Loading...
11-13-95 CCManagement Skills Seminar Series This seminar series is designed to help current and potential managers develop the skills necessary to implement and facilitate productive practices and ideas within workteams and organizations. This material is appropriate for administrators, managers, supervisors, business owners and those seeking to develop management - level skills. This series of five, half-day programs will focus on the following fundamental management needs: • Awareness of the role and responsibilities of managers in today's workplace • Ways to effectively plan and organize work • Practical skills for resolving problems • Improved one-on-one communication techniques • Team -building skills The sessions are packed with information, opportunities for self-assessment and discussions with other managers. Exercises, case studies and other interactive techniques will be used to guide participants in improving their management competencies. Presenter: Jim Arnott, MA, a nationally recognized speaker and consultant with an expertise in the area of management skills, will instruct the series. Location: CDC 100. Fee: $195 per person for all five sessions. That price includes registration, materials and morning refreshments. Those completing the entire series will receive a Management Skills Series Certificate (2.0 CEUs). To register for individual sessions, the fee is $49 person/session. Thursday, January 25 W96BUS 930-01 Session I, 8:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. 4 CEU ■ Assessing and Enhancing Your Management Skills What does it take to be an effective manager in today's workplace? How has/hasn't the role of management changed? How are leadership skills related to today's management needs? This seminar will provide participants with the information, insights and assessment data to process those types of questions. Topics to be covered include: • The role of management in today's workplace • The most frequently cited skills of effective managers • Leadership and management • A management skills inventory Thursday, February 8 W96BUS 930-02 Session 11, 8:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. .4 CEU ■ Planning and Organizing Your Work A manager's organization and use of time, space, equipment, information and other resource will determine, to a great extent, how successful he/she will be. This seminar focuses on the skills effective managers use to "make things happen" in a progressive, timely, Fee effective and efficient manner. Topics to be covered RC include: • Skills for organizing and planning work • Techniques for managing projects • Using personal and meeting time effectively Thursday, February 15 W96BUS 930 Session 111, 8:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. .4 C ■ Solving Problems: Using Both Rational an Creative Processes Managers make decisions and solve problems every da The quality of those decisions, solutions and recommendations has a tremendous impact on the organization's work climate, quality of service, and overall productivity. This seminar will help managers develop the ability to rationally and creatively analyze, explore, evaluate and implement alternative solutions t, problems. Specific topics to be covered include: • Using a variety of problem -solving techniques • Involving others in decision making and problem solving • Creativity: Going beyond preconceived limitations Thursday, March 7 W96BUS 93( Session IV, 8:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. .4 C ■ Developing an Effective and Supportive Communication Style Most barriers to effective communication in organizatic have more to do with dysfunctional relationships than errors in message accuracy. Handling situations which involve feedback on poor performance, correcting problems, giving and receiving criticism, and other coaching and counseling situations require a thorough understanding of the principles of supportive communication. In this seminar managers will develop tools for improving their communication competence. Specific topics include: • Understanding communication styles • Differentiating between coaching and counseling • Motivating and influencing others Thursday, March 14 W96BUS 930 - Session V, 8:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. .4 C: s Building and Communicating with Teams Teams are becoming increasingly prevalent in the workplace. To fully utilize the power and potential of teams, managers must become proficient at leading and participating in teams. This seminar will help managers understand the unique challenges, issues and skills it tai to build a team into a strong and productive unit. Specif topics to be covered include: • Diagnosing the need for team building • Developing teams and teamwork • Planning and conducting effective team meetings LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1995, by anc between the COUNTY OF WRIGHT and the WRIGHT COUNTY SHERIFF, hereinafter referred to a: "County" and the CITY OF OTSEGO hereinafter referred to as the "Municipality"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Municipality is desirous of entering into a contract with the County for th performance of the hereinafter described law enforcement protection within the corporate limits of sai municipality through the County Sheriff; and WHEREAS, the County is agreeable to rendering such services, and protection on the terms an conditions hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, such contracts are authorized and provided for by the provision of Minnesota Statute 471.59 and Minnesota Statutes 436.05; NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the terms of the aforesaid statutes, and in consideration of th mutual covenants herein contained, it is agreed as follows: 1. That the County by way of the Sheriff agrees to provide police protection within the corporat limits of the Municipality to the extent and in the manner as hereinafter set forth: a. Except as otherwise hereinafter specifically set forth, such services shall encompas. only duties and functions of the type coming within the jurisdiction of the Wrigh County Sheriff pursuant to Minnesota Laws and Statutes. 0 b. Except as otherwise hereinafter provided for, the standard level of service provide( shall be the same basic level of service which is provided for the unincorporated area of the County of Wright, State of Minnesota. C. The rendition of services, the standard of performance, the discipline of the officers and other matters incident to the performance of such services and control of personne so employed shall remain in and under the control of the Sheriff. d. Services purchased pursuant to this contract shall include the enforcement of Minnesota State Statutes, including but not limited to the Traffic Code and the Criminal Code, as well as all local ordinances enacted in conformance therewith. Statutes and ordinances which prescribe enforcement by a different authority; i.e., the State Electrical Code, the Uniform Building Code, etc., shall be excluded from this agreement. Ordinances pertaining exclusively to purely local city management matters; i.e., sewer and water collection, etc., shall be excluded from this agreement. The Municipality shall be responsible for enforcement of the Municipal Zoning Code, except that the Sheriff will enforce nuisance ordinances conforming to State law; i.e., junk cars, etc. and traffic ordinances; i.e., parking and erratic driving. 2. That it is agreed that the Sheriff shall have full cooperation and assistance from the Municipality, its officers, agents and employees so as to facilitate the performance of this agreement. 3. That the County shall furnish and supply all necessary labor, supervision, equipment, communication facilities for dispatching, cost of jail detention, and all supplies necessary to maintain the level of service to be rendered herein. 4. The Municipality shall not be liable for the direct payment of any salaries, wages, or other compensation to any personnel performing services herein for said County. 5. The Municipality shall not be liable for compensation or indemnity to any of the Sheriff' employees for injuries or sickness arising out of its employment, and the County hereby agrees to hole. harmless the Municipality against any such claims. 6. The County, Sheriff, his officers, and employees shall not be deemed to assume any liability for intentional or negligent acts of said Municipality or any officer, agent, or employee thereof. 7. This agreement shall be effective from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1997. 8. The Municipality agrees to pay to the County the sum of $33.00 per hour for law enforcement protection during the calendar year 1996 and not to exceed $34.50 per hour during the calendar year 1997. If salaries of Deputy Sheriffs are increased at any time during the term of this contract, the hourly rate of this contract shall not be increased. 2 9. This contract shall be extended automatically for successive one year periods at a rate to be established by the County, unless the County or Municipality shall notify the other of termination, in writing, prior to August 15 of each year. 10. The number of hours of service to be provided pursuant to this contract are as follows: F hours per day - 2.920 hours annually and shall provide 24-hour call and general service. The Municipality shall notify the County in writing prior to August 15 regarding any change in the number of hours for the subsequent year. 11. The County shall provide for all costs and prosecution efforts with respect to violation: charged by the Sheriff in the performance of this agreement. All fines arising from such prosecutions shal- accrue to the County. Violations of municipal ordinances excluded from enforcement by this agreemen shall be prosecuted by the Municipality at its expense. All fines arising from city prosecutions shall accruf to the Municipality unless otherwise provided by law. 12. Pursuant to law, the County Auditor/Treasurer shall remit to the Municipality its share of al fines collected. The Municipality shall return to the County within 30 days all fine money attributable tc prosecutions initiated by the Sheriff in accord with Paragraph 11 of this contract. The Municipality shal keep and retain any fine money submitted by the Auditor/Treasurer attributable to prosecutions initiated b-, the Municipality. 13. For the purpose of maintaining cooperation, local control and general information on existin€ complaints and problems in said Municipality, one member of the Municipal Council, the Mayor or other person or persons shall be appointed by said Council to act as police commissioner(s) for said Municipality and shall make periodic contacts with and attend meetings with the Sheriff or his office in relation to the contract herein. 3 14. The County shall save, hold harmless and defend the City from any and all claims arisin; from the acts or omissions, including intentional acts and negligence, committed by employees or agents o the County or Sheriff while in the performance of duties in furtherance of this contract. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Municipality, by resolution duly adopted by it governing body caused this agreement to be signed by its Mayor and attested by its Clerk; and the County of Wright, b the County Board of Commissioners, has caused this agreement to be signed by the Chairman and Cler of said Board, and by the Wright County Sheriff, effective on the day and year first above written. Dated: ATTEST: Clerk Dated: ATTEST: Richard W. Norman County Coordinator Dated: Approved as to form and execution: Mayor WRIGHT COUNTY COM IISSIONER� Ken Jude, Chairperson Donald Hozempa Wright County Sheriff Wyman A. Nelson, Wright County Attorney P CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DENIAL 3rd Draft 11/9/95 CITY OF OTSEGO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA IN RE: FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Application of Lef-Co Farms Inc. for a conditional use permit to allow the establishment of a commercial feedlot in an A-1, Agricultural Rural Service Zoning District. On 23 October 1995, the Otsego City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Lef-Co Farms Inc. for a conditional use permit to allow the establishment of a commercial feedlot in an A-1, Agricultural Rural Service Zoning District. Based upon the application, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and the evidence received, the City Council now makes the following findings of fact and decision. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the establishment of a commercial feedlot in an A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District. 2. The subject property is legally described as: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A 3. The subject property lies within the City's designated Rural Service Area. 4. Section 20-4-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and City Council to consider seven possible adverse effects of the requested conditional use. The seven effects and the findings regarding them are: a. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. While the City's Land Use Plan does suggest agricultural use of the subject property, the feedlot and its inherent characteristics are not considered compatible with low density residential use suggested north of the subject property and existing single family uses immediately adjacent on the west and southwest. The City also finds that the following facts indicate said incompatibility: _. 1) The proposed use is more intense than present agricultural uses in the area. Said use is more intense than those contemplated when the Comprehensive Plan and official controls were established, and has characteristics that go beyond traditional agricultural uses. 2) The property proposed for the use does not contain enough crop land to accommodate the dispersal of all the manure created and stored at the site. Some manure will have to be delivered off site, thus making its efficient disposal dependent upon agreements over which the City has no control. 3) Applicant failed to submit adequate plans which demonstrated provisions for screening and buffering which would shield the surrounding properties from the proposed use. Some of the adjoining properties are within 200 feet of the proposed use. 4) Beyond the existing Comprehensive Plan, the City is presently engaged in a cooperative study with surrounding communities to determine the feasibility of constructing a joint waste water treatment plant along the southern boundary of the City. Action toward this goal would call for radical reconsideration of the existing Comprehensive Plan and possible change in the proposed use of the land upon which this use is proposed. Goal/Policy: All development proposals shall be analyzed on an individual basis from a physical, economic and social standpoint to determine the most appropriate use within the community as a whole. Finding: The proposed use is not the most appropriate use of the subject property from a physical standpoint. The City is rapidly developing and it is foreseeable that substantial residential development may surround this site in the very near future, especially in the event that current City plans regarding a joint waste water treatment facility in the southeastern portion of the City are realized. It was also demonstrated by those opposing the facility that there may be periodic intense undesirable odors emanating from the facility at those times that the manure pit is agitated. Goal/Policy: A cohesive land use pattern which ensures compatibility and functional relationships among activities is to be formulated and implemented. 2 Finding: Allowance of the proposed use will result in an incompatible land use pattern. Use of the property as proposed will result in an intense land use beyond traditional agricultural activity on the very boundary with residential development. The health, safety, and welfare of the City in general dictates such a use should be in an area more removed from present and potential residential areas. Goal/Policy: Individual residential neighborhoods are to be maintained and protected and where necessary, upgraded in character which includes elimination of non -conforming and incompatible uses. Finding: The proposed use is not compatible with existing and future residential neighborhoods in the area. Goal/Policy: Property values are to be preserved and protected. Finding: Those in opposition to the proposed use have submitted sufficient, competent evidence through their individual testimony, written submittals, and appraisals indicating that approval of the proposed use will diminish surrounding property values, which refutes the applicant's evidence to the contrary. A recently approved subdivision to the northwest of the proposed use was not being pursued by the developers partially due to this application. b. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. The proposed feedlot and its use characteristics will be incompatible with present and future land uses of the area as follows: 1) The feedlot would periodically emit odors offensive to nearby residences. 2) The intensity of the land use activity proposed on the premises is beyond that of traditional farm operations, and is not compatible with the present residential development. Many of the currently existing residences are located near the proposed site due to the applicant's own actions in splitting off lots from their property. The proposed use is also not consistent with future residential uses proposed in the area. 3 -3) The City is presently in the process of studying the feasibility of construction of a joint waste water treatment facility which would discharge into the Crow River. Construction of such a facility would require revision of the Comprehensive Plan so that residential development of a greater density could be directed into the immediate area of the proposed use. C. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). As submitted, the proposed use would not be in compliance with applicable setbacks. Moving the facility within the proposed site could result in other setback problems and would require resubmittal to MPGA. The applicant failed to submit a drainage and site plan which would have provided the City, and the City Engineer, adequate information to determine whether or not drainage and site issues were properly addressed within applicant's proposal. The City Engineer requested such a plan on more than one occasion prior to the public hearing in this matter. d. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. The proposed commercial feedlot has the potential to adversely affect the subject area both in terms of land use compatibility and property values as follows: 1) The proposed use is within 200 feet of some surrounding residential properties. 2) The proposed use would adversely affect property values in the immediate area. 3) The proposed use is within a quarter mile of a recently approved subdivision of five proposed residences. 4) The proposed use is an intensification of the present agricultural use which is more appropriate within a more isolated area of the city where buffers and/or greater separations, or other controls either exist or can be implemented between the intensified use and residential uses. !ll 5) The proposed use may adversely affect drainage in the area. The applicant failed to respond to the City's request to provide sufficient data in order to allow the Engineer to make a proper evaluation bf the affect on drainage of the proposed facility. 6) The site plan submitted to the City and MPCA indicates that the proposed site would fall within 1,000 feet of existing lakes, ponds and flowage, in violation of City Zoning Ordinance. No alternative plan for proper relocation of the facility was submitted by the applicant. 7) The area of the proposed site is not sufficient to accommodate all the manure produced by the operation. Disposal of excess manure is dependent upon agreements with the owners or operators of other sites, and such disposal will require transportation of the manure off site. e. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. The proposed use will negatively affect property values of the area in which it is proposed as follows: 1) Opponents of the proposed use have presented credible oral testimony that the value of their real property will decrease if the proposed use is approved. 2) Opponents of the facility have presented written appraisal evidence from certified appraisers that states their opinion that property adjacent to a use, as proposed, will decrease in value due to its proximity to that use. The applicant has also submitted written evidence from a certified appraiser who is of the opinion that the proposed use will have no affect on adjacent properties. The City finds that those appraisals submitted by the opponents are more persuasive. 3) Upon inspection of the site and the adjoinng properties, it appears highly probable that such a facility would negatively impact the value of residential properties in the area. 4) According to the Wright County Assessor, property values adjacent to uses with similar odor characteristics (i.e., composting facilites or asphalt plants) do not necessarily depreciate. It is his experience, however, that in some cases, property values adjacent to such uses 5 increase at a rate slower than property values in areas which are not proximate to such uses. f. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. Traffic generated by the proposed use is within the capabilities of Packard Avenue which serves the property. g. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. The proposed use can be accommodated by existing public service facilities and will not overburden the City's service capacity. 5. The following are incorporated herein: a. Planning report dated 8/28/95 prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. b. Memorandum dated 9/15/95 prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C. Otsego City Council meeting minutes dated 10/23/95. 6. On 6 September and 20 September 1995, the Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the proposed conditional use permit preceded by published and mailed notice. Such permit was considered further by the Planning Commission on 4 October 1995. Upon review of the conditional use permit application and evidence received, the Otsego Planning Commission closed the public hearing and recommended (on a split vote) that the City Council approve the conditional use permit based on the aforementioned findings. DECISION Based on the foregoing considerations and applicable ordinances, the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow a commercial feedlot in an A-1, Agricultural Rural Service Zoning District is denied in its present form. 2 ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this 23rd day of October 1995. CITY OF OTSEGO By: , Norm . Freske, Mayor ATTEST: Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Adm trator �r1 That part of the West half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 121, North, Range 23 West, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence North along the West line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of 495 feet to the point of beginning; thence East at right angles a distance of 952.87 feet; thence North at right angles a distance of 1,600 feet; thence West at right angles a distance of 952.87 feet to the West line of said Northwest Quarter; thence South along said West'line a distance of 1,600 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to an easement for town road over and across the West 33 feet thereof. EXHIBIT A John R. Dries David E. Lenhardt Gregory J. Van Heest Otsego City Otsego City 8899 Nashua Otsego, MN. GRIES & LENHARDT, P.L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AND COLNSELORS AT LAw November 13, 1995 Council Hall Avenue Northeast 55330 100 East Central Ave. • P.O. 13ur 3_ �4t. Michael, Minnesota 5537( (612) 497.309c Fax (612) 497-363: AE: Lef-Co Farms, Inc. - Conditional Use Permit Application Proposed Findings of Fact Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: Please be aware that Lef-Co Farms, Inc. strenuously objects to the City's adoption of the Proposed Findings of Fact for a denial of the Lef--Co Conditional Use Permit, said Findings prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. and dated November 7, 1995. The Proposed Findings of Fact go beyond the reasons given by the City when it voted to deny Lef-Cols Conditional Use Permit Application. For example: A. Findings of Fact 4.a.(2) states that the applicant failed to submit a screening and buffering plan - however, applicant was never asked or requested to submit such a plan; moreover, the blueprint submitted by the applicant to the MPCA as part of the MPCA Permit process also was supplied to the City, and that blueprint did show the location of buildings, manure pit, and where trees would be planted as a berm. The only time the issue was every really raised to the applicant was at the meeting on October 23, 1995, when the applicant responded that it would indeed construct a berm that's required by the City; B. Findings of Fact 4.c. states that the applicant failed to submit a drainage and site plan - however, as it is clearly known, both staff, and several council members told Lef-Co Farms, Inc. that the drainage and site plan could be submitted in conjunction with receipt of the Conditional Use Permit - that is, that the Conditional Use Permit could be granted contingent upon ultimate receipt of a drainage and site plan. The City staff and several council members were well aware of the expense that would be incurred by the applicant to provide drainage and site plans prior to a decision on the Conditional Use Permit Application. Lef--Co Farms, Inc. was always prepared to provide to the City a site and drainage plan as part of the conditions for receiving the Permit; C. Findings of Fact 4.d.(7) claims that the proposed site was not suf f icient to accommodate the manure to be produced by the operation. However, the applicant clearly made it known to the City that the applicant had more than the required amount of acreage available to it - either under direct ownership or pursuant to legally binding leases - necessary to dispose of the manure. The Findings of Fact to be adopted by the City should reflect the reasons that were stated on October 23, 1995, as the basis for the denial. The Proposed Findings should not "white wash" those stated reasons by adding numerous matters which were never addressed. We object to adoption of Findings of Fact which include matters that were never actually addressed or considered when the Lef-Co Farms, Inc. application was denied at the October 23, 1995, meeting. Thank you. Very trul & AENHA_ RD , '"P . L . L. P. jJ. cc: Lef -Co Farms, c. LENHARDT FFr—N C Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING 9 DESIGN e MARKET R E S E A R C H PLANNING REPORT Ito] FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis/David Licht 19 October 1995 Otsego - Cederberg - Building Relocation CUP 176.02 - 95.17 Bob and Dianne Cederberg have requested a conditional use permit to allow a relocated single family residence to lie upon an existing lot of record within the City. Specifically, the Cederbergs wish to replace an existing manufactured home with a replacement home currently located in Richfield (within the Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport expansion area). The said relocated home would lie upon 1.7 acre site located north of 87th Street and west of O'Brian Avenue ( S'/Z, Lot 1, Block 3, Vassuers Oak Grove Estates). The proposed structure to be relocated was constructed in the early 1970s and measures + 1,900 square feet in size (52 feet by 26 feet) The property is zoned R-2, Residential - Immediate Urban Service (large lot). The extreme western portion of the lot lies within the Shoreland Overlay District of a protected water body. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Site Plan Exhibit D - Well/Septic Locations Exhibit E - Floor Plans Exhibit F - Building Section Exhibit G - Building Photos 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. 6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. 7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. Lot Area Requirements. As mentioned previously, the applicants wish to relocate a residence upon the southern 1/2 of Lot 1, Block 3, Vassuers Oak Grove Estates. With the exception of lot area, the subject lot meets all applicable R-2 lot area standards. Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Required 2.5 Acres 150 feet 150 feet Existin 1.7 acres 200 feet 365 feet While the subject property does not satisfy minimum R-2 District lot area requirements, it is a lot of record which holds legal grandfather rights. Setbacks. According to the submitted site plan, the relocated residence meets all applicable R-2/Shoreland setbacks. NOTE: OHWM of proximate protected water body lies + 950 feet from subject property. 3 Required Existing East Front Yard 35 feet 50 feet North Side Yard 20 feet 34 feet South Side Yard 35 feet 113 feet West Rear Yard 50 feet 280 feet NOTE: OHWM of proximate protected water body lies + 950 feet from subject property. 3 In a general perspective, a lowering of area property values is not anticipated if: 1. The subject structure is structurally sound and well kept. 2. The building's placement is compatible with area residences. 3. Foundation work is professionally done. 4. Aesthetically pleasing landscaping is provided. While a firm determination cannot be made in regard to property valuation consistency, the City can take steps toward providing an assurance against neighborhood depreciation via its performance standards. Building Code Requirements. As a condition of CUP approval, the subject structure must comply with the applicable requirements of the State Uniform Building Code. This item should be subject to further comment by the City Building Inspector. Structure Occupancy. Section 20-19-2.E of the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that a relocated structure must be ready for occupancy within six months from the date of location on the site. This item may be of particular relevance to foundation modification work which may be subject to climatic limitations. Drainage and Utility Easements. In review of the submitted site plan (site survey), it does not appear that any drainage or utility easements exist upon the property. According to Section 21-7-15.A of the Subdivision Ordinance, easements a minimum of 10 feet in width should be provided along rear and other lot lines for drainage and utilities. The City Engineer should provide comment in regard to the need for easement establishment. Well/Sewage System. According to the information submitted by the applicant, the existing drain field upon the subject lot is failing and needs to be replaced. While the submitted "site plan" (Exhibit C) does not identify the site's sewage treatment system location, septic tank and drain field locations are illustrated upon an alternate plan provided by the applicant (Exhibit D). The City Engineer should provide comment/recommendation in regard to well and sewage treatment issues. Building Height. Within the combination R-2/Shoreland Zoning District, no single family residence may exceed two and one-half stories or 45 feet. The proposed residence conforms to the maximum height requirements stipulated by Ordinance. Moving Permits. Prior to relocation of the single family residence, the applicants should provide proof to the City that the move will be performed by a mover licensed by the State of Minnesota and that all applicable State requirements have been complied with, including all necessary local permits. The applicants must also notify the City of the route and exact timing of the move. E EXHIBIT A SITE LOCATIOf 9 O 1 v v I - M I b T JJ •1 I 1 ; I � u -, RELOCATED NORTH RESIDENCE c , J\ r � `a e If 1• � o I b Ot 0 I V J e �t a o _ t I c Y I 1 \ w EXHIBIT C - SITE PLAN I l'IT 'IT ml 131 oAce IMF ml 131 ItC CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE REGULATING THE PARKING OF TRUCKS, SEMI -TRACTORS and TRAILERS ON CITY STREETS OR HIGHWAYS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO ORDAINS: Section 1. Purpose. The City Council finds that it is necessary, to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Otsego, and to promote traffic flow, that restrictions be placed upon the parking of certain vehicles upon City streets. Section 2. General Parking Prohibitions. Subdivision 1. Trucks and Semi -Tractors and Trailers. Commercial vehicles, semi -tractors, trailers or trucks exceeding a gross vehicle capacity of 9,000 pounds or an overall length of 25 feet may not be parked or stored on streets or highways within the City. Section 3. Exceptions. This Ordinance shall not apply to the following circumstances: Subdivision 1. Vehicles picking up or delivering products to residential customers, or providing a service to a residential customer. Even in the event of a pick up or delivery, in no case shall any vehicle park for any period of time in any manner which tends to block a designated bike path. Subdivision 2. City vehicles parked in connection with official City business. Section 4. Parked Vehicles Impounded. A vehicle in violation of this Ordinance may be ordered removed from a public street by a law enforcement officer. The vehicle may be towed away to a garage, service station or other place of safekeeping as authorized by the City Council as soon as possible to facilitate snow removal, street maintenance, the orderly flow of traffic, fire fighting or other lawful purpose. The vehicle will be surrendered to the duly identified owner thereof upon payment of the required fees for such towing and storage. Removal of a vehicle does not bar prosecution for a violation of traffic or parking regulations. Section 5. Penalties. Subdivision 1. Any person found to be in violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by penalty established by State statute for a misdemeanor, and as amended. Each day in which CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 95 38 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT OF FEES DUE THE CITY FOR A SPECIAL REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A HOME ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF OTSEGO, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA. WHEREAS, the owner was given due notice of the above mentioned fees due and a Hearing at the City Council was held; and WHEREAS, the owner has failed to timely pay the above mentioned fees, thus incurring fees in the amount of $118.73, plus interest; and WHEREAS, said amount was presented to the owner in the form of a bill which remains unpaid; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Otsego Ordinance and Minn. Stat. 429.101 such charges are assessable against the property, and WHEREAS, notice was duly given and opportunity to be heard was given to the owner at a Hearing on November 13, 1995 at 6:30PM. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the property identified as PID No. 118-031-001150, Lot 15, Block 1, Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates shall be and hereby is assessed in the amount of $181.73, representing reasonable costs of fees. Said amount to be paid in one installment of $181.73, (one year) plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum, subject to the statutory right of prepayment. The City Clerk is hereby directed to enter said assessment against the property by certifying said assessment to the County of Wright. * * This may be paid within 30 days of November 13th, 1995 without interest. (No interest if paid by 12/13/95 date). Passed this 13th day of November, 1995. InFavor:Larry Fournier, Vern He'd r and S anne Ackerman Opposed: No One < —Ne�uwmF kerA4a%rLity�f:Cltsego Larry urnier, Acting Mayor Laine Beatty, City Clerk/Zonin dm. (CITY SEAL) Diane Hillyard CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 95 39 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT OF FEES DUE THE CITY FOR A SPECIAL REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A ONE PER FORTY SUBDIVISION AND REQUEST OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY RIGHTS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF OTSEGO, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA. WHEREAS, the owner was given due notice of the above mentioned fees due and a Hearing at the City Council was held; and WHEREAS, the owner has failed to timely pay the above mentioned fees, thus incurring fees in the amount of $186.41, plus interest; and WHEREAS, said amount was presented to the owner in the form of a bill which remains unpaid; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Otsego Ordinance and Minn. Stat_ 429.101 such charges are assessable against the property, and WHEREAS, notice was duly given and opportunity to be heard was given to the owner at a Hearing on November 13, 1995 at 6:30PM. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the property identified as PID No. 118-800-232101, unplatted land in Section 23, Township 121, Range 24, The NE Quarter of the NW Quarter and the N Three -Quarters of the West One -Half of the Northwest Quarter Ea TR DES IN BK 275-176EX TR DES IN BK 87MIS971, shall be and hereby is assessed in the amount of $186.41, representing reasonable costs of fees. Said amount to be paid in one installment of $186.41, (one year) plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum, subject to the statutory right of prepayment. The City Clerk is hereby directed to enter said assessment against the property by certifying said assessment to the County of Wright. x * This may be paid within 30 days of November 13th, 1995 without interest. (No interest if paid by 12/13/95 date). Passed this 13th day of November, 1995. In Favor: Larry Fournier, Vern Ike Opposed: No One 7 I � _ erma Larry Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zonin dm. (CITY SEAL) Don & Phyllis Greninger) File: RESOLUTION.WPS (P928) , an&�Stppnne Ackerman o, may" -f" -Qty -of Otsego rnier, Acting Mayor City of Otsego Engineer's Agenda Items City Council Meeting November 13, 1995 8.1 Improvement Project 94-2, CSAH37 and Odean Avenue A. Damages Claims: Some of the damage claims to be paid to landowners could not be determined prior to the construction. Two of the owners who have claims are Jones Intercable and Jerome Kolles. Each claim amount had to be determined during the construction process. 1. Jones Intercable We agree with this landowner that relocation of the main underground cables could not be costed initially due to the yet undetermined work schedule of the contractor. We attempted to minimize the depth at which the cable needed to be buried and yet locate the cable in areas of the ROW preferred by the County and City. The damage claim is for extra burial depth while relocating the cable. A prorated charge was determined where only the extra depth of relocation would be paid. The item is noted in the original settlement documents. The claim is for $2,072.38. The potential claim was estimated to be between $6,000 - 8,000 prior to construction. 2. Jerome Kolles We agreed to pay the landowner $100/vertical foot of silage in the old silo on the south side of 70th Street to be removed and hauled to the temporary cattle feeding bunker on the north side of the street. This was necessary after the contractor removed the old cattlepass that allowed the cattle to pass under the street from feed lot to barn yard. n. Seven and one half feet of silage was measured at the closure time and all the feed has been transported to the new feed lot. The claim for damages is 7'/2 feet times $100/ft for $750.00. Underpaid ROW Settlements Two of the landowners received less money than they should have coming for the ROW acquired as shown on the ROW plat filed with the County. We did not match the amount of land for temporary or permanent ROW with that shown on the plans or as shown on the plat. In both cases, we used a previous land area determined prior to the final design of the project. NO landowner was overpaid. The error is in favor of both landowners and we apologize for the over site. 1 . Lindenfelser & Barry We paid for 0.2736 acres of permanent ROW instead of 0.40 acres required. We paid for 0.1816 acres of temporary easement instead of 0.25 acres required. The rate of payments was $1,800/acres for permanent and $600/acres for temporary. The amount due 'Lindenfelser and Barry is $268.56. 2. Jon Pouti We paid for 0.1111 acres of permanent ROW instead of 0.16 acres. We also paid for 0.0802 acres of temporary easement instead of 0.1 1 acres. The rate of payment was $15,000/acres for permanent ROW on residential property and $600/acres for temporary ROW. The amount due the Pouti's is $751.38. Summary of Claims: Jones Intercable $2,072.38 Jerome Kolles 750.00 Lindenfelser & Barry 268.56 Jon Pouti 751.38 TOTAL to be paid $3,842.32 We recommend approval to pay the claims and authorize the Finance Director to issue the checks. We will submit the claims to MSA for reimbursement. C. On -Site Meeting with Kolles Family A meeting was held on-site with the Kolles family and Kevin P. Kielb, PE of our staff, Virgil Hawkins, PE from the County Highway Department, and sub- contractors Fehn Excavating and Menth Landscaping. The meeting was to address the grievances of the landowners. The landowners concerns that were addressed were drainage and other damage claims against the Contractor, City, and County. The meeting was productive in that the landowners could discuss with the engineer and contractor his concerns. At this time nothing has been done to remedy tfie landowners claim, however, most of the issues are on the contractors punch list and those that are not have been taken under review by our staff. The ponding of runoff that occurs on the owners site will be reviewed and if a reasonable solution can be developed, we will to ahead and make the change next spring. No action is necessary on this issue. 8.2 Otsego Creek Authority Petition The Otsego Creek Authority has petitioned the Council to assume the responsibility for an improvement project in the Creek. The project has received a permit form the Mn/DNR. The permit allows for the replacement of two large culverts, one under 83rd Street and Mason Avenue, and the other under Randy Pouliot's driveway at 8457 Mason Avenue. The permit also allows for cleaning and debris removed in the portion of the creek from the Pouliot's driveway to the 87th Street culvert. The Council approved the expenditure for the preparation of the permit application. According to the Otsego Creek Authority agreement, any work north of the Section 30 Wetland is the sole responsibility of the City of Otsego. Should the Council consider and pass the resolution accepting the petition, we recommend the following steps be considered. 1 . Order a feasibility study to determine the cost of installing the culverts and making the other necessary repairs in the creek channel. The report would be prepared to include the cost of construction and repairs including the overhead costs. This report is required under the Storm Sewer Taxing District Statute 444. This report should also include recommended methods of applying the cost share throughout the District. Some of the repairs could be done through the Sentence to Serve program in Wright County. 2. Upon acceptance of the report and determination of the method of taxing the Council would call for a public hearing to present the report. The hearing would meet the requirements of Statute 444 where as the costs of the improvement would be presented to District landowners. The estimated costs would be presented along with the proposed tax levy. The landowners would be given an opportunity to comment. Statute 444 requires that at least two hearings be held, one to establish a taxing district, and another one to establish a tax rate for a short term project and/or an improvement program with longer period and comprehensive goals. The taxing district hearing has been held and the district is established. This particular project included in the DNR permit is a short term project with a tax levied for no more than one or two years. 3. Upon reviewing the hearing comment and favorable passage of the project, the Council could establish the levy rate and prepare a levy roll for filing with the County. However, unless filed soon in 1995 for tax year 1996, the levy would not be on tax statement until 1997 if filed in 1996, which may be the case. The City may need to do temporary project funding until the levied funds are received from the County, perhaps in med 1997. At that time a permanent bond could be established and a retirement schedule set. The Council could also consider waiting to set the levy after all the project costs have been determined. The Finance Director and City Attorney should advise the Council on these matters. Since there is no assessment hearing or ability to appeal the levy, the decision on the amount of the levy and terms of the retirement of the debt are at the Council's discretion. Find accompanying these comments, a Resolution ordering the feasibility study. 8.3 ENGINEERING INVOICES - MUNICIPAL WELL We presented the Finance Director with several invoices for our services in connection with the well. The work period was from April 11, 1995 to October 2, 1995, and the total amount was $6,507.91. We broke the invoices down into different categories. Find a copy of each cover sheet accompanying this report. As of September 13 , 1995, each of the contract for the construction of the well and appurtances were finalized. Of the invoices, OT501x ($223.38) and OT501y ($803.75) represent the final engineering fees for the construction observation and administration of these projects. The rest of the invoices represent work performed by our staff to address the series of special events that occurred prior to and during startup at the school this fall. Those events include service to; 1. administer the pump failure, 2. supervise the sand flushing, 3. respond to the request by school officials and architects on water service issues, and 4. preparation of 0 & M data and literature for the �,rell. The Finance Director asked that those invoices be brought to the Council for approval. The Finance Director would like the Council opinion whether the invoice for $2,379.65 for responding to the school's concern be sent to the school district for payment. If the Council wishes to pursue retrieval of the $2,379.65, we will support that effort with whatever documentation required. Recently, and since the above invoices were sent, the Cable TV company cut the control cable for the water system between the school and well pump control panel. We prepared an invoice for the Finance Director to request reimbursement for our time and the electrical contractors effort to get the system operating as soon as possible. The school was only out of water for 1 '/s hours. Kevin P. Kielb and I will be available to answer any questions you have on this matter. 8.4 Island View Estates We will present graphics of the preliminary design for your comment and input. 8.5 MSA Screening Committee Report On Wednesday, October 18, 1995, a MSA District Meeting was held to discuss changes and updates to the Municipal State Aid system. Key changes to the Minnesota Rules are as follows: 1. Funds may be advanced, without interest, from the general state -aid account, as follows: a. Three times the previous years allotment, but not to exceed $500,000. b. Request for advancement must be in resolution form. c. Requests will be on a first come, first service basis. The City of Otsego had $403,554 unencumbered dollars available on August 1, 1995. The theoretical 1996 apportionment is $276,789. The City should have approximately $1,180,000 available to them for 1996 projects (including potential advanced funding). 2. The engineering cap has been changed to a single cap of 25%. Previously this had been 10% design and 8% construction services. 3. Eligibility of several items have been expanded. Items now eligible for state -aid construction funds are as follows: a. Lighting within the limits of a City. b. Right of Way costs associates with condemnation proceedings and title searches. c. Previous restrictions on sidewalks have been removed. d. Certain types of bicycle paths are eligible. e. Paving of low volume roads is eligible up to the cost of aggregate surfacing. f. Costs for decorative treatments and ornamental items are eligible as landscaping costs. The landscaping limit is raised to 5% of the total construction allocation. 4. All construction standards have been converted to equivalent metric units. 5. Rural Designs - The standard has been modified by allowing for "selected improvements" to be made to roadways under the resurfacing standards. Selected improvements might include slope flattening, shoulder widening, culvert replacements, etc. Curve realignments within a resurfacing project are considered new construction for the length of the curve. 8.6 Consideration for creating a storm sewer taxing district in the Northwest watershed. Based on the potential for development in this area we feel a storm sewer taxing district should be considered. We would ask for your opinion and direction on this issue. This was the only watershed in the City not placed under the Storm Sewer Taxing District. 8.7 Wetland Conservation Act Counties throughout the state receive block grants for administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991. The counties must match (at a 1:1 share) the amount of the block grant funds. The match can be soft costs, ie., time spent by personnel in administering the WCA. Last year Wright County received $36,000 in the form of a WCA block grant (per John Jaske, Board of Water and Soils Resources). We feel that the City's Finance Director should determine the City's costs for 1995 in administering the WCA. We would then compose a letter to the Wright County Boards of Commissioners request 1/2 of this amount (1:1 match). If the county refuses to compensate the City, the matter could then be brought to BWSR. There is a chance legislation could be considered in the 1996 Legislative session for providing funds to cities who administer the WCA, however, we can't approach BWSR on this without first attempting to retrieve costs from the County. We will be at the 11 /13/95 Council meeting to discuss this matter further. 8.8 Miscellaneous Engineering Items agenda11.13 RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF OTSEGO RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OR REPORT ON IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, the Otsego Creek Authority has petitioned the Otsego City Council to assume the responsibility for work on a project related to Otsego Creek, AND WHEREAS, said work involves the replacement of two large culverts, one under 83rd Street and Mason Avenue and one under Randy Pouliot's driveway at 8457 Mason Avenue, and also the cleaning and debris removal from Otsego Creek between Pouliot's driveway and the 87th Street driveway, AND WHEREAS, the Council previously approved the -expenditure for the preparation of a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Mn/DNR) permit for said work, AND WHEREAS, said permit was applied for and approved under Mn/DNR permit number 95-3231. Said permit expires on November 30, 1996. AND WHEREAS, it is proposed to utilize a tax levy against the properties within the storm sewer taxing district, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 444, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA: That the proposed improvement be referred to Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. for study and that they are instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Adopted by the council this day of , 1995. Mayor Clerk otsego.res Hakan'so n Anderson Assoc., Inc. 222 Monroe Street Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 Engineers, Surveyors 8. Landscape Architects I N V 0 1 C E TO: INVOICE NO: I City of Otsego I OT501x c/o Elaine Beatty, Clerk/Zoning Adm U INVOICE DATE: 8899 Nashua Ave NE Otsego, Mn 55330 Octo 17, 1995 PROJECT: Municipal Well #1 & Appurtenances, Imp Project #94-3 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AMOUNT Date of Service: 4/11/95 - 10/2/95 Engineering services to construction observation. Imp Proj 94-3a Traut Wells - Final Payment $75,150.50 $75,150.50 x 10.7% x 100% $8,041.10 Imp Proj 94-3b Ron Larson Excavating Inc. $72,437.29 $72,437.29 x 10.8% x 100% 7.823.23 Total Amount Per Contract $15,864.33 Less Prior Invoices OT501a (668.58) OT501b (699.68) OT2:11-43g $3085.76 less mtgs (572.37) (2,513.39) OT501c (8,270.80) OT501i (1,519.05) OT5011 (1,146.24) OT5010 (823.21) TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE $223.38 WHITE ORIGINAL YELLOW PLEASE RETURN WITH PAYMENT GREEN FILE COPY Presented to Mr. and Mrs. Duane Lindenfelser In appreciation for your patience and understanding during construction of the Mn/DOT - Finland Emulsion Gravel Project. 1995 Minnesota Department of Transportation Presented to Mr. and Mrs. Archie Lindenfelser In appreciation for your patience and understanding during construction of the Mn/DOT - Finland Emulsion Gravel Project. 1995 Minnesota Department of Transportation Presented to Mr. and Mrs. Michael Helfert In appreciation for your patience and understanding during construction of the Mn/DOT - Finland Emulsion Gravel Project. 1995 Minnesota Department of Transportation Presented to Mr. Donald Greninger In appreciation for your patience and cooperation during construction of the Mn/DOT - Finland Emulsion Gravel Project. 1995 Minnesota Department of Transportation Presented to Mr. Russ Greninger In appreciation for your patience and cooperation during construction of the Mn/DOT - Finland Emulsion Gravel Project. 1995 Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of D Employee >F Relations Leadership and partnership in human resrttn-ce management October 16, 1995 Elaine Beatty, Clerk Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue N.E. Elk River, MN 55330 Dear Ms. Beatty: L5��0y Congratulations! I am very pleased to send you the enclosed notification of compliance with the Local Government Pay Equity Act. Since the law was passed in 1984, jurisdictions throughout Minnesota have been working diligently to meet the requirements of the act, and I commend your hard work and commitment to achieving compliance. As you know, our department adopted a rule specifying procedures and criteria for measuring compliance, and information about your situation is enclosed. If you have any questions about the materials or about pay equity in general, please contact Pay Equity Coordinator, Faith Zwemke at 612-296-2653. One of the things the rule requires is that our department notify each jurisdiction when the next pay equity report is due. In your case, this date is January 31, 1998, and we will be sending you forms and instructions at a later time. Also, this notice and results of the compliance review are public information and must be supplied upon request to any interested party. Again, congratulations on a job well done! Sincerely, c�- Wayne Simoneau Acting Commissioner Enclosures 200 Centennial Office Building. 0 658 Cedar St. 0 St. Paul, MN 55155-1603 • (612) 297-1184 9 TDD (612) 297-2003 U Notice of Pay Equity Compliance presented to City of Otsego for successfully meeting the requirements of the Local Government Pay Equity Act M.S. 471.991 - 471.999 and Minnesota rules Chapter 3920. This notice is a result of an official review by the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations of your 1995 pay equity report. Your cooperation in complying with the local government pay equity requirements is greatly appreciated. October 16, 1995 Date Wayne Simoneau, Acting Commissioner Claims List for Approval - —for -the -per -ice 11"08/-45� e 11,1'O8 CLAIM TOTAL --TO -WHOM- PA -ID -- -------- --- - --FOR- WHAT-PWRPQ6F ----^ ,nT€teL4898 CLAIM- DUANE FIEDLER MILEAGE TO RURAL WATER SEMINAR 11/08/95 1086 18.7E BANK OF ELK RIVER FED.WITH,SS,MEDI.-MONTHLY & 11/4/95 11/08/95 1088 2,906.62 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYER-MONTHLY & 11/4/95 11/08/95 1087 880.3 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST DEDUCTIONS -PAY PERIOD 11/4/95 11/08/95 1089 300.0( STATE CAPITAL CREDIT UNION DEDUCTIONS -PAY PERIOD 11/4/95 11/08/95 1090 100.0( EARL -6 ANDERS©PF-INE----------- -STREET--S-1 N-&--P0ST-6 ii1408145 io9i ;?b9-461� AT & T PHONE SERVICE 11/08/95 1092 21.0: BEST DISPOSAL SERVICE NOVEMBER RECYCLING 11/08/95 1093 47.5( BP " INTERTEC TESTING SERVICE -37TH & ODEAN 11/08/95 1094 3,403.0( B ROCK PROBUCTS--- ---- — - RED- BALL- DIAM9ND-A66REGAE 1-140895 n�7a-8= BL LO BITUMINOUS PAY ESTIMATE #3 -37TH & ODEAN 11/08/95 1096 21,567.3E WOODLAKE SANITATION SERVIJCE OCTOBER RECYCLING 11/08/95 1097 318.7` BUFFAI=O-flEH"BI G 'EATING EPAIR-6F-WAT R- FGUNTAIN-EITY HA66 11,108,195 1098 ;Z@.G CUSTOM ELECTRIC INSTALL SNUBBER & CONTROL AT WELL 11/08/95 1099 444.8: ECM PUBLISHERS INC NOTICES, ORDINANCES & NEWSLETTER 11/08/95 1100 660.9E BOYER TRUCKS TANK, SEAL, & BRACKET 11/08/95 1101 530.3= ELK-R1VEft-PR-fW-1N6- & PARYI-PLUS— STAMP-HISTGR 6AL-SOEIETY !!,'Gay/96 1102 31.4 ELK RIVER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ELECT.SER.-GARAGE,HEADSTART,ST.LGTS 11/08/95 1103 616.6 - FIRST CHOICE LAWN CARE SEPTEMBER SERVICE 11/08/95 1104 285.0( GLENS TRUCK CENTER INC FILTER 11/08/95 1105 57.8; THE HARDWARE -STORE-- ----- -PAINT,BRH!51 ;LIGHT BULBS 1ifA8f95 iiG6 6I --3E LAPLANT SANITATION INC GARBAGE SERVICE 11/08/95 1107 102.7 LONG & -SONS- - -- ---- -OCTOBER-C- LEANING --SERV ICE-------14f68l95 1108— -X84-91 MINNEGASCO GAS SERVICE -CITY HALL & SHOP 11/08/95 1109 240.8 MINNESOTA-NAHRO-- - --- -CONFERENEE---- 5 -i i io 95;G( CITY OF MONTICELLO 4TH QTR PAYMENT -FIRE CONTRACT 11/08/95 1111 1,662.5C MONTICELLO FORD MERCURY PARTS 11/08/95 1112 25.6E Claims List for Approval 0 r- t ae-Par--i ed tQ 1z' .1-08,49 5 '-IEGLER INC JORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS JNITED PARCEL SERVICE 3AN" OF ELK RIVER aNL MERGES JR. TERRY OLSON TOTAL FOR MONTH CUTTING EDGES,DRUM 11/08/95 1123 1,592.52 OCTOBER SERVICES 11/08/95 1124 5,622.76 SHIPPING PRINCIPAL & INT. WELL LOAN MILEAGE TO ASSESSING SCHOOL OCTOBER BUILDING INSPECTION TOTAL YEAR TO DATE 3,19.8--2 ) 11/08/95 1125 10.45 CLAIM TOTAL TO -WHOM -PAID-- ------ - - - FOR WHAT PLJRRO5€--- -SAT€-amu !!SER -G6A�P1 _ IAPH OF ELK RIVER INC PARTS 11/08/95 1113 34.39 'RECISION FRAME & ALIGNMENT TIRE ALIGNMENT,DOOR GLASS REPAIRS 11/08/95 1114 108.72 "CHARGER & SONS OIL FILTER,GASKET,STRAINER,FACING 11/08/95 1115 71.22 ,UPERIOR CHEMICAL TOILET TISSUE/PAPER 11/08/95 1116 102.98 J:S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS - ---- PHONE SERYIGE- - - --- - o8, 96 1117 —436-73-- i G WEBER OIL COMPANY -- - -- ---GAS & FUEL OIL- --- -- -- - X1/08195-iii8---9&9-8;z- JESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE CO TIRES FOR '92 FORD TRUCK 11/08/95 1119 1,802.63 JRIGHT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPT MAINT.AGREEMENT-ODEAN AVE 11/08/95 1120 2,184.49 JRIGHT COUNTY -SHERIFF= -S -DEPT------- SEPTEMBER--POLICE-SERVI6E ""Ao"95-z121.-T;-786 6;- JRIGHT-HFNNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC ASSN ELEC.SER.-CITY HALL,WELL,ST.LGTS 11/08/95 1122 617.69 '-IEGLER INC JORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS JNITED PARCEL SERVICE 3AN" OF ELK RIVER aNL MERGES JR. TERRY OLSON TOTAL FOR MONTH CUTTING EDGES,DRUM 11/08/95 1123 1,592.52 OCTOBER SERVICES 11/08/95 1124 5,622.76 SHIPPING PRINCIPAL & INT. WELL LOAN MILEAGE TO ASSESSING SCHOOL OCTOBER BUILDING INSPECTION TOTAL YEAR TO DATE 3,19.8--2 ) 11/08/95 1125 10.45 11/08/95 1126 28,075.00 11/08/95 1127 43.12 11/08/95 1128 1,029.06 u/ c�crn �wv ° 1995' 87,454.-- 684 , 739. C Claims List for Approval _ Fo.r__the period _ 10/25/95 to _ 10/31/95 CLAIM TOTAL TO WHOM PAID FOR WHAT PURPOSE DATE NUMBER CLAIM :MA RETIREMENT TRUST DEF.COMP-PAY PERIOD 10/21/95 i�57257zf5-3- 300-:00- JBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE-PAY END 10/21/95 10/25/95 1076 748.95 )NK OF ELK RIVER FED.WITH,SS,MEDICARE-10%21/95 �, 72 10/25/95 i677 N DEPT OF REVENUE OCTOBER WITHHOLDING 782.35 10/25/95 1078 TATE. CAPITAL CREDIT UNION DEDUCTION_PAY_PERIO_D_ 1_0_/21/95 10/25/95 1079 100.00 `LTA DENTAL NOVEMBER PREMIUM 10/25/95 1080 179.90 Er NOVEMBER PREMIUM 10/25/95 1081 1,486.54 .B.MILLER INC. REFUND OF MINING PERMIT ESCROW 10/31/95 1082 5,000.00 ONOLD.-SLATER _____ ______-REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 10/31/95 1083 200.00 HIRLEY SLATER REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 10/31/95 1084 200.00 RAUT WELLS FINAL PAYMENT FOR WELL PROJECT 10/31/95 1085 374.26 TOTAL. FOR MONTH 11,533.7 TOTAL YEAR TO DATE — 608,818.5 RESOLUTION NO. -a5_40 CITY OF OTSEGO RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OR REPORT ON IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, the Otsego Creek Authority has petitioned the Otsego City Council to assume the responsibility for work on a project related to Otsego Creek, AND WHEREAS, said work involves the replacement of two large culverts, one under 83rd Street and Mason Avenue and one under Randy Pouliot's driveway at 8457 Mason Avenue, and also the cleaning and debris removal from Otsego Creek between Pouliot's driveway and the 87th Street driveway, AND WHEREAS, the Council previously approved the -expenditure for the preparation of a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Mn/DNR) permit for said work, AND WHEREAS, said permit was applied for and approved under Mn/DNR permit number 95-3231. Said permit expires on November 30, 1996. AND WHEREAS, it is proposed to utilize a tax levy against the properties within the storm sewer taxing district, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 444, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA: That the proposed improvement be referred to Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. for study and that they are instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Adopted by the council this 1 3Txday of ACTI Clerk ELAINE BEATTY otsego.res November ,1995. ayor / LARDY FOURNIER