
301
Aggregate base class 5
6886
Ton
6.00 T
41316.00
5603.30
T
33619.80
501
Agg. base c15 (60th St. maint.)
1295
Cu. Yd.
7.00 CY
9065.00
816.00
CY
5712.00
0ij1.601
2" bit. wearing course (driveways)
787
Sq. Yd.
4.50 SY
3541.50
591.00
SY
2659.50
2340.508
Type 41 wearing course mixture
1482
Ton
23.50 T
34827.00
1473.05
T
34616.68
2340.514
Type 31 base course mixture
1977
Ton
20.50 T
40528.50
1838.59
T
37691.10
2357.502
Bituminous material for tack coat
919
Gallon
1.00 GAL
919.00
700.00
GAL
700.00
0412.602
Relocate mailbox
4
Each
60.00 EA
240.00
5.00
EA
300.00
2501.511
15" RC pipe culvert class V
208
Lin. Ft.
26.00 LF
5408.00
160.00
LF
4160.00
2501.511
18" RC pipe culvert class V
140
Lin. FT.
28.00 LF
3920.00
132.00
LF
3696.00
2501.515
15" RC pipe apron
10
Each
280.00 EA
2800.00
8.00
EA
2240.00
2501.515
18" RC pipe apron
4
Each
315.00 EA
1260.00
4.00
EA
1260.00
2503.511
15" RC pipe sewer class III
567
Lin. Ft.
22.00 LF
12474.00
616.70
LF
13567.40
2503.573
Install conc. apron storm (1511)
2
Each
280.00 EA
560.00
2.00
EA
560.00
2506.508
Construct manhole storm
3
Each
1300.00 EA
3900.00
3.00
EA
3900.00
2506.509
Construct catchbasin storm
3
Each
1000.00 EA
3000.00
3.00
EA
3000.00
2511.501
Random riprap cl III w/ geo. fab.
36
Cu. Yd.
40.00 CY
1440.00
36.00
CY
1440.00
2531.501
Conc, curb and gutter design B618
1450
Lin. Ft.
5.20 LF
7540.00
1454.50
LF
7563.40
2531.501
Conc. curb and gutter design D418
1264
Lin. Ft.
5.25 LF
6636.00
1259.00
LF
6609.75
2531.507
6" concrete driveway pavement
33
Sq. Yd.
26.00 SY
858.00
43.70
SY
1136.20
0557.603
Wood fence 6' high
254
Lin. Ft.
47.50 LF
12065.00
0.00
LF
0.00
0563.601
Traffic Control
1
Lump Sum
3000.00 LS
3000.00
1.00
LS
3000.00
0564.602
4" broken line yellow - tape
864
Lin. Ft.
0.25 LF
216.00
0.00
LF
0.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (stop)
2
Each
165.00 EA
330.00
2.00
EA
330.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (stop ahead)
2
Each
165.00 EA
330.00
2.00
EA
330.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (winding road)
2
Each
115.00 EA
230.00
2.00
EA
230.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (advisory speed)
2
Each
42.00 EA
84.00
2.00
EA
84.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (cross road)
2
Each
115.00 EA
230.00
2.00
EA
230.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (dead end)
1
Each
115.00 EA
115.00
1.00
EA
115.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (two way traffic)
2
Each
115.00 EA
230.00
2.00
EA
230.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (hidden driveway)
1
Each
115.00 EA
115.00
1.00
EA
115.00
0564.602
F & I sign panel (pavement ends)
1
Each
115.00 EA
115.00
1.00
EA
115.00
0564.602
F & I street name sign
1
Each
165.00 EA
165.00
0.00
EA
0.00
0564.602
Pavement mess. (left arrow) paint
2
Each
20.00 EA
40.00
2.00
EA
40.00
0564.602
Pavement mess. (right arrow) Paint
2
Each
20.00 EA
40.00
2.00
EA
40.00
05F4.602
Pavement mess. (only) paint
4
Each
40.00 EA
160.00
4.00
EA
160.00
103
24" stop line white - paint
30
Lin. Ft.
1.25 LF
37.50
38.00
LF
47.50
03
24" solid line yellow - paint
368
Lin. Ft.
0.80 LF
294.40
547.00
LF
437.60
u-__.603
4" solid line white - paint
6680
Lin. Ft.
0.15 LF
1002.00
6215.00
LF
932.25
0564.603
4" double solid line yellow - paint
4165
Lin. Ft.
0.30 LF
1249.50
2501.00
LF
750.30
0565.602
Furnish and install street light
2
Each
0.00 EA
0.00
0.00
EA
0.00
0565.603
2" PVC Conduit
307
LF
5.00 LF
1535.00
307.00
LF
1535.00
2573.501
Bale check
160
Each
6.00 EA
960.00
35.00
EA
210.00
2573.503
Silt fence, preassembled
7190
Lin. Ft.
1.65 LF
11863.50
5186.00
LF
8556.90
2573.508
Bituminous lined flume
21
Sq. Yd.
20.00 SY
420.00
19.30
SY
386.00
APPROVALS
CONTRACTOR: Certification by Contract: I certify that all items and amounts
shown are correct for the work completed to date.
BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC.
Signed:
Title:
ENGINEER: HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES INC.
Signed:
Date:
Title: Date:
OTHER: BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC.
Signed:
Title: Date:
OT323PE2.wk3
Estimated
Contract
Used
Item No.
Description
Quantity
Unit Price
Amount
To Date
Extension
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2575.501
Seeding
3.41
Acre
100.00
AC
341.00
0.00
AC
0.00
2575.502
Seed Mixture 800
170.5
Pound
3.00
LB
511.50
0.00
LB
0.00
2575.505
Sodding, type lawn
5265
Sq. Yd.
1.50
SY
7897.50
2632.00
SY
3948.00
2575.511
Mulch material type 1
6.80
Ton
150.00
T
1020.00
0.00
T
0.00
2575.519
Disc anchoring
3.41
Acre
25.00
AC
85.25
0.00
AC
0.00
2575.523
Wood fiber blanket type regular
1100
Sq. Yd.
1.00
SY
1100.00
0.00
SY
0.00
2575.531
Commercial fertilizer, 20-10-10
0.86
Ton
300.00
T
258.00
0.00
T
0.00
TOTAL BID SCHEDULE "A" - Total work completed
to date
------------
$307,979.25
------------
$266,164.47
Original
Work
Contract
Completed
SUMMARY
Schedule A
------------
$307,979.25
------------
$266,164.47
Less 5% Retainage:
13,308.22
Less Pay Estimate #1
144,158.61
TOTAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT DUE TO CONTRACTOR:
------------
$307,979.25
------------
$108,697.64
WE RECOMMEND PARTIAL PAYMENT OF:
$108,697.64
APPROVALS
CONTRACTOR: Certification by Contract: I certify that all items and amounts
shown are correct for the work completed to date.
BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC.
Signed:
Title:
ENGINEER: HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES INC.
Signed:
Date:
Title: Date:
OTHER: BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC.
Signed:
Title: Date:
OT323PE2.wk3
f. N. Renner 6 sons
LNCORPORATED
Item 9.3c
WELL DRILLINo .-OR FOUR GENERATIONS
15688 JARVIS STREET N.W. / ELK RIVER, MN 55330
PHONE: (612) 427-6100 / FAX: (612) 427-0533
September 4, 1995 - 1 7,
CITY
CITY OF OTSEGO ' ; SEP 6 19,0;
C/O HANKANSON ANDERSON
222 MONROE STREET
ANOKA MN 55303
ATTN: MR KEVIN KIELB
(612) 427-5860 427-3401 FAX
SUBJECT: OTSEGO MUNICIPAL WELL #1
RE: QUOTATION FOR MAINTENANCE SERVICE
Dear Sir,
Per our recent phone conversation, E.H. RENNER & SONS, INC. is
prepared to offer our services to perform certain tasks on a time
and materials basis for the City of Otsego.
This service would be regarded as a maintenance contract with the
City should they need emergency service for the Otsego deep well
#1. No fee is charged to be on call.
LABOR & EQUIPMENT CHARGES:
1. MOBILIZATION/DEMOB OF PUMP TRUCK TO SITE $50.00/TRIP
2. PUMP TRUCK TIME WHILE BEING USED (ONLY) $75.00/HR
3. SERVICE TECHNICIAN ON SITE $54.00/HR
Time & one half will be charged for after 4:30pm and Saturday work.
Double time will be charged for Sunday work, & triple time for
Holiday work.
MATERIAL CHARGES:
We will charge the City 15% markup on any materials purchased or
required for repairs to this system.
Page #1
An Equal Opportunity Employer
We have investigated the cost for a new GRUNDFOS pump end ( 3755400-
6DS) is $2,536.60. We can obtain this wet end from Chicago in
five (5) working days. This cost does not include the Air Freight
to ship to Mpls air terminal, State sales tax, nor our pickup &
delivery to the site.
We have also investigated the cost for a new FRANKLIN 40hp motor.
We can usually obtain this in the Twin Cities for $1,815.00. We
checked the four supply houses in town who normally stock this
motor to find that no one had one. Recently sold and had not been
restocked as of yet. If we had to order one out from Chicago, we
must order before 2:pm and it would arrive by 8:30 the next
morning. This cost does not include the Air Freight to ship to
Mpls air terminal, State sales tax, nor our pickup & delivery to
the site.
PHONE NUMBERS:
We have several phone numbers to call for service. Please call in
the following order:
1. OFFICE phone number (427-6100) and call forwarding to the
home of Roger E. Renner, president after hours. Mobil
number is 991-3607.
2. Ray Renner's home number is 427-1806. Ray's pager is
534-7532. Ray's mobil number is 747-0582.
3. Tom Renner's home number is 427-6470.
4. Service Tech Tony Eisinger pager is 747-8958. Mobil
number is 539-9104.
We are located only 4 miles from the school. We can usually
respond within minutes. Mr Mike Crepeau is our purchasing agent
at E.H. RENNER & SONS, INC. who is also on the Elk River Fire Dept.
If there was ever a problem, he would be on call 24 hours for the
City emergency response team.
E.H. RENNER & SONS, INC. has the following advantages to be on call
first:
a. Since time is so critical, we are located only 4 miles
from the site.
b. Response phone numbers are local & close to site.
C. Employee on Elk River fire Dept.
d. Familiar with site conditions & controls.
e. Five member emergency response team.
Page #2
Since the pump and motor is very critical to this system. We are
limited to exactly the GPM/TDH conditions that this well requires.
We are recommending that atleast the pump end be purchased and left
either in the school or at our facility for immediate installation
if needed.
The motor is not quite as critical but may require additional time
if all the suppliers in the metro are currently "sold out".
If you should have any questions, please call.
Sincerely Submitted.
Roger E. Renner, President
RASTER GROUNDWATER CONTRACTOR
E.H. RENNER & SONS, INC.
HINNESOTA LICENSE #71015
COR.95/OTSEGO
Page #3
custom
electric
September 7, 1995
Kevin Kielb
Hakanson Anderson Assoc.
222 Monroe St.
Anoka, Mn. 55303
RE: CITY OF OTSEGO - MUNICIPAL WELL PROJECT
Dear Kevin;
SEP 1 11995 �� I►
We would appreciate to provide a service contract for the Otsego Well Project
as stated in your August 24th letter. Our costs for this are as follows:
• First hour of service - Normal working hours - 7:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M.
- $75.00. Overtime from 3:30 P.M. to 12:00 Midnight - $112.50.
Double-time from 12:00 Midnight to 7:00 A.M. - $150.00.
• Each hour after first hour of service - Normal hours - $50.00.
Overtime hours - $75.00. Double-time hours - $100.00.
• If more than four hours are provided on a call then all hours shall be
the same as 2nd paragraph above.
• All materials (and permits if required) used shall have a 10% profit
added to them.
• All time shall be charged in half hour segments.
• Cost changes shall be changed when our costs change. (Generally
yearly)
• Costs for special tools needed for a project which we may have to rent
shall be charged at cost plus 5%.
24 Hour Telephone Numbers
Office 631-9128, Fax Number 786-7078
Eldon Holmes - Home 786-8377, Voice Pager 621-2928, Car Phone 670-9020
Steve Bostrom - Home 427-3962, Voice Pager 622-7617
Charles Larson - Home 427-9443, Voice Pager 622-7308
Please call our office if you have any questions concerning this letter.
Sincer y;
Eldon Holmes
Owner
8421 MISSISSIPPI BLVD. N.W. • COON RAPIDS, MN 55433
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT.
MEETING DATE
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FINANCE
SEPTEMBER 11,1995
ITEM NO: ITEM DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY
10.2 CONSIDER RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROPOSED
1995 TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 1996
P.Boedigheime
Truth In Taxation Law requires that each "taxing authority" must approve and certify a proposed
property tax levy for taxes payable 1996 to the county auditor on or before September 15, 1995. The
City Council has held three budget worksessions to review the City's general operations and bonded
indebtedness requirements to ultimately arrive at a proposed property tax levy for 1996.
The attached resolution defines the proposed property tax levy for general government operations, park
development and bonded indebtedness. General government operations includes the following
departments:
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
General Engineering
40,000
Street Lighting
10,000
Recycling
30,000
District 728 Recreation
17,777
Park Maintenance
32,770
Historical Society
1,550
Street Maintenance
247,209
Street Capital Outlay
38,924
General Government Capital Outlay
17,410
Total Proposed Expenditures $1,051,457
The resolution also defines the amount of HACA the City will receive from the State and subtracts that
amount from the total proposed levy to arrive at a final proposed levy to be certified to the County
Auditor. Anticipated revenues from sources other than property taxes include, $74,893 in Local
Government Aid, $140,579 in HACA, $62,000 in MSA Maintenance Funds and $115,545 in charges for
service, licenses, permits, and building rent.
The City's total tax capacity number is not yet available, therefore, it is estimated that the proposed tax
rate will be approximately 35.377, which is equal to a 2.66% increase over the 1995 tax rate of 34.459.
The City Council must adopt a resolution approving a proposed tax levy for 1996 Budget Appropriations
and certify such proposed levy to the County Auditor by September 15, 1995, therefore, it is
recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving a proposed tax levy for
1996 Appropriations.
Councilmember Black introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO 95-30
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROPOSED TAX LEVY FOR
1996 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Otsego City Council that there
is hereby approved for proposed expenditures from general taxes, the following sums for
the purpose indicated:
General Government
$ 799,019
Park Development
15,000
Bonded Indebtedness
35,210
Total Proposed 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 Fournier and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Mayor Freske, Councilmembers Ackerman, Black, Fournier and Heidner
and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was passed
this 11 th day of September, 1995.
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elaine Beatty, Clerk/Zoning min.
Claims Llst for Ar Gr oV_.1
Foo n- PeriQd 061128/95 to
09/07/95
..Ln •
I'J I n�
FOP WHAT UF:PO::E
D -,TE
rJUMBEP
CL,,IM
REQ_T.-�M�t. c E 1 T{a_�T
PAPERIOD ENDED 8/26/ 95
`r'
06.''.' // 'C
'916
30_' .00
^ANI. 0= ELI RIVER
FED .WITH/ SOC .SEC .MED -8/26/95
08/30!95
? 0
_ .45' .=`
TATE CAPITAL CREDIT UNION
PAY DEDUCTION PAY PERIOD 3/26/95
08;'30/95
921
L
50.00
6
U r t
POSTAGE FOR TRIAL POSTAGE METER
09/07/95
923
150.00
iTNE'f BOWES
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND
EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYER SHARE -MONTHLY
09/07/95
924
87.10
MANY OF ELI' RIVER
FED.WITH.S.S.,MEDICARE
09/07/95
925
1 M0 i Ff1- ENU
AMERICAN BANK
AGENT FEES -87 BONDS
09/07/95
927
125.00
RENTAL y
.' // .r
VZ9
µ U. QU
BEST DISPOSAL -ERVICE
SEPTEMBER RECYCLING
09/07/95
930
47.50
WOODLAKE SANITATION SERVICE
AUGUST RECYCLING
09/07/95
931
3_1._5
_Lf RIVET UTILITIES
SERVICE-GARAGE,ST.LIGHTS,HEAD START
09/0':?5
93=
DUERRS WA.TER.CARE SERVICE
SALTWATER & CUPS
09/07/95
934
52.20
FIRST CHOICE LAWN CARE
AUGUST LAWN SERVICE
0c''07i95
'?3S
3%:0.00
176.92
FULL'S MANUFACTUF:ING CO.
CONCRETE FOR PLAYGROUND
09/0-19°.1a3h
APLANT SANITATION INC
SEPTEMBER SERVICE
09/v.'."?S '?38
10=.72
Clai(nb Limit fOr APPrOVal
For the period 08%28/95 to 09/07/95
(RIGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC ASSN SERVICE-ST.LIGHTS,WELL,CITY HALL 09/07/95 951
G WEBER: OIL COMPANY
4DZWILL LAW OFFIC
OSTMASTER
TOTAL FOF' MONTH
TOTAL YEAR TO DATE
FUEL
AUGUST LEGAL
POSTAGE FOR SURVEY
09/07/95 952
09/07/95 953
09/07/95 954
963.15
449.20
t , 524 .00
256.00
t� ♦ 31.J �7
430,717.66
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
PATE. N' IMBEP
_=:I M
TO WHOPS PAI[
2 EXHAUST CLAMPS
09/07;95 '�4G
=TROPUL" AI'! GR VEL CC INC
'I I I' t 3b1.
09/07/95 942
3^_.07
.!APA OF ELK RIVER. INC
OIL SEAL
u
i / i , 14-
t �`_•IN
REFUND DAM AGE DEPOSIT]
09/07/95 1944
400.00
-RIAri REIGHARD
COFFEE & CUPS
09/07/9E J 4 5.
T RE.,TAUF:ANT SUPPLY
Durr L<0
09/07/95 947
44.16
-.AXON MOTORS INC
NUTS
LANDSCAPE TIMBERS
09/07/95 948
1 ,087 .58
SOUTH SIDE LUMBEF' COMPANY
_ .
nr, ir: < 7, lLit
SERVICE -CITY HALL, GARAGE.
09/071/95 9509
4:6 . 14
WE •T COMMUNICATIONS
(RIGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC ASSN SERVICE-ST.LIGHTS,WELL,CITY HALL 09/07/95 951
G WEBER: OIL COMPANY
4DZWILL LAW OFFIC
OSTMASTER
TOTAL FOF' MONTH
TOTAL YEAR TO DATE
FUEL
AUGUST LEGAL
POSTAGE FOR SURVEY
09/07/95 952
09/07/95 953
09/07/95 954
963.15
449.20
t , 524 .00
256.00
t� ♦ 31.J �7
430,717.66