11-25-96 CCX
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE
S.CONSENT AGENDA City Clerk Nov. 25, 1996 -
6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,CC
5.1. Approval of Monticello Fire Service Contract
BACKGROUND:
For the last three years we have had a contract for fire service with
the City of Monticello at a price of $35.00 per parcel. The attached
contract is a new contract for Monticello Fire Service. The amount of
per parcel of $35.00 has not changed from the previous contract.
The Council has already OK'd the $35.00 per parcel amount in October.
This contract also runs for a three year period as did our last
contract.
The only difference I see is Page 2, C.and D. The Monticello Fire
Department and Monticello Township people will explain this difference
to you under the Special Presentation of this Agenda.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Fire Service Contract (Fire Protection Agreement) for the
three year (3) term beginning on January 1, 1997 and ending on
December 31st, 1999 at a price of $35.00 per parcel per year.
As for the addition of Page 2, C & D we do have a way to charge that
fee back on the tax rolls of the involved property, if needed.
Thank you,
Elaine
This AGREEMENT between the City and Township of Monticello, Minnesota, hereafter referred
to as the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT, and the City of Otsego, hereafter referred to whether in
whole or in part as the CITY, both agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT agrees to furnish fire service and fire protection to all
properties subject to the terms of this agreement, within the CITY area, said area being set forth
in EXHIBIT A, attached hereto.
The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT will make a reasonable effort to attend all fires within the
CITY area upon notification of such fire or fires, and under the direction of the JOINT FIRE
DEPARTMENT fire chief, subject to the following terms and conditions:
A. Road and weather conditions must be such that the fire run can be made with
reasonable safety to the firemen and equipment of the JOINT FIRE
DEPARTMENT. The decision of the fire chief or other officer in charge of the fire
department at the time that the fire run cannot be made with reasonable safety to
firemen and equipment shall be final.
B. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT shall not be liable to the CITY for the loss or
damage of any kind whatever resulting from any failure to furnish or any delay in
furnishing firemen or fire equipment, or from any failure to prevent, control, or
extinguish any fire, whether such loss or damage is caused by the negligence of the
officers, agents, or employees of the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT or its fire
department, or otherwise.
The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT further agrees:
A. To keep and maintain in good order at its own expense the necessary equipment
and fire apparatus for fire service and fire protection within the town area so
serviced.
B. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT shall provide sufficient manpower in its fire
department to operate fire equipment.
D. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT will submit a summary to the City of all fires on
a monthly basis.
PROTECT.AGR: 10/28/96 Page 1
The CITY agrees:
A. To pay an annual fee of $35 for each tax identification parcel as determined by the
Otsego City Assessor and/or Wright County Auditors office for years 1997 through
1999. These fees shall include all standby charges and fire call costs. The total
annual fee for the first year of this contract is estimated to be $6,650.00 based on
an estimated 190 parcels @ $35 each. The annual fee shall be adjusted for years
1998 and 1999 at the same $35.00 rate per parcel for additional parcels added
within coverage area.
B. Annual fee shall be paid as follows:
prior to January 1 of each year - 25%
prior to April 1 of each year - 25%
prior to July 1 of each year - 25%
prior to October 1 of each year - 25%
C. Any false alarm call to an individual or business that, in the opinion of the
Monticello Fire Chief, was the result of a defective or malfunctioning alarm system
will receive a written notice outlining this policy, indicating a second false alarm
call within the calendar year will subject the property owner to a $100 charge. The
notice will also indicate that three or more false alarms during the calendar year
will result in the property owner being charged $250 for the alarm call.
D. Any false alarm charge billed directly to an individual or business by the Joint Fire
Board under this Agreement that remains unpaid by October 31 of each year shall
become the responsibility of the City for reimbursement.
E. All payments must be made in accordance with this schedule to render this
agreement effective for each calendar year of the contract.
In case an emergency arises within the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT while equipment and
personnel of the fire department are engaged in fighting a fire within the CITY area, calls shall
be answered in the order of their receipt unless the fire chief or other officer in charge of the fire
department at the time otherwise directs. In responding to fire calls within the CITY area, the
fire chief or other officer in charge shall dispatch only such personnel and equipment as in his
opinion can be safely spared from the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT.
In cases where the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT receives a notification of an emergency other
than a fire, and its assistance is requested in the area defined in Exhibit A of this contract, it
shall respond to such emergency in the same manner as a fire as outlined in this contract.
Charges for such service shall be as outlined in ARTICLE VI.
PROTECT.AGR: 10/28/96 Page 2
The CITY agrees to make a fire protection tax levy or otherwise to provide funds each year in an
amount sufficient to pay the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT the compensation agreed upon.
This AGREEMENT shall be in force for a term of three (3) years beginning on January 1, 1997,
and ending on the 31st day of December, 1999. This contract may be terminated upon a six-
month notice by either party.
CI'
At�
Sign d this /-5-day of
oZ;� '199 .
TOWNSHIP OF MONTICELLO
Chairperson
Attest:
Clerk
Signed this day of
.1996.
CITY OF OTSEGO
By:
Mayor
Attest:
Clerk
Signed this day of
1996.
PROTECT.AGR: 10/28/96 Page 3
This EXHIBIT is a part of the attached FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT, and its purpose is
to designate the area covered under this AGREEMENT and referred to herein as the CITY area.
Therefore, the CITY area in which protection for fires is agreed to involves the following sections
of the CITY herein: (SEE ATTACHED MAPS)
Range 24 (Unplatted Areas)
Section 10
Section 11
Section 14
Section 15
Section 22
Section 23
N1/2 of Section 27
Plats:
Billstroms Riverview Addition
Island View Estates
Arrowhead Estates
Riverwood PUD
TOTAL NO. OF PARCELS 193
At $35.00 per Parcel = $6,755.00
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Um
Attest:
Clerk
TOWNSHIP OF MONTICELLO
Bv:
Chairperson
Attest:
Clerk
CITY OF OTSEGO
By:
Mayor
Attest:
-
Clerk
PROTECT.AGR: 10/28/96 Page 4
x
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE
5.CONSENT AGENDA City Clerk Nov. 25, 1996 -
6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,CC
5.2 . Approval of Albertville Fire Service Contract
BACKGROUND:
Attached is the Fire Service Contract (Fire Protection Agreement)
with Albertville. The contract has gone down in amount this year with
the annexation that occurred into Albertville from Otsego.
1995 contract was $13,435.37 and this year it is $12,243.47. The
amount per parcel has already been determined in October of $51.00 per
parcel. The contract is the standard form they have always used.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Fire Service Contract (Fire Protection Agreement) for the
for 1997, beginning January 1, 1997 and ending December 31, 1997 for
$12,243.47.
Thank you,
Elaine
Part of 14-121-24
26-121-24
- ------23-121-24
Part of 27-121-24
24-121-24
34121-24
25-121-24
Part of 36-121-24
TOTAL NET TAX CAPACITY 178,276
30-121-23
31-121-23
32-121-23
33-121-23
TOTAL NET TAX CAPACITY 89,077
-- CITY OF RFRTVII 1 F► E
TOTAL NET TAX CAPACITY 1,487,292
10/1/96
TAX CAPACITIES FOR AREAS TO BE SERVED BY ALBERTVILLE FIRE DEPARTM
.ITY OF OTSEGO
Township 121, Range 24 $178,276.00
Township 121, Range 23 $89,077.00
Total Otsego $267,353.00
CITY OF ST. MICHAEL
Township 120, Range 23
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
$120,354.00
$238,640.00
$56,277.00
Total St. Michael $415,279.00
------------------------------------------
-ITY OF ALBERTVILLE $1,487,292.00
Albertville $1,487,292.00 0.6854120 $68,110.76
St. Michael $415,279.00 0.1913795 $19,017.77
Otsego $267,353.00 0.1232084 $12,243.47
-------------------------------------
$2,169,924.00 $99,372.00
V
FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
This agreement made and entered into by and between the City of
Albertville, a municipal corporation of the County of Wright in the
State of Minnesota and the City of Otsego, in the County of Wright
in the State of Minnesota.
WHEREAS, Otsego desires the services of the fire department of
Albertville in case of fires occurring in Otsego as well as the
emergency medical services of Albertville in case of a medical
emergency, and
WHEREAS, Albertville maintains a volunteer fire department with
emergency medical response capability, which department is
available to provide fire protection and emergency medical response
services to properties located in Otsego, and
THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between said parties as follows:
1. Albertville, through its fire department, shall provide fire
protection and emergency medical response services to those
properties in Otsego lying within the areas outlined in red on
the attached map. Such fire protection and emergency medical
response services shall be provided from January 1 through
December 31, 1997.
2. Otsego shall agree to pay Albertville $12,243.47 in exchange
for the provision of fire protection and emergency medical
response services. Payment due for the year 1997 shall be
made in two installments of $6,121.74 on or before July 1,
1997, and $6,121.73 on or before December 31, 1997.
3. Albertville's obligation to provide fire protection service
and emergency medical response shall be subject to the
following:
a. If road and weather conditions at the time of the call
are such that the fire/medical run cannot be made with
reasonable safety to men and equipment, and the decision
of the Fire Chief or his Deputy in charge shall be final
in such matter, no obligation arises under this agreement
on the part of the City of Albertville to answer such
call.
1
b. In the event that a sufficient amount of the fire
fighting/medical equipment and number of volunteer
firemen, or both, are committed at the time of the fire
call, in sole judgement of the Fire Chief or his Deputy,
to fighting pre-existing fires or attending pre-existing
medical emergencies, so as to render the available
equipment and manpower inadequate to answer a fire or
medical call from Otsego, no obligation shall arise under
this agreement to answer such call, and no person or
party shall have recourse against the City of Albertville
for refusal to answer such call. A pre-existing
fire/medical emergency to which the fire department of
Albertville is called previous to receiving the call from
Otsego and which fire is still being fought or medical
emergency is still being attended to by the Albertville
fire department at the time the call from Otsego is
received.
c. In the event a fire call by Otsego is answered by
Albertville, but before the fire in question is
extinguished, the fire fighting equipment or volunteer
firemen, or both are needed to fight a fire in
Albertville or protect property in Albertville from a
fire, the Chief or his Deputy without liability therefore
to any person or to Otsego under this agreement, may in
their judgement recall the fire equipment and firemen to
Albertville for the purpose of fighting the fire in
Albertville. The judgement of the Fire Chief or his
Deputy shall be final and no person or party shall have
recourse against the City of Albertville for any damages
or losses resulting from such action or decision.
4. The parties acknowledge the fact that Albertville may enter
into similar contracts with other municipalities, and
acknowledge that Albertville has entered into mutual aid
contracts with other fire departments in other municipalities,
and that a fire call under any such contract preceding a call
in Otsego could be a valid and reasonable basis for the
decision of the Fire Chief or his Deputy in refusing to answer
a fire call in Otsego.
5. Because the City of Albertville has heretofore entered into
mutual assistance fire fighting agreements with other
municipalities possessing fire fighting equipment and firemen,
which equipment and firemen could be called by the Chief or
his Deputy to a fire in Otsego, the City of Otsego agrees to
pay such additional cost as may be incurred thereby if in the
sole judgement of the Chief or his Deputy, such additional
fire fighting equipment and firemen are needed to fight a fire
in Otsego and are in fact called to such fire by the Clhief or
his Deputy.
W
0
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have hereunto set their hands and
seals this day of , 1996.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
By:
Michael Potter, -Mayor
Attest:
Linda Houghton, C y Clerk
CITY OF OTSEGO
By:
Norman Freske, Mayor
Attest:
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
3
0
Y
FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
This agreement made and entered into by and between the City of
Albertville, a municipal corporation of the County of Wright in the
State of Minnesota and the City of Otsego, in the County of Wright
in the State of Minnesota.
WHEREAS, Otsego desires the services of the fire department of
Albertville in case of fires occurring in Otsego as well as the
emergency medical services of Albertville in case of a medical
emergency, and
WHEREAS, Albertville maintains a volunteer fire department with
emergency medical response capability, which department is
available to provide fire protection and emergency medical response
services to properties located in Otsego, and
THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between said parties as follows:
1. Albertville, through its fire department, shall provide fire
protection and emergency medical response services to those
properties in Otsego lying within the areas outlined in red on
the attached map. Such fire protection and emergency medical
response services shall be provided from January 1 through
December 31, 1997.
2. Otsego shall agree to pay Albertville $12,243.47 in exchange
for the provision of fire protection and emergency medical
response services. Payment due for the year 1997 shall be
made in two installments of $6,121.74 on or before July 1,
1997, and $6,121.73 on or before December 31, 1997.
3. Albertville's obligation to provide fire protection service
and emergency medical response shall be subject to the
following:
a. If road and weather conditions at the time of the call
are such that the fire/medical run cannot be made with
reasonable safety to men and equipment, and the decision
of the Fire Chief or his Deputy in charge shall be final
in such matter, no obligation arises under this agreement
on the part of the City of Albertville to answer such
call.
1
b. In the event that a sufficient amount of the fire
fighting/medical equipment and number of volunteer
firemen, or both, are committed at the time of the fire
call, in sole judgement of the Fire Chief or his Deputy,
to fighting pre-existing fires or attending pre-existing
medical emergencies, so as to render the available
equipment and manpower inadequate to answer a fire or
medical call from Otsego, no obligation shall arise under
this agreement to answer such call, and no person or
party shall have recourse against the City of Albertville
for refusal to answer such call. A pre-existing
fire/medical emergency to which the fire department of
Albertville is called previous to receiving the call from
Otsego and which fire is still being fought or medical
emergency is still being attended to by the Albertville
fire department at the time the call from Otsego is
received.
c. In the event a fire call by Otsego is answered by
Albertville, but before the fire in question is
extinguished, the fire fighting equipment or volunteer
firemen, or both are needed to fight a fire in
Albertville or protect property in Albertville from a
fire, the Chief or his Deputy without liability therefore
to any person or to Otsego under this agreement, may in
their judgement recall the fire equipment and firemen to
Albertville for the purpose of fighting the fire in
Albertville. The judgement of the Fire Chief or his
Deputy shall be final and no person or party shall have
recourse against the City of Albertville for any damages
or losses resulting from such action or decision.
4. The parties acknowledge the fact that Albertville may enter
into similar contracts with other municipalities, and
acknowledge that Albertville has entered into mutual aid
contracts with other fire departments in other municipalities,
and that a fire call under any such contract preceding a call
in Otsego could be a valid and reasonable basis for the
decision of the Fire Chief or his Deputy in refusing to answer
a fire call in Otsego.
5. Because the City of Albertville has heretofore entered into
mutual assistance fire fighting agreements with other
municipalities possessing fire fighting equipment and firemen,
which equipment and firemen could be called by the Chief or
his Deputy to a fire in Otsego, the City of Otsego agrees to
pay such additional cost as may be incurred thereby if in the
sole judgement of the Chief or his Deputy, such additional
fire fighting equipment and firemen are needed to fight a fire
in Otsego and are in fact called to such fire by the Chief or
his Deputy.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have hereunto set their hands and
seals this day of , 1996.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
By: fry p5lft;
Michael Potter, Mayor
Attest:
Linda HoughtnK, Cit Clerk
CITY OF OTSEGO
By:
Norman Freske, Mayor
Attest:
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
3
IN
NOV-21-1996 14:22 NAC 612 595 9837 P.02
N W^rlm% NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
INC COMMUNITY PLAN NINO - OF -SIGN - MARKET RM3ILARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob )Grmis / Alan Brixius / David Licht
DATE: 21 November 1996
RE: Otsego - Sanitary Sewer Analysis
FILE NO: 176.08 - 96.19
At the City Council's directive, we have prepared a report which attempts to answer
various questions raised by Councilman Black in his 8 October 19% memo regarding the
city's sanitary sewer planning efforts.
The attached report was prepared in collaboration with the City Clerk, Assistant City Clerk,
Building Official, City Engineer and City Attorney.
We request that the Council set a workshop date at which the contents of the report may
be discussed. In preliminary staff discussions, a 2 December date has been suggested
for such workshop meeting.
PC: Elaine Beatty
Larry Koshak
Andy MacArthur
Judy Hudson
Jerry Olson
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 5541 6
PHONE 61Z-595-91536 FAX 612-595.9637 E-MAIL NAC@WINTERNET.COM
NOV-21-1996 14:23 NAC 612 595 9837 P.03
OTSEGO, MINNESOTA
PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM ANALYSIS
NOVEMBER 1996
PREFACE=
11/21/96
While under the jurisdiction of Wright County, the decision was made to urbanize the
eastern portion of the Otsego community. The approval of plats in the 1960s, allowing one
acre residential lots, signaled an irreversible change in character of the community. The
implications and consequences of this major decision were likely not well understood at
the time. However, since this initial, very monumental decision and the continuation of the
urban platting with its relatively high densities, there has been mounting concern over the
potential of ground water contamination and pollution. During the 1980s, this concern
continued and fostered attempts to provide some type of public protection in the event of
a public health crisis. The incorporation of Otsego was at least partially based upon the
fact that the community would be better able to prepare for and, if necessary, respond to
a pollution crisis as a City rather than as a Township.
As pointed out later in this report, the City's 1991 Comprehensive Plan was partially
founded upon the pollution concern and attempted to address establishing sewer
availability in the TH 101/CSAH 42 corridor as a "staging area" for possible extension into
the one acre residential plats of the City in the event that a health hazard became reality.
The City's first Comprehensive Plan anticipated that sewer treatment services would be
provided by Elk River.
As the Elk River sewer treatment option proved unfeasible, a new treatment alternative
was pursued in conjunction with the City of Dayton and Frankfort Township and is now
being considered. In this regard, it is however important to note that the basic plan of
providing a "staging area" for possible extension into the developed urban areas of the
community continues to be a fundamental premise of the proposal which is under
discussion_
Given the reoccurring focus of the sewer options and related plans which have or are
being considered, it seems appropriate to reiterate the basic concerns which are the heart
of the matter. Most evident and prominent is the assumption that the potential exists for
widespread septic system failures in the urban platted areas. As time passes, this
potential increases. Such a situation poses a major potential public health problem. Tied
directly to the public health problem is, however, also the potential of a financial crisis for
the individual property owner in the urbanized area of the community. If the community
NOV-21-1996 14:23 NAC 612 595 9e37 P.04
is caught unprepared, the cost of correcting a major septic system failure event would
generate highly significant expenses. This could create the potential financial ruin of
homeowners and/or render the property near useless. The City, as a whole, would also
face financial jeopardy. The focus of planning efforts to date has therefore been to make
available a public sanitary sewer treatment and collection system in close proximity to the
threatened area. While such precaution would not eliminate health or financial concerns,
the impact would be lessened dramatically.
Although not viewed as the primary reason or objective, not to be overlooked is the
potential of economic development opportunities created by a public sewer system. This
spinoff benefit, combined with the access and visibility afforded by TH 101, provides
Otsego with the opportunity to diversify and expand its tax base. The long range
advantages would be the lessening of the tax burden carried by residential and farm
properties.
It is believed that the point in time has now been reached when the Otsego community is
at a major crossroads in terms of its future. A basic decision on whether or not to proceed
with public sewer is now on the table. Regardless of the course of action taken, there are
risks and financial consequences. All factors on both sides of the issue must be carefully
considered and no conclusion will be easily reached. At present, the public health threat
remains. There are major costs both with or without public sewer. The future character
of Otsego hangs in the balance. Moreover, It would also appear there is little room for
"middle" ground. If a public sewer option is not pursued, it would seem advisable for the
community to halt platting. Perpetuation of the one acre lot subdivisions simply increases
the potential for eventual widespread septic system failure. Also, a larger "urban" lot of 2.5
acres, for example, is a poor utilization of land and increases the cost of City and school
services. A non-public sewer option is also not without further consequences.
Enforcement of the City's current ordinance on annual or biennial septic system
functioning will likely become a responsible necessity. On the other hand, proceeding
with a public sewer system is near totally dependent upon the national and regional
economy over which the City has not control. It is primarily through new development that
a system will be financed. A public sewer will also being more rapid growth which, and
although concentrated, will have many community impacts.
In summary, there is no turning back of the clock. The character of the community and
associated contamination concerns resulting from past development decisions cannot be
ignored. Undoubtably costs associated with corrections of these concerns will continue
to escalate. No decision in the history of Otsego, with the exception of the initial approval
of plats having one acre lots, is as monumental as this question now being posed by public
sewer issue. In contrast to the platting decision, the ramifications of public sewer are
however more evident and force differing views which will be difficult to mediate and
resolve. The task ahead, regardless of the outcome, will be one which no one enjoys and
will demand strong leadership and resolve on the part of City officials.
2
NOV-21-1996 14:24 NAC
t. INTRODUCTION
612 595 9e37 P.05
The City of Otsego is arguably at a point where its most important decision shaping its
future must be made. That being whether or not to pursue sanitary sewer service.
Recently the City accepted a Waste Water Treatment Facilities Plan intended to determine
the feasibility of constructing a regional waste water treatment plant which would serve
portions of the Cities of Dayton and Otsego and former Frankfort Township. Specifically,
the plan was intended to provide an estimate of costs for waste water collection and
treatment within a designated service area. While such plan provides an estimate of
expectant costs for such service (based on three alternatives), additional information is
believed necessary to determine whether the City of Otsego's sanitary sewer planning
efforts should proceed.
The purpose of this report is to provide a supplemental base of information from which City
officials may make informed decisions regarding possible future sanitary sewer service to
the community. Specifically, this report shall:
■ Provide a brief history of the City's sewer planning efforts.
■ Identify the various advantages and disadvantages of sanitary sewer service.
■ Identify areas of the City where sanitary sewer service may be made available.
■ Outline various costs associated with and methods of financing sanitary sewer.
■ Describe other utility services.
This report is not intended to represent nor endorse a fixed or unchangeable sewer plan
but simply to provide information from which future decisions may be made.
11. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
History
The City's initial Comprehensive Plan was adopted in the Fall of 1991. Acknowledging the
potential for ground water pollution associated with failing septic systems, such planning
effort focused upon the potential of eventually providing long term sanitary sewer service
to the northeastern area of the community. At the time of the plan's preparation, efforts
were underway to acquire excess capacity available from the City of Elk Diver and provide
it to an area between Highway 101 and CASH 42 intended for commercial/industrial
development and also to eventually extend into the area identified as the immediate urban
service area where a need might exist due to failing private septic systems.. It is within
3
NOV-21-1996 14:25 NAC 612 595 9837 P.06
this immediate urban service area or future sanitary sewer service district that recent
development in Otsego has been encouraged or confined.
Since the plan's adoption, the City of Elk River, however, has resolved not to provide any
excess capacity to the City of Otsego. In response to such resolution and acknowledging
that ground water contamination (and the establishment of a strengthened tax base)
remain paramount issues, the City refocused its investigation of sanitary sewer service
jointly with the City of Dayton and Frankfort Township (former). Since the recent Frankfort
Township dissolution, the City of St. Michael has "unofficially" indicated that it does not
wish to participate in such investigation.
Policies
The City's Comprehensive Plan includes numerous policies which are either directly or
indirectly related to future sanitary sewer in Otsego. Directly related to such service is the
following policy:
Due to possible ground water contamination threats, the potential for public and/or
semi-public sewer shall be evaluated for the urban development area of the
community.
Establish and maintain an advantageous property tax situation and pursue a
strengthened and sound tax base.
More indirect policies which relate to future sanitary sewer service include the following:
• Ensure efficient utilization and conservation of land on both a community and
subarea basis.
• Provide and maintain a variety of development types and areas to satisfy the needs,
desires, and income levels of all people.
• Housing styles and development techniques which conserve land and increase
efficiency are to be encouraged.
• Housing which contributes to the community's tax base shall be pursued.
Developments which will not contribute to a progressive revenue/service cost ratio
shall be required_
As noted above, the City's Comprehensive Plan includes policies which both directly and
indirectly relate to sanitary sewer service.
NOV-21-1996 14:26 NAC 612 595 9837 P.O?
111111. SEWER STUDY ASSUMPTIONS
In consideration of sanitary sewer service and examining its various impacts, it is
necessary to make several assumptions. These assumptions, utilized in the preparation
of this report, are summarized below.
1. A potential exists for unsewered developed properties to experience on-site system
failure. This potential raises the following concerns:
a. The failure of systems in any concentration could result in public health
problems with regard to contamination of ground water or wells.
b. The existing minimum lot size for unsewered lots is one acre. This lot size
raises concern as whether the lot offers sufficient area to provide
replacement systems fully compliant with MPCA 7080 Rules. The City
requires certification that an on-site system complies with MPGA 7080 Rules
each time an unsewered property is sold.
According to the City Building Inspector, approximately 60 percent of the
existing homes inspected and sold in the City require replacement systems.
Of these replacements, approximately one-half are mound systems. The
need for mound systems relates directly to the inability of soils to
accommodate standard system types.
C. As evidenced in the need for system replacement, the on-site system user
life is limited due either to system breakdown or changes to MPCA
regulations that result in the system becoming obsolete. In this respect,
replacement cost on top of the original costs of an on-site system
construction raises the question as to whether the extension of municipal
sanitary sewer may be a more economical and safer long term waste
disposal option.
d. In the event of area -wide on-site system failure resulting in ground water or
well contamination, options for providing an alternative potable water source
are more limited. The availability of municipal sanitary and water provides
a safe utility option that would protect the property values of the existing
Otsego residential areas.
2. Sanitary sewer and water is a vital element necessary to facilitate urban
development including economic development. Municipal utilities provide the
infrastructure necessary to accommodate large scale commercial development and
industrial uses. Through utility availability, a more efficient use of land is achieved_
A water system provides water supply for fire protection, industrial production,
NOV-21-1996 14:26 NAC 612 595 9837 P.Oe
cleaning and consumption. Sanitary sewer will accommodate industrial waste
disposal for large number employees as well as waste water production.
3. The utility service areas, as illustrated on page 9 of this report, are sized to
minimize the City's financial investment in infrastructure and to concentrate growth
in an area that will capitalize on such infrastructure. To cover costs of the utilities,
the City will need to establish a development philosophy that directs growth to the
utility service area.
4. The continued allowance of unsewered, one acre lots will serve to perpetuate the
potential for ground water contamination, recognizing that the altemative allowance
of larger lots (i.e., 2.5 acres) results in land use inefficiency, consideration should
be given to the prohibition of any unsewered residential development of less than
ten acres in size unless sanitary sewer service is pursued.
5. Should sanitary sewer service be made available, it is the intent of the City that
properties benefitted by such system will pay for it. As a result, financing of the
system should reduce the risk of payment for non-use through proper utility
phasing, identification of potential user revenue sources and establish realistic
growth expectations.
6. With any growth, the City will face increasing demands for municipal, School
District, and County services. These demands will place additional burdens on
local revenue sources. In addressing this issue, the City must evaluate and
respond to the following issues:
a_ With or without utilities, the City must define the amount, type and rate of
growth it must absorb in order to keep up with service demands.
b. The City's growth pattern will be geographically confined to an established
geographic service area, resulting in an efficient delivery of service.
C. The City must promote a diversified tax base to reduce the tax burden on
single family homes.
d. Developers shall be responsible for the costs associated with extending
municipal utilities, street, parks, etc, to new developments.
e. In the event of failing on-site septic systems, the City must consider whether
it will require mandatory connection to available municipal services.
0
NOV-21-1996 14:27 NAC 612 595 9837 P.09
7. The Riverbend Mobile Home Park is served by a privately owned sanitary sewage
treatment system which has excess treatment capacity. For the purposes of this
study, this "private" sanitary sewer district is excluded from the various projections
made within the body of this report. As this effort progresses, however, the
handling of this service district will need to be specifically addressed by the City
Council.
IV. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
There are both advantages and disadvantages to providing sanitary sewer service to the
community. Likewise there are both advantages and disadvantages to private on-site
systems. In many instances, various advantages of each option may be perceived by the
other as disadvantages (i.e., community growth)_ The following is a general summary of
advantages and disadvantages associated with each of these service options_
Binary Sewer System
Advantages
Environmental Issues. A major advantage of sanitary sewer service is the avoidance of
ground water contamination associated with failing septic systems and a safer means of
collecting and treating sewage_ According to the City Building Inspector, approximately
10 percent of the total + 1,500 private septic systems within the City have failed since 1990
(not including the Riverbend Mobile Home Park). Such facilities pose a genuine threat to
the quality of the City's ground water and often result in expensive correction measures
(i.e_, mound systems).
To address these concerns, the City has taken several steps including adoption of a "point
of sale" ordinance that requires system certification at the time of property sale and the
placement of monitoring wells to ensure that water quality remains at acceptable levels.
Sanitary sewer service would provide a type of "insurance" of sorts as a remedy for
widespread failures/ground water pollution and may be provided as need dictates.
Economy of Service. Over the long term (i.e., 50 years), sanitary sewer service is a less
expensive method of sewage collection and treatment than on site, private systems,
particularly in consideration of the City's soil conditions. A specific cost comparison
between system types is being prepared by the City Engineer and will be addressed in a
supplemental report. Also to be recognized is that the City's "point of sale" ordinance
mandates all private systems to be certified as a condition of a home sale. Thus, upgrade
7
NOV-21-1996 14:28 NAC 612 595 9837 P.10
and/or replacement of existing systems may be an imminent and potentially a reoccurring
expense to many Otsego homeowners.
Land Values. The provision of utilities will increase the value of the land having utility
availability. The opportunity to access municipal utilities increases the development
capacity of a site and the profits that may be seen through its development. Actual land
value comparisons are offered in later sections of this report.
Greater Growth Opportunities. Sanitary sewer service would provide greater growth
opportunities within the City, both in terms of population and an ability to accommodate a
broad range of land uses.
Diverse Tax Base. Typically, sanitary sewer (and water) service is necessary to attract
high value commercial and industrial uses. Based on various cost/revenue studies, it has
been concluded that revenues from commerciaUndustrial uses exceed community service
expenditures. This is not the case with typical low density residential development. It is
the goal of most communities to balance financial losses of residential development with
property tax revenues generated from commercial/industrial development. Currently, only
two percent of the City's tax base is generated by commercialfindustrial development.
Efficient Use of Land. The provision of sanitary sewer and water will allow for a more
efficient and concentrated development patterns. Currently unsewered lots must provide
area to accommodate two on-site drain field plus proper setbacks from the principal
building and the on-site well to comply with MPCA 7080 regulations. These areas become
buildable land with the provision of municipal utilities allowing sites to accommodate larger
industries or commercial buildings and greater residential densities. Otsego's unsewered
immediate growth area is producing ± .9 single family dwelling units per acre. The
availability to municipal utilities may accommodate single family residential densities of 2.5
to 3.0 units per acre. Additionally, utilities will offer opportunities to diversify the City's
housing stock by accommodating medium density, and high density residential land use.
Variety of Housing Types. Sanitary sewer service would allow development of various
housing types which otherwise could not exist within the community. The City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan directs the City to pursue a wide variety of housing types. The ability
to provide a variety of housing options and densities promote life cycle housing within the
City and support the City's desire for expanded commercial and industrial growth.
Economical Service Delivery. From a City-wide perspective, the more concentrated
development patterns which may be associated with areas served by sanitary sewer,
increased efficiency of service delivery is likely to result. Generally speaking, service
delivery (i.e., police, fire, snow removal, etc.) will be less costly to 50 dwelling units upon
20 acres (sewered) than 50 dwelling units overlaying 50 acres of land (unsewered).
I✓'
NOU-21-1996 14:2e NAC 612 595 9e37 P.11
Greater Commercial industrial Development Options. Currently, commercial and
industrial development within the City is limited to small, "dry" industries which do not have
need for sanitary sewer (or a public water system). Sanitary sewer (and water) service
would provide an opportunity for businesses which otherwise could not locate in the City
(i.e., industries that have a large employee base, wet industries that are large water users,
restaurants, hotels, shopping centers).
Disadvantages
Urban Development. The provision of utilities in Otsego will be the City's step toward
promoting development at an urban scale and density. This will change Otsego's rural/
suburban character to that of a growing urban community. This change from the historical
growth pattern may be perceived as a threat to existing lifestyles and may produce
additional land use conflicts between urban and rural areas.
Increased Growth Rates. The availability of land with municipal utilities will likely result
in faster growth for the City. This growth will result in more people and households in
Otsego placing greater demand on City, County and School District facilities and services.
The cost of providing additional services will be shared by all Otsego residents.
Increased Land Costs. On a per acre basis, raw land with sewer (and water) availability
is considerably more expensive than that without such service. Based on input from area
developers, raw land with sanitary sewer and water available brings between $10,000 and
$15,000 per acre. Conversely, land without such service brings approximately $3,000-
$5,000 per acre in today's marketplace.
On -Site Systems
Advantages
Preservation of Rural Character. Private on-site systems command a certain amount of
land (i.e., one plus acres) to comply with applicable City and State regulations and function
properly. Such minimum lot area requirements have the result of creating relatively low
residential densities and a "rural" community character. Such "rural" character and its
preservation may be considered a positive aspect of on-site systems.
Expense. Obviously, municipal sanitary service would result in a significant investment
for the City. Should the City choose not to pursue such a service option, associated costs
would not be incurred. This is not to say, however, that the continuance of on-site
systems may continue to exist without cost.
D
NOV-21-1996 14:29 NAC 612 595 9e37 P.12
Slower Growth Rates. Sanitary sewer service would provide greater community growth
opportunities (and rates) than would private on-site sewage systems. Thus, the
continuance of such system type would result in reduced growth, both in terms of
population and range of uses. Such reduced growth rates result in lower service demands
(i.e., schools, police, etc.).
Lower Land Values. Typically, sanitary sewer service availability escalates land value.
Thus, property without such service availability has a lower value. This "less expensive"
land may be viewed both as an advantage or disadvantage to community residents.
Disadvantages
Environmental Issues. A primary concern of private on --site systems is their potential to
contaminate the ground water. As noted previously, approximately 10 percent of the total
systems within the community (±1,500) have failed since 1990.
Economy of Service. In the long term (i.e., 50 years) on-site systems are a more
expensive means of sewage collection and treatment than sanitary sewer. Whereas
sanitary sewer is basically a "one time" installation cost, ongoing maintenance and
upgrade/replacement costs are necessary for on-site systems. In consideration of on-site
system ages, city and state performance standards, soil conditions and the recently
adopted "point of sale" ordinance, replacement of the majority of septic systems in the City
can be considered imminent.
Tax Base. As noted previously, sanitary sewer (and water) service is necessary to attract
high value commercial and industrial uses. The lack of such system limits both the size
and range of uses which may locate in the community. While private sewage treatment
in and of itself does not discourage development, financial returns (i.e., property taxes) can
be expected to be significantly less than would uses dependent upon sanitary sewer
service.
Limited Housing Types. As previously indicated, sanitary sewer service would allow
development of a wide variety of housing types which could not otherwise exist in the
community (i.e., multiple family dwellings). Conversely, private septic systems limit
housing alternatives to single family detached dwelling units. Such housing type limitation
directly contradicts comprehensive plan policy which encourages a full range of life -cycle
housing.
Service Delivery. Comparatively speaking, service delivery to areas served by private on-
site septic systems is less efficient than service provided to areas served by sanitary
sewer. Such service costs relate directly to development densities which may be
accommodated in each sewer service option.
10
NOV-21-1996 14:30 NAC 612 595 9837 P.13
V. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The sanitary sewer study area is illustrated on the map on the following page. The study
area is divided into two primary areas: the immediate service area (Phases 1 and Phase
1A), and a sanitary sewer service district where such service would be immediately
available.
The waste treatment plant has been specifically designed to serve Phase I and Phase 1A.
The trunk collection system on the other hand shall be designed with capacity to serve
both the long range urban service area and Phases 1 and 1A.. This includes the existing
areas of development and areas of vacant land having a high potential for economic
development due to its proximity to the Highway 101 corridor_
Phased Service Areas
Phase 1. As noted above, Phase 1 and 1A are subareas of the sanitary sewer service
district. Phase 1A flanks the 101 corridor north of 55th Street and has been identified as
the first priority for sanitary sewer. Priority was given to this area for the following reasons:
9. This area would bring sanitary sewer within close proximity to areas of existing
unsewered development.
2. The sanitary sewer would be available to areas identified for commercial and
industrial growth. This would facilitate the City's interest in economic development.
3. This sanitary sewer service area would be compatible with a proposed service area
for municipal water system.
A water system for Phase 1 could be established using the existing well site on the school
site with tower and waste trunk lines looped through the service area.
Phase 1A. Phase 1A extends south along the 901 corridor from County Road 42 to the
City's southern boundary. Phase 1A generally overlays the route that the sanitary sewer
trunk line must follow to extend such service to Phase 1. Phase 1A represents a logical
pattern of growth as Phase 1 infills with development as it follows the in --place
infrastructures.
11
NOV-21-1996 14:31 NAC
m
612 595 9837 P.14
a �
w U
cc cc
4 F -
w
U d
� U
W
u7 ¢
Z W
Q
m ¢
W
W W
0 co
Z }
Q ¢
¢
0
URBAN SERVICE AREA CONCEPT
W
F=
x
d
A
W
_Z
W
F-
W
d
4
W
W
U
¢
W
cn
Z
4
m
W
G7
d
2
O
J
W
O
NOV-21-1996 14:31 NAC 612 595 9837 P.15
VI- PROPOSED LAND USE
The Land Use Plan shown on the following page illustrates proposed land use patterns
within the study area. This Land Use Plan anticipates development of urban densities and
intensities with the provision of sanitary sewer.
Residential. Low density residential land use anticipates 1-4 units per acre. The Otsego
Zoning Ordinance establishes a minimum sewered single family lot size of 12,000 square
and a lot width of 75 feet.
Low density residential extends over the existing residential area in northeastern Otsego,
If it is deemed necessary to extend municipal utilities into this area, it is anticipated that
the existing lots would be resubdivided into smaller urban lots.
Medium and high density residential land use areas have also been identified on the Land
Use Plan. Medium density residential uses include housing having a density of 5-10 units
per acre. This land use may include but not be limited to twinhomes, townhomes,
quadraminiums, and smaller multiple family buildings.
High density residential land use includes housing having a density of 10 or more units per
acre. This land use category includes a variety of housing types including high density
multiple family buildings.
The medium and high density residential land uses are located at the periphery of
commercial and industrial areas. These land use patterns utilize the higher density
residential development as a land use transition between the commercial and industrial
and low density residential neighborhoods.
Commercial. Commercial areas have been designated at primary County intersections
of Highway 101 to take advantage of the visibility and accessibility from this major traffic
carrier. Specifically, commercial development has been proposed at the County Road 39,
County Road 42 and County Road 37 intersections of the state highway.
Industrial. The industrial land use designation has been established west of Highway
101 between County Road 39 and County Road 42. This area offers large undeveloped
areas of contiguous land, excellent visibility and accessibility from the adjacent highway
corridor.
13
NOV-21-1996 14:32 NAC
.�� 10
' h n,._oit
�,
L LONG RANGE URBAN SERVICE AREA SSEE; ii1
I
ray I • POSSI13LEE SEWER DISTRICT BOUNDARY --
t �
I
CITY OF OTSEGO
CITY OF ST. MICHAEL
h
I ti�
-4L- C --L,
`1
612 595 9837 P.16
SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT
CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN
NORTH
1300' o 1300 3aoo
SCALE IN FEU
I
1
PROPOSED
SEWAr-E TREATMENT PLANT .
_ LOCATION _
I
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
�•
MEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY RESIDENYIAL
pflol
d
COMMERCIAL
®
INDUSTRIAL
ElPUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
NORTH
1300' o 1300 3aoo
SCALE IN FEU
I
1
PROPOSED
SEWAr-E TREATMENT PLANT .
_ LOCATION _
I
NOV-21-1996 14:33 NAC 612 595 9837 P.17
VII. PROPERTY OWNER IMPACTS
The impact that the provision of municipal utilities have on City residents and property
owners include a number of factors, including the cost of utility system, financing schemes,
rate of growth, type and value of growth and phasing of the system.
The City Engineer has been asked to prepare cost estimates for the provision of utilities,
including sanitary sewer, water, storm drainage and streets. These estimates shall be
submitted separately from this report, however, they will give an illustration of anticipated
development costs for future development.
The City's intent is to finance the municipal utility system base on revenues generated by
properties benefitted by the system. In this respect, the City will attempt to limit the
financial exposure to non-users.
The impact on property owners can be broken into three categories - 1) City-wide Impacts,
2) Service Area impacts, and 3) site specific impacts.
City -Wide Impacts, The City-wide impacts of providing municipal utilities include:
A. The provision of utilities will change the character and growth rate of the City
within the utility service area. Rapid urban growth can result in increased
demands on City, County and School District facilities and services. If
expanding service costs exceed the tax generation of new growth, tax rates
city-wide could increase.
In response to this issue, it is imperative that Otsego pursue a managed
growth philosophy that controls the rate of growth and type of development
in a manner that allows the City to fiscally plan for future service demands.
B. In financing the municipal utility system through either bonded debt or a
loan, the City will pledge the full faith and credit of its tax power to secure the
debt. In the event the City fails to generate sufficient revenues from user
sources, the City may have to utilize the City's general fund to cover debt
service_ Through conservative user revenue projections and a diversity of
revenue options, the City may reduce its risk of using the City's general fund
to cover utility debt service.
C_ The provision of utilities will allow Otsego to pursue a full range of
commercial and industrial land uses. This economic development creates
City-wide advantages, including:
15
NOV-21-1996 14:34 NAC 612 595 9837 P.1e
K
The commercial/industrial properties will produce higher property tax
revenue than low density single family homes. This tax base will
relieve some of the property tax burden of residential homeowners.
The commercial/industrial growth will offer local jobs, service and
shopping opportunities not presently available in Otsego. This land
use will promote and enhance the City's local economy.
• With the provision of utilities, a variety of housing types and densities
can be made available with the City. The alternative housing type will
provide life cycle housing options for residents who wish to stay in
Otsego as they age and housing needs change
Service Area Impacts. The utility service area will experience the City-wide
impacts as well as the more area specific ramifications with the provision of utilities.
A. The provision of utilities in the Phase 1 area will bring municipal service in
close proximity to Otsego's largest concentration of unsewered 1 acre
residential lots. The concentration of the 1 Acre unsewered lots has raised
concern for failing on-site sewer systems and the potential for ground water
and well contamination. The City has record of failed systems that have
required replacement. Concentrated failure of systems on these small lots
could result in various pollution problems and significantly impact the value
and salability of these homes. The provision of municipal utilities provides
an option for alternative sewer and water service. This system may be
expanded to address areas having failing sewer systems.
B. The availability of municipal utilities will tend to increase raw land values due
to increased development potential. Anoka, Sherburne and Wright County
Assessors were contacted and questioned as to their experience in
comparing the values of raw land in rural area versus raw land having utility
availability. Availability was described as having utility system with sufficient
capacity that may be extended to serve the raw land area.
Rural Raw Land Value
Per Acre
Anoka
$3,000
Sherburne
$3,000
Wright'
$3,000
Raw Land Value In Utility
Service Area Per Acre
$15,000
$10,000-12,000
$ 6,000
' The Wright County Assessor's office did not have the empirical data
available or past experience in Anoka and Sherburne to provide more
specific value for land having utility availability. Thus, the Wright County
estimates represent expressed opinions.
16
NOV-21-1996 14:34 NAC 612 595 9837 P.19
The comparison illustrates a significant jump in raw land value with regard
to the availability of utilities.
C. Otsego's current development pattern consists primarily of unsewered 1 acre
lots. With the availability of municipal utilities, the minimum single family lot
size is anticipated to be 12,000 square feet, resulting in a density of
approximately 3 units per acre. The following development cost comparison
was prepared based on discussions with two Wright County real estate
developers.
The availability of municipal sewer and water will increase the land
development costs, however, the increased density significantly increases
the profit per acre when comparing the suburban and urban developments.
D. Property owners within the sanitary sewer service area have opportunities
to defer or avoid immediate costs associated with such service through
enrollment in Wright County's "green acre" program, agricultural land will
continue to be taxed as an agricultural use. Such program does, however,
17
Suburban (1
Acre) Lots -
Unsewered'
Urban (10,000 to 12,000 SF) Lots -
Sewered
Per Lot
Per Acre
Lot Sale Price
$27,900433,900
$27,000-$30,000
$81,000-$90,000
Land Acquisition
Price Per Lot
$6,000-$8,000
$5,000
$15,000
Development
Cost/City Review
$7,500
$15,000
$45,000
Land Holding Costs
$2,000
$3,000
$9,000
Profit
$6,000-$10,000
$4,000-$7,000
$12,000-$25,000
House Value Range
$130,000-
$170,000
$120,000-$150,000
$360,000-$450,000
Profit Per Acre
$6,000-$10,000
$12,000-$21,000
$36,000-$63,000
'The buyer is responsible for costs associated with the installation of an on-site
sewer and well.
The availability of municipal sewer and water will increase the land
development costs, however, the increased density significantly increases
the profit per acre when comparing the suburban and urban developments.
D. Property owners within the sanitary sewer service area have opportunities
to defer or avoid immediate costs associated with such service through
enrollment in Wright County's "green acre" program, agricultural land will
continue to be taxed as an agricultural use. Such program does, however,
17
NOV-21-1996 14:35 NAC 612 595 9837 P.20
only defer costs associated with sanitary sewer service as property owners
remain ultimately responsible for the payment of assessments and
associated interest. The State's "Agricultural Preservation Program" also
provides an opportunity to lessen property owner costs associated with
sanitary sewer service. Unlike the "green acres" program, the agricultural
preservation program enrollment results in the waiving of assessments until
such time as the agricultural preserve designation is removed. The
agricultural preserve requires a commitment to agriculture for a period of 8
years following the removal of the agricultural preserve designation. With
this commitment, the property is taxed at a discount agriculture tax rate and
cannot be assessed for any utility improvements.
3. Site Specific Impacts. Over the long tern (50 years or the life of a home),
municipal sanitary sewer offers a safer, less expensive method of sewage collection
and treatment than an on-site sewer system, particularly in consideration of soil
conditions in Otsego.
A. Sanitary Sewer System. The investment in sanitary sewer provides for long
term collection and treatment. The life of a sanitary sewer system will
generally exceed 50 years. As such, the capital investment in municipal
sewer is generally a one time expense for a home buyer.
Wastewater treated at the municipal treatment plant must meet state water
quality standards. In this regard, the municipal system is constantly
monitored and held to standards that will not pollute water resources.
B. On -Site Sewer Systems. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency estimates the
average user life of an on-site sewer systems 25 years with proper
maintenance and soil conditions. Since Otsego has adopted its point of sale
sewer inspection ordinance, sixty percent of the on-site systems inspected
required replacement. In most cases, the mound systems were the only on-
site sewer option due the soil condition of the lot. The mound system is a
more expensive alternative than a drainfield increasing replacement costs
for these residents.
The City Building Inspector has identified a number of unsewered
subdivisions are now reaching 20 and 25 years in age. Based on State
averages and local historical trends, many of the on-site systems are
approaching the end of their user life and may require replacement in the
near future.
When considering the initial installation costs and any replacement costs,
the expense of an on-site sewer system will likely match or exceed the
18
NOV-21-1996 14:36 NAC 612 595 9e37 P.21
capital costs of municipal sewer over the life of a home. It should be noted
that without proper maintenance and soil conditions, system replacement
may need to occur on a more frequent interval.
A specific cost comparison between municipal sanitary sewer and on-site
sewer system over a 5o year period will be provided by the City Engineer in
a separate report.
Treatment of waste water by a functioning on-site system does not present
a pollution threat. However, soil condition, system age or lack of system
maintenance can cause the level of waste water treatment to deteriorate or
fail resulting in potential pollution problems. The sheer number of systems
in Otsego along with the inspection process, makes it difficult to determine
whether all the existing systems are working properly. The City has
established monitoring wells within the developed areas of the City to
provide detection of area -wide pollution problems.
V111. FINANCING
The construction of a sanitary sewer and water system will require the City of Otsego to
undertake significant debt to finance the system. While the City wishes to have the
benefitted properties pay for the utilities, it must be recognized that bond or loan financing
for the utility system is secured by the full faith and credit of the City's taxing power. In this
respect, if revenues through connection charges, user fee or special assessments do not
cover debt service, the City may have to levy through the general fund to cover utility
system debt service. To reduce the potential impact on non -sewer users, the following
options are worthy of consideration:
Joint Utility System
The joint system with Dayton offers the opportunity to defray costs of the waste treatment
plant over two cities and expands the user base. The Bonestroo study estimates that
Dayton would be allocated 27 percent of the waste treatment plant capacity. Regardless
of how the system is owned and managed, a commitment from Dayton to finance a
significant portion of the plant's debt service, maintenance and operation will reduce the
financial exposure for Otsego.
Additionally, the development of a shared system for two communities will likely receive
a more favorable consideration from state and federal agencies responsible for approving
waste treatment facilities and financing.
19
NOU-21-1996 14:36 NAC 612 595 9837 P.22
Area Assessment
A second option to expanding the user base is to consider an area assessment for lands
that would have access to the utility system based on the system design capacity. The
sewer system provides utility availability beyond those properties abutting the trunk lines.
The availability of sewer and water will result in the following benefits:
The utilities will be in close proximity to the City's largest concentrate of unsewered
lots. In the event of large scale on-site system failures, the City will be able to
extend utilities in a timely and economically efficient manner.
2. The availability of sanitary sewer and water utilities will appreciate the values of
undeveloped lands. The impact on land values was described in more detail earlier
in this report.
In light of these benefits, the City may wish to reduce its City-wide exposure by assessing
a portion of the waste treatment plant and utility collection system on the basis of
availability to benefitted properties. The use of an area assessment would reduce the
overall debt to cover via connection charges and the risk of general fund contributions.
Taxing District
Within the City of Otsego, there are currently two taxing districts as graphically illustrated
upon attached Exhibit B. The concept of a rural/urban service and taxing district was
considered and adopted by the City in 1991. The taxing districts distinguish the service
demand between rural and urban land uses and establish different tax rates for the two
taxing districts to compensate for the different municipal service demands_
With the addition of municipal sanitary sewer and water, the City may adjust the
boundaries of the urban taxing district to be reflective of the anticipated utility service area.
Each year, a levy could be imposed within the urban taxing district to help meet a portion
of the projected bond retirement needs.
As in the case of assessments, the use of the taxing district can be a geographic specific
revenue generating device. This would offer some financial protection to unusers of the
municipal utilities.
Connection Fees/User Fees
The Bonestroo sanitary study recommends the use of connection charges and user fees
to finance the debt service, operation and maintenance costs of the sanitary sewer system.
Based on 75 percent of projected growth and waste water flows, Bonestroo recommended
20
NOV-21-1996 14:37 NAC 612 595 983? P.23
a connection charge of $4,800 per REC unit and $20 a month user charge. By using 75
percent of projected growth, Bonestroo has adjusted the connection charges to give the
City some financial cushion in the event that development does not achieve its projected
targets. The Bonestroo connection charges are based on the following growth
assumptions:
The existing population of 1,080 people and 432 households within the study area
will connect to the municipal sanitary sewer within five years of its operation.
2. The study area will grow by 680 people and 248 households between 1996 and
year 2000. This represents an annual growth of approximately 25 new housing
units.
3. The existing commercial/industrial development represents 65 REC units to be
connected in the first five years of growth.
4. The commercial/industrial growth will add 175 new REC units to the municipal
sanitary sewer system between 1996 and 2006.
5. By year 2006, Otsego is projected to generate a waste water flow of .230 MGD.
This equates to a total of 680 residential units and 240 RECs from commercial and
industrial development.
In conversation with Mr. Ted Field of Bonestroo, existing units incorrectly include the
Darkenwald mobile home park which is served by its existing private sanitary sewer
treatment facility. The elimination of the mobile home park will reduce the number of
existing units from 497 to 297. The impact of this modification is twofold:
1. The number of users to generate revenues is reduced.
2. The cost of infrastructure improvements is also reduced.
According to Mr. Fields, the result would likely be some upward adjustment in the
recommended connection charges.
Examination of the growth forecast in relationship to regional growth trends suggest that
the addition of 25 new residential units per year may be conservative. Residential growth
may realistically exceed the projections and provide support in addition to the existing
development.
The following table provides a comparison of sewer and water availability charges from
nearby communities with the charges forecasted for Otsego. Because Otsego would be
developing both a waste treatment plant and collection system, its charges would be much
21
NOV-21-1996 14:38 NAC 612 595 9837 P.24
higher than communities with established in-place systems. St.Michael has the closest
comparable cost at $3,300. St. Michael's charges are reflective of a significant upgrade
in its waste treatment facility.
LIST OF CITIES WITH SERVICE AVAILABILITY CHARGES
IN NEAR BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS
SAC
WAC
Otsego (Forecasted)
4,800.00
1,000.00
Albertville
2,200.00
N.A.
Elk River
1,300.00
1,000.00
Champlin
1,250.00
625.00
Monticello
1,500.00
500.00
St. Michael
3,300.00
1,300.00
Cambridge
1,020.00
400,00
Zimmerman
1,750.00
1,750.00
Average of Charges
Sewer Availability Charges (SAC) $1,760.00
Water Availability Charges (WAC) 929.00
Lateral Utility Costs
The extension of lateral utilities from the City's trunk facilities to the development site shall
be an expense borne by the developer. These lateral systems shall conform to City
construction standards and shall be guaranteed by development contract financial
security.
Financing Summary
The use of alternative funding sources and focusing the financial responsibility to
benefitted properties may reduce the need to utilize general funds to cover debt service
for the infrastructure limiting the potential impact on non -user properties..
22
NOU-21-1996 14:38 NAC 612 595 9837 P.25
IX. GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL OF FACILITY
Options available to the City in regard to facility ownership and operation are summarized
in a memorandum prepared by the City Attorney dated November 4, 1996 (attached as
Exhibit A). As noted in the memorandum, a variety of options are available by State
Statutes and/or special legislation. Such options are, at this time presented for
informational purposes only. A recommendation will not be offered until such time as the
implications of the options have been fully evaluated with input from both affected
municipalities.
23
NOV-21-1996 14:39 NAC 612 595 9837 P.26
MUM S..Rad2wt7l
.Andrew J. McArthur
Michael C. Cnuri
Afegan M. AjpDona&
Novej�ber 4, 1996
i
RADZWILL & COURI
Anorneys at Law
705 Central Awnw East
ro Bos 369
St. Midrad, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(672) 497--2599 OF44
Bob Xirxnis I
Senior Planner
Northwest Assdaiated Consultants, Inc.
5775:Waytata Blvd.
Suite 555
St. Louis Pari, M .55416
RE: Requested;Draft Report Regarding Legal Entities That Can -Be
Established To Deliver Seger Services
Dear Bob:
Enclosed please find a preliminary draft xnemorax}dum 'which I have
drafted for purposes of your preli.Yninaxy sewer study report. please
emphasize that this is only a draft if it Is included with your
report. ,
It is my understanding that an overall draft report will be
presented to the council at their next regularly scheduled iaeet.ing
on November 12 for review and comment. Please let me know if you
require anything else.
Very truly yours,
I
xew
�-Zcz:u r
RAD2wY & covRI
Enols.
cc: City of Otsego
Karry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson
EXHIBIT A
NOV-21-1996 14:39 NAC
DRAF I- November q, 1996
XEMORANDVM
612 595 983? P.2?
To: Bob Ki is, NAG
FROM: Andy Ma Arthur, RADZWILL & COURI
DATE Octoberl'29, 1996
RE: Otsego Sewer Report
At your request, I am providing this memorandum regarding options
for different! legal entities which the involved cities and/or
townships could pursue as a legal framework for establishment of a
sewer system and ongoing operation of the same. 2 have also
attached to this memorandum applicable pages from the relevant
Minnesota Statutes, as well, as information received from the MPGA
regarding various sanitary surer districts and under what authority
they were formed.
SANI-3PARY SEWER DISTRICT CREATED UNDER MINN. STAT. 115.19 ET. SEQ.
The first option for the City and other cooperating local units of
government is' to petition for creation of a Sanitary District'
pursuant to Minn. Stat. 115.18 et seq. This fairly lengthy process
first requires a petition to the MPCA requesting creation of the
District_ This petition must be on behalf of the affected
municipalities, or can be done by signature petition of a
percentage of; voters in the area proposed for the distract. A
public meeting must be held to inform the affected persons of the
intent to request formation of the district prior to any petition
being submitted to M.PCA.
Upon receipt oqf the petition, the agency provides public notice of
the proposed district and calls for public comment. If 25 or more
requests for a public hearing are received within the thirty: (30)
day comment period, the agency proceeds to hold a contested case
hearing.
After. the period of public comment and after a hearing, if a
hearing is held, the agency must issue findings of fact either
approving or denying creation of the sanitary district.
If the sanitary district is approved, a board of managers of five
pers =s is elected. These managers will be elected from voters
withiki the district and will serge staggered terms as set forth in
Minn. Stat. 115.23.
The Sanitary :sewer district, once created, becomes a public
corporation, ;and governmental subdi.visi.ozx of the state_ For
purposes of obtaining federal or state grants or loans the district
is a municipality or municipal. corporation_ The status and powers
of a �di.strict are set forth in Minn. Stats. 115.25 and 115.26_
A sar4tary sewer district created under this statutory scheme has
the power to 'borrow and bond as does a municipality, and has
I
NOU-21-1996 14:40 NAC 612 595 9837 P.2e
I
authir.ity to establish ordinances and enforce them:
i
According to the material received from the KKA, as of the date of
theit last update, no sanitary sewer district has been created in
then state using this process.
SANITARY S" DISTRICT CREATED UNDER MINN. STAT. 115.61 ET. SEQ
A re'ional sanitary x'y sewer district can also be created under Minn.
Stat . 115. 61 et seq. Such a regional district is established by the
involved municipalities or townships within a specific drainage
area for purposes of providing that area with sanitary sewer
service_
Although the istatute is unclear as how such a district is to be
form4d, it appears that such a district must be established by the
legislature.
The regional sanitary sewer district has all the powers of a
municipality telated to its purpose, it can levy taxes and special
assessments, can issue bonds and has the power of cdnde=ation.
The structure; of such a regional district is different than one
created under the statutes set forth above (Minn. Stat. .115.18 et
seq.l for a sanitary sewer district. The regional, district created
under this poi~tion of the statutes does not have to be approved by
MPCA._ It is established by the Local units of government who are
involved and is run by a Board of Directors who are members of each
participating governmental unit and which are appointed by the
governing boder of each of those separate units of government.
The day to day operations of the district are undertaken by a
manager who is appointed by the Board of Directors and who has the
same statutox-y authority as does a city manager. The manager may
hire other employees do carry out the day to day Functions of the
district swbject to approval by the Board of Directors.
it appears from the material received from MPCA that this provision
has not been used within the state.
CONTRACTS B=1MEN MUNICIPALITIES UNDER MINN. STATS. 13.S.49 AND
Unde4 Minn. Stat, 115.48 MPCA may assume power over delivery of
sewer services if a municipality has failed to comply with an order
by the agency relative to pollution matters or delivery of sewer
services to another area which is undergoing pollution problems.
Minn. Stat. 115.49 allows the MPGA, after a hearing, to order- that
municipalities cooperate as to delivery of services by contract.
The APCA order sets forth the general terns of the contract and a
period during which it is expected that it be adopted. if the
muni8ipalities do not enter into such an agreement within the time
NOV-21-1996 14:41 NAC 612 595 9e37 P.29
i
fxam4e set forth in the MPGA order, MPCA may execute the agreement
on behalf of the affected municipalities. Such an agreement can be
enforced either by either of the affected municipalities or by the
Attorney General's Office.
According to information received from MPCA this authority has only
been invoiced on one occasion by MPCA in the matter of the cities of
Wi.noria -and Goodview.
PROC)MURES FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A SANITARY DISTRICT UNDER 2l-".
STAT. 116A
Any County Board of Commissianers or District Court may establish
a sewer district within those areas of the county which are not
organized as cities by following the procedures as set forth in
Minn.- Stat. 116A. Areas. of a municipality may also be included in
that district if they so recruest by resolution of the City Council.
Proceedings under 116A are initiated by petition of at least 50% of
the property owners within the area affected. The petition may also
be signed by the authorized representative of any affected
municipal corporation which desires to be included within the
distr'iot. The petition must guaranty that petitioners will, pay all
costs associated with the petition in the event that the
proceedings For fomatzon of the district are dismissed for
whatever reason.
Such a petition must be presented to the County Board of
Commissioners if all of the area proposed for the district is
within one County. If the affected area is within more than one
County the petition, must be submitted to the District Court.
The County may also initiate formation of a district by its own
resolutions, or two counties may initiate the same by a joint
resolution.
After the petition or resolution is passed an engineer is appointed
to supply the entity with a report as to the feasibility of such a
system, this report is presented at a preliminary hearing and it
is decided by either the court or the County Board whether, or not
the petition is sufficient and whether or not the project is
feasubl,s.
i
Arte the feasibility study the next step is for the County Board
or curt to order a more detailed survey of the proposal_ After a
subsdquent engineer's report and second public hearing the
responsible agency may order the project per the statute_
PROCEEDINGS VSDER MINN. STAT. 444.075
Minn.+ Stat. 444 authorizes any City to "build, construct,
reconstruct, repair, enlarge, improve, or in any manner obtain"
I's -ewer systems, sewage treatment works, disposal systems, and other
facilities for disposing of sewage_"
I
NOU-21-1996 14:42 NAC 612 595 9837 P.30
Minn Stat. 444 does not call for the establishment of a district,
but,Irather sets forth the basic authority to construct such a
system, acquire land, issue bonds, and authorizes the establishment
of fees and cAaxges to pay for the system.
i
f
pROCBEDiTNG3 THROUGH SPECIAL LEGISLATION
A sanitary sewer district may also be created through special
legislation either directly granting the local units of government
the authorityy or by granting the County specific authority to
create a district. Examples of districts established by Special
Legislation dace the Area sanitary Districts, Moose Lake and
Windemere Area Sanitary District, Alexandria Lake Area Sanitary
District, and ithe Dover- Eyota-St. Charles Area Sanitary District.
other districts which have been created by legislative act are the
Metrapolxtan 'Waste Control. Comxaission, and the Western Lake
Superior Sanitary District. if it were determined that the best way
to facilitate sewer services in the area was by a District created
by legislative act there would have to be substantial lead time to
allow the special legislation to be drafted and adopted.
I
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
Two or, more
governmental units xpaX contract to exercise common
powers. Minn.'Stat. 471.59, Subd_ I. The agreement must state the
purpose: of the agreement, the power or powers to be exercised and
the Manner in'which the power is to be exercised.
The aigreement4may call for a joint board to oversee the function.
If such a joint board is created the composition of that board must
be representative of the parties to the agreement. The statute also
requires that the agreement comply with the procedural requirements
of any other act related to joint exercise of powers.
Under a joint: powers agreement the involved entities can create
whatever type; of structure is necessary to build and run the
system, and can create whatever form of board necessary to run the
joint powers entity, or have no such board if they so choose.
There are many cities throughout the state which are operating
under' joint powers agreements to deliver sanitary sewer service
including, Brainerd- Baxter, Saint Cloud, Buhl- Kinney, and others
contained on the attached information received from MPCA.
CONTRACT FOR bnLIVERV of WASTE WATER TREATMENT SERVICES
A plant constructed by one entity may by contract deliver
wastewater services to another governmental unit by contract. The
cont act would set forth the quantity and quality of flow, and
would typically set a base rate and higher rates if flow was higher
thancontracted for or if the quality of flow was below the
stanZd specified in the agreement.
l
NOV-21-1996 14:42 NAC 612 595 9837 P.31
I amjattempti�g to find an example of such a contract, which would
most Ilikely be patterried after typical, contracts with private
entities, such as trailer parks, for delivery of municipal sewer
service to the private facility,
I will note,' since it has been brought up previously in city
discussions regarding the Darkenwald sewer plant, that Minn. stat.
471A does establish a Legal framework for delivery of private
services to the city by agreement. As I have noted in previous
correspondence to the council, this statute was originally drafted
in conjunction with a program for grants. While this statute has
been'virtually unused since its passage, it still represents an
alternative option when exploring how services can be provided to
the coiTi munity:
svMrsA�Y
There are various methods for the City to construct ars infra-
structure for',the delivery of water and sewer services to portions
of or all of! the City. The City can proceed to construct and
deliver the liervices under its own authority pursuant to Minn.
Stat4 444, and thea can contract for delivery of those services to
another localiunit of government.
The affected 6ities and/or townships could attempt to establish a
sanitary district under Minn. Stats_ 1.15 or 116 as set forth above,
or through special legislation.
The effected Cities could also use the general. authority granted
under Minn- Stat. 444 along with the authority to enter into joint
power agreements in Minn. Stat. 471 to create a joint powers
authority to build and operate a sewer plant.
The provisions set forth in Minn. Stats. 115 and 116 have either
rarely or ever been used. I have attached to this memorandum
information received from the MPGA, which identifies the various
sanitary sewet districts throughout the state and how they were
formed.
T think that it is very importaxxt at this juncture to look further
into ;the issue of how a joint system would be established and run,
what ;the experiences are of other jointly xun systems, and the
different options available to the City_ If it were to be
determined that any of the statutory procedures or special
legislation were necessary to accomplish the needed organization,
substantial lead time would be necessary to set up the district.
critical as to what method would be most appropriate would be
exactly who is going to be involved in any joint system and how
they Irish to pix-ticipate. This needs to be determined as quickly as
possible.
NOU-21-1996 14:43 NAC
SANXTARX SEVER DISTRICT CONTACTS
(Information is Subject to Change)
i
Alexandria Lakes Area S. D.
Julian 1 Loken, Chalirman
2201 Nevada.St. '
Alexandria, MN 56n08
(612) 7,62-1135
t
Ut31itam
is
sioki
Elaine�Niehoff, C�airman
225 East 1st St. North
Melros6, HN 56352
(612) 256-4278
i
Green Lake Sanitary District
Steven:Linder, Chairman
12210 -228th Ave. NE
Eawick, MN 56296
(507) 04-5584
GtM Sanitary DistEict
(Green'Lake/Elrosa/.Meire Grove)
City Clerk of Meuse Grove
Route 1!, Box 230
Melrose', MN 56351
(612) 987-3538
r
Knife Fiver Sanitary District
Lars Bakken, Charman
P.O. Bc� 114
Knife River, MN 55609
(218) 34-2913
i
Moose Luke -- Vind�mere S. D.
Dan Benzie, Chair an
P.O. Ec 588
Moose LL e, MN 55 67
(218) 4858276
r
North Iloochi.chi,ng: Area S. D.
RicharADeBenedet; Executive
P.O. Boc 1223
InternNtional Palls, HN 56649
(218) Z83-9388
Oakland
Sanitary District.
Randy Charman
P_0. Bo 69 Okland
Albert ea, MN 56007
(507) 4 3-2407
Otter Til Lakes Area S_ D.
Koch Mann, Chairman
P.O. BT 319
Battle ake, MN 56515
( 21.8) 8,64-5533
612 595 9837 P.32
10/93
Pengilly-Sean Lake Area S.S.D
James Blaine, Chairman
HCl, Box 1796
Pengilly, MN 55775
(218) 885-2361
Pine River Area S. D.
Alan Johnson, Chairman
P.O. Box 354
Pine River, MN 56474
(218) 587-4954
Plainview - ,Elgin S. D.
Laverne Boyd, Chairman
P.O.. Box 416
Plainviev, MN 55964
(507) 534-3891
Serpent Lake S. D.
Frank Avelsgaard, Chairman
P. 0. Box 84
Crosby, MN 56441
(218) 546-5299
Tri -City Joint Powers Board
(yells, Easton, %IN Lake)
Bob Schultz, Chairman
1.25 5. Broadway
Vells, MN 56097
(507) 553-31.19
Vestern Lake Superior S. D.
Kurt Soderberg, Executive Director
2626 Courtland Street
Duluth MN 55806
(218) 722--3336
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Director (MUCC)
Louis R. Clark, Chairman
230 East 5th Street
Saint Paul, 55101
(612) 257-1937
Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment
Commission
Mark Volcott, Charman
P.O. Box 313
Center City, MN 55012
(612) 257-1937
Dover--Eyota-St.Charles Area S. D.
Mr. Robert Niskov, Executive Director
P_0. Box 96
Sc. Charles, MN 55972
(507.) 932-4171
NOV-21-1996 14:44 NAC
Joint Povers
City of Brai •rd (Baxter)
Mayor Bonnie Cumberland
City of Brainerd
501 Laurel Street
Brainerd, MND 56401
Cities of BJI and Kinnjey
Mayor Raymon Battaglia:
City of Buhl
P.O. Box 704;
Buhl, MN 55113 ,
Cities of Ello and New Market,,
Mayor Jean Benci
City of Elko``
26518 France,Avenue
Elko, MN 55820
City of Man to
George Rosati;, Utilities Superintendent
Box 3368 1
?Mankato, MN ;36001
City of Marb I (Calumet)
Mayor Rodger rovn
City of Marb
P.O. Box 38
Marble, MN 5 764
City of Moorh�ad
Robert Martin,, Fublic Storks Director
P.O. Box 779
Moorhead, MN !32778
1
MPCA June 1,994
612 595 9837 P.33
Oak Grove Township
Rick Kantorwicz, Chair
19900 Nightingale Street NW
Cedar, MN 55011
City of St. Cloud
Gerald Mahon, Utilities Dir.
400 Second Street South
St. Cloud, MN 56301
City of Tower (Breitung)
Mayor Gary Burgess
City Hall
Tower, MN 55790
Washington County
Bob Lockyear
14900 - 61st Street North
Stillwater, MN 55082
Cities of Vel.l.s, Easton and
Minnesota Lake Joint Powers
Robert Schultz, Chair
Vells Public Utilities
101 First Street Southeast
Wells, MN 56097
City of Villmar
Mayor Richard Hoglund
Box 755
Willmar, MN 56201
NOV-21-1996 14:44 NAC
opa-a :
. 70
Thrt� L
Thru
FROM : It
M24 POL:.•J'-"ON CONT'ROL AGEirCT
may 11, 3990
612 595 9837 P.34
V "(j
STATE OF MINNE2071A
Office Memoxwadum
,�'3•t3
Steve Swan � .. �,
5aeci2i? �ssistatsc Attorney Gazeral
.Tim Sc: erkenaach, Direct", O'vision 04 Water Qua!' ,
tueaard Sandberg, chief, Hunicipal Qastevater Treatment Section
Lafirelsee S. Zdon, Staff Engineer
Kunicipil vastevater Treatment Section
nate- 6ality Division
oNE : 296-9274
IT OP SeiNITaRY DISi�TCS A.ND SzVr—R STSTEMS
Ift"A 1=7
The attained hasidvuts are docume.*sts our section isms bee_z using to distribute to
co=,;u hies or consultinf engineers uoan request far information r on the
072 aloGut
formation of Jana tar�'��is:,r:Cts. 'mere are Zen
eza�lY in the tease ,
th7:eel requests per year for this typo az information from community g=Duns
c_[iz�n actioa ommitCees► lake assoC33tions and counties for evaluating t'se
par
for sanitar-.f district formation �n t
heir area-
formation
request that You Of --re= ooirL on that eithe-1 t:sese documents are Still current
and should be 4 stribuced to those persons requesting them., or If
cop�oace,
offer upda,Ge O -e this ini:ormnzion that lore may have a printed gu'
eva? sting the ;7ays rega.rdi-nS szzi.carf a -strict for%atioa-
ti4 ^dm±nencs include -a July 21, 1983, memvrandurtt from
Mar3ir*te E. Senecaai to pe --=7 Beaton desc_zbing the esta� °sb?s2.*:t
of sanitas^j ditrr=cts anal s,ver systems_ A November 27, i9i$, memorat:dum
of t o same Lc.Ind from Eldon KThe zhirdYdacu�entnisoaeShortars �-�undabe cQd�runs�gueaOf �h�
fir jt memorandum described district.+ The
aar:i tion regarding some Ot rhe, methods for tozming a sani tail ava_Iabla
xasz document ds, again, an undated, unsigned memoranct discussing
T soc�e�>: the ramifications.
�ethod� a0� fir -ter=On G- 2C3L''f d St-iCC 2nd
Iti memoxar:duw is still
:sy assu.motion vould be that the 1983 ;Iaxlene F -use Jto advise Iotal cammur-i tics.
curt -Lac inzor- iacion and a . doc•.uue_� t that we y
If any updates to this document As aecsssary, we =�u�d eP?=`=mate your
incorporating'thezt invo thefdocsmant and prociciing us with the undace.
LS : ubo r
I
NOU-21-1996 14:45 NAC
612 595 9837 P.35
Tovn;rhips and counties both have the powers needed to
Plan:'* finance, construct. and maintain surer ayi;ems
Within their boundaries. The broadest authority, and
perhaps the one most commonly used, is that of the lav
on Joixxt Exercise of Powers 04innesota Statutes
471.59 (1976)), which authorizes several tincts
of. government to cooperate in projects vbich each
inde;p•endently Inas the authority to carry out. Entities
organized under this lav provide sewer service to the
areas of St. Clvud, St. Peter.Kasota, Clearvater
CleaIr Lake. and others_ The specific authority of
towts (i.e.. townships) to construct sewer systems
is dontained in Hiunesota SCaluras 115.50 (1978):
These laws do not, however, give as broad an
authority as might be required to issue bonds or
adopt rate ordinances. Most important, perhaps
many township boards are reluctant to undertake
sewer projects, especially when such projects
benefit only a small portion of the total township.
c.:
1 i
Coutitie`3; on the ocher hand, have extensive powers
to create serer dist,ricts.• The county board or the
Cotsraissioner of Natural Resources can -create a Lake
Improvement District under Minnesota Statutas
3781.41-56 (1?78), and these districts have
the power to carry our all planning necessary for the
establishment of a sever district; the county board
also has such pover. With respect to financing,
coustruQtion, and operazion of a system, the county
can!exercise its powers directly under Minnesota
Statutes 444.075 (1978) , or it can create a
grater, sever, or water and sever distr:.ct under
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 116A. Where the boundaries
of the proposed system cross county 11nes, the district
court can create a Chapter 116A distract.
Systems operating under Section 444.075 and Chapter 116A
both have the authority to utilise a variety of finaaciag
sch6mes. including among others the receipt of grants,
special assessments, bonding, and user charges. Both
kinds of systems may be managed directly by the county
board; alternatively, in the case of Chapter 116A
districts, the county board or district courz may
create a co==tssion to manage the district.
Chs,pter 116A was enacted in 1971.. At least three
sewer districts have since been organized under its
authority. The Oakland (Freeborn Councy) Sanitary
District's plant is nearing completion. The Serpent
Lal;e $aaitary District of the Crasby--Deerwood area and
the Green Lake Area Sanitary District of the Spicer -
New London area are still in the planning stages; high
costs may possibly preclude development. It is probable
that the formation of sewer districts under this statute
vill accelerate nou that the grant program to upgrade
muuicipa7 .raszcvater treatment has addressed many of
the problems of larger cities and reaching none
co9►s�unitiss in U-MAll-town Minnesota.
NOV-21-1996 14:45 NAC
612 595 9837 P.36
LAWS AUTHORIZINC RURAL SEDER SYSTEMS
(M.3. refers to Minncsota Statutes, 1978)
I. Lays Crantin
Citation
M.S. 115.49*
H.S. 115.50*
H.S. 444.075*
H.5. 471.59!
II. Lals En.abltn$ the Creati
CitatiCn 4
to Existin
What It Authorizes
MPCA may -order local governments
to enter into coatraCCs
Townships may build sewers
Couuties may build sewers
Local governzents may joincl.y
exercise their powers
f New COV
tit ie
What
the
?;ecr
Entity is
Called, and
Who
Must
Act;to
Create
it
ChL 961, Laws of 1969* Serer District -•- County Board os
( Douglas or :Catldiyohi Councy
I
H.S. 115.18-37* Sanitary District -- MPCA
H.S.: 115.61-67* Regional Sanitary Sewer Dxstzi.et --
• Legislaznre '
2�. Ch. 116A Water and Sewer Dia tri,cts --
County Board or District Court
r
III. Lalws Creating Nev Governmental Entities
Clllta•tion Area Affected
I
C 478, Lows of 1971 Western. Lake Superior (Duluth -Cloquet)
* Idenz
i. 869, Laws of 1971 Alexandria Lake
�. 1.60, Laws of 1973 Dover-Eyota-St. Charles
. 400, Laws of 1974 Moose Lake-Windemere
,S. 473.501 at. sea_ Hecropolltan (Seven -Count;) (Auzhori.ty
in rural areas not studied).
fies authoritics which have rarely or never been used_
i
NOV-21-1996 14:46 NAC
612 595 9837 P.37
The Laglslature has also, through the state vatar
pollution control statute (Minnesota Statutes Chapter
115), given xPCA a broad range of powers to ensure
vastewster collection and treatment. As the following
list shows, these powers have scarcely been used.
** Since 1961, M?CA (and its pradeceusor) have
had tha power to create Sanitary Districts
upon petition from the local units of govern-
ment which are to be included in the District
Ohianesota Statutes 115.18-37 (1978)).
No such districts have been created.
** Since 1963, MPCA (arta its predecessor) have
had the power to orddr municipalities to
enter into iatergove�n=,mntal contracts for
the provision of Waste treatment and disposal
services (Minnesota Statutes 115.49
(1478)).. This provision of lav has been used
only once, is 1972, in the case of Goodviev
and Winona.
**= 5irice 1965, :4PCA (and its predecessor)
have bad the power to alter the boundaries
of arty Regional $anitar.y Sever Districts
which the T,eg�slature may create under
Minnesota Statutes 115.61--67 (1973). It
appears that no such districts have ever
been created.
In addition to the general .laws noted above, there
exist numerous special laws authorizing sewer
districts in specific areas of the state. The
Legislature can establish special districts to
take responsibility for waste disposal both in
rural areas and in adjoining urban areas. In
this zanAer, it has created the following entities,
all five of which currently operate wastewater
treatment Works;
**
The h4tropolitan waste Control Commission
(Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473.501 (1978));
** The Westeru Take Superior Sanitar7 Disrriat
(haws of Minnesota 1971, Chapter 478); and
¢* The three Area Sanitary Districts CASD):
Alexandria Lake ASD (Laws of Minnesota 19 71 ,
Chapter 869) ; Dover, Eyota, and Sc. Charles
ASD (Laws of Minnesota 1973, Chapcer 160);
and Moose Lake and ui.ndemere ASD CLaws of
Minnesota 1974, Chapter 400).
The Legislature can also empower counties to establish
and operate sanitary districts within their ov=
border's, as it has for the counties of Douglas and
Kandiyohi (Laos of 2iinnesota 1969, Chapter 961).
Kandiyohi County organized the Eagle Lake. Sever District
under Lhis Ia,.►_ The Alexandria Lake Area Sanitary
District ';Ln pouglas County vac not organized under it,
'however, rather, wa noted above, a separates law was
..��.. .. .7 o..r r}.i a •1 .rT .1K I..
TOTAL P.13
NOU-21-1996 14:47
�I
1
E
�o sns
4>1
hh[�ryryyyVV,,
)4
4 ••
�i
:��Sir�6��i: • "(
i
NAC
612
m$
Lu
ui
C
U
N Y�4
S7Nf7NYl1 wc'^•
'k
595 9837
P.38
W
> CA
�J
ra La
d
M
EXHIRIT R
TOTAL P.38
k
AGENDA SECTION:
5.CONSENT AGENDA
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DEPARTMENT:
City Clerk
MEETING DATE
Nov. 25, 1996 -
6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,CC
5.3. Receive Sewer and Water Information Report and set Workshop
for Monday, December 2, 1996 at 6:30PM
BACKGROUND:
Bonestroo Engineering firm did a sewer study for
Otsego/Dayton/Frankfort. We had a preliminary workshop meeting with
the Council, persons running for City office, City Staff, Boards and
Commissions, Bonestroo, City Professionals, and some residents. It
was determined after this preliminary workshop that more information
was needed before we could hold a public informational meeting. The
City Clerk was directed to be in charge of guiding this sewer and
water project. The City Staff and Professional Staff have met and
gathered information and have a report compiled with figures and maps.
(See attached faxed information from the City Engineer and NAC's
office). We went with a faxed report to insure that the Council had
time to review this with their packet information. If the Council
receives this report and sets Workshop date we will have a completed
report to you for the Workshop on December 2, 1996 at 6:30PM.
STAFF RECOM-1ENDATION :
Receive the Sewer and Water information report and set Workshop for
Monday, December 2, 1996 at 6:30PM.
Thank yo
hankyou,
(�
Elaine
X
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
November 21, 1996
Mayor & City Council
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue
Otsego, MN 55330
RE: Sewer & Water Report
Special Issues
Dear Mayor & Council Members:
3601 Thurston Avenue
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-3=#6fi- 0520
Several issues have arisen and appear to require a more detailed explanation and/or
discussion related to municipal sewer and water. We will, in the following letter, try
to discuss these issues to the best of our ability and knowledge. Many of the financial
issues will require explanation by a financial consultant. Among the questions we will
discuss and attempt to answer are listed below:
Why is discharge of the effluent to the Crow River desirable?
Why was the proposed treatment plant location selected?
What facilities comprise a sanitary sewer collection and treatment
system?
What facilities comprise a potable water system?
Why does having Dayton or other adjacent communities participate in the
project benefit the initiation of the sewer service? What are the draw
backs?
Will existing development be included in the sanitary sewer collection and
treatment plan?
- What is the comparable difference between Municipal sewer and water
versus private septic/drainfield and well?
Enginees Landscape Architects Surveyors
Mayor & City Council
Page 2
November 21, 1996
Why is discharge of the effluent to the Crow River desirable?
The wastewater that enters to the plant must be treated and then discharged.
The treated wastewater can be discharged to any water body and land in
compliance with the rules set by the Mn/PCA. The rules are complex and are
too detailed to adequately discuss herein.
The important considerations in design of a treatment plant are the requirements
for pollutants reduction and the ability of a receiving water to accept the treated
effluent. The cleaner the effluent is required to be, the more costly the
treatment process will be.
The Crow River, as determined by the Mn/PCA, can accept normally treated
wastewater effluent. No special treatment is required for the wastewater until
the plant capacity is over 0.4 MGD per day. According to the Bonestroo
Report, that would take the proposed treatment capacity to year 2006.
The Mississippi River has been designated by the state as an Outstanding
Resource Value Water (ORVW). Effluent discharged to this River must be
treated to high degree of purity. The degree of pollutant reduction is under
strict control and the treatment process cost increase as the flow to the plant
increases. According to the Mn/PCA, the first alternative with respect the
Mississippi River is not to discharge to it at all.
Another way to dispose of treated wastewater is to land apply the effluent.
This usually means spray irrigation on field to produce hay crops.
For land application, the soils must be able to absorb at least 8-12 inches of
effluent per year on the average. A large amount of land is necessary for
irrigation as it is necessary to take the crops off periodically during the growing
season. Clay soils in the South and West portions of Otsego have very low
annual absorption rate. The irrigation water must be stored in a pond that is
designed to hold 200 days of influent wastewater. Irrigation is a very
acceptable alternative for final wastewater disposal, however, land costs and
other costs related to transport may determine this is not the most feasible
method of treatment.
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
Mayor & City Council
Page 3
November 21, 1996
Most Engineers reviewing this project, and others who reviewed the work, agree
-that the Crow River is currently the best alternative for wastewater effluent
discharge.
Why was the proposed treatment plant location selected?
The location of the proposed treatment plant was selected to provide reasonable
close access to the Crow River. The Crow River is the receiving stream
selected for the discharge point in the Bonestroo Study.
The discharge can be gravity flow from the plant to the river.
The site is relatively undeveloped with few residences in the area. Ultimately
the plant site may have development surrounding it, however, planning can
allow the treatment plant to be compatible with the surrounding environment.
Any other site location in Otsego would lengthen the distance to the Crow River
for the discharge piping. Siting a treatment plant near residential property
would constitute an incompatible use. Before the treatment plant can be
designed a Facilities Environment and Plan Assessment must be prepared and
presented to the public. The public will be allowed to voice their opinions and
provide input in a controlled and productive environment.
What facilities comprise sanitary sewer collection and treatment system?
Treatment plants can be complex, depending on the level of treatment required.
The proposed system in the Bonestroo Report is a system that has been proven
to be effective over many years in our climate. The proposed system is also
expandable to meet future needs. The collection system that delivers the
wastewater to the treatment plant consists of gravity sewer pipe, lift stations,
and forcemains. Gravity sewer size and capacity are dictated by flow volume
and the slope of the pipe.
The depth of the pipe in part is dictated by a cost-effective analysis. Deep
gravity sewer mains are costly, however, the alternative is to use a lift station
to elevate the sewage to a higher elevation. Trunk sewers are pipes that carry
major flows. This is similar to TH 101 in the City's transportation plan..
Subtrunks are pipes that carry flows from secondary area and are similar to
County Highway or Collector streets. Laterals are the local pipe 8 inch in size.
Hakanson
1111 Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
Mayor & City Council
Page 4
November 21, 1996
Trunk and subtrunk pipe can vary in size, beginning at ten inch and increasing
-to very large sizes serving large flows in the major cities.
Lift Stations also vary in size from smaller stations which service a few homes
to larger stations which can service an entire community. Lift stations are
usually deep. In this area, the water table generally needs to be lowered while
installing deep sewer pipe and lift stations. Lift stations require regular
maintenance whereas gravity sewers require minimal efforts including
occasional flushing. Electric service charges are the main cost for operating a
lift station. Among other costs to be considered are labor and parts
replacement resulting from normal wear and tear on the pumps and motors.
The proposed collection system and treatment plant location will require that a
main lift station be located somewhere near the intersection of CSAH 42 &
TH 101 and Quaday Avenue area. The station would receive wastewater by
trunk sewer and would pump the wastewater to the treatment plant by
forcemain pipe. Forcemain pipe are closed conduit under pressure and do not
use gravity to assist in the transport, but instead use the pressure and energy
created by the lift pumps for conveying the wastewater.
Sewer pipes generally have a life of 50 to 100 years, depending on type of
material. Lift pumps and motors usually have a 20 year life if properly
maintained.
What facilities constitute a potable water system?
The source of potable water in this area is usually from water wells. Glacial
deposits and sedimentary formations hold potable water. The water can be
pumped to the distribution system, to elevated storage or to ground storage or
to a combination of the above.
Watermains are a closed pipe system and are looped (interconnected) to insure
a constant pressure in the entire system. The pressure is provided by elevated
towers and/or pumping.
Lateral piping is usually 6 and 8 inch pipe. Anything larger is a trunk or
subtrunk. Hydrants are placed at specified distances apart to insure fire fighting
needs are met. Water systems for municipalities are designed to meet the
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
Mayor & City Council
Page 5
November 21, 1996
minimum requirements of fire flow. Fire flow requirements generally exceed the
-domestic usage demand.
Why does having the City of Dayton or other adjacent communities
participate in the project benefit the development of a wastewater
treatment facilities? What are the drawbacks?
Multiple community applications for grants and loans are generally recognized
as an effort to consolidate community services and thus create financial benefit.
Dayton has an immediate need for sewer service, which means any financial
assistance available would place them ahead of those who do not have an
immediate need. It also provides for another community to share costs.
Participating with other communities means that others have a say in the affairs
of the treatment service. This can be a problem if the communities have
conflicting goals.
Geographically, Otsego and Dayton appear well suited for a joint treatment and
collection system. It appears to be a good match based on an engineering and
planning prospect.
Will existing development be included in the sanitary sewer collection and
treatment plan?
The proposed year 2006 capacity is planned to serve Phase 1 and/or 1 A. The
capacity is allotted primarily for undeveloped land, _however, some existing
commercial property and the Otsego Elementary School have been planned to
provide service. The River's Bend Mobile Home Park is not included because it
is served by a permitted private treatment facility.
The trunk sewer pipe will have the capacity to serve the future needs of the
Long Range Service Area. The main lift station would also be sized to
accommodate the larger capacity.
What is the comparable difference between Municipal sewer and water
versus private septic/drainfield and well?
Typical septic tank/drainfield system, if cared for properly and utilized as
designed, can be functional for up to 20 years. With alternative drainfield sites
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
Mayor & City Council
Page 6
November 21, 1996
the homeowner can extend the service life of the system. Systems installed
-today, under current rules, can achieve that same life expectancy. Systems
installed 15-20 years ago did not have standards that controlled who performed
the installation and whether inspection was required. As a result, many older
septic systems may have been improperly installed and may be in violation of
the current Minnesota Rules.
Systems designed for two bedroom homes frequently serviced growing families
and bedroom additions without increasing the size of the drainfield. The tanks
in many residences are not pumped frequently enough. As a result, the soils
begin to clog up, prohibiting soil absorption of the effluent. Septic
tank/drainfields, next to privies and cesspools, are the lowest form of sewage
treatment. In areas of higher density, failure generally begins after twenty years
and the number of failures increases with time. Each home can be pumping up
to 250 gallons of water a day or more. Sending the wastewater to a failed
drainfield will continue to pollute the groundwater until repaired. Eventually, the
ground water begins to show signs of contamination. Many wells are shallow
and would be utilizing polluted groundwater as a source for potable water.
Ultimately, soil absorption disposal systems become difficult to maintain and
install. The next step, mound systems are expensive and generally don't have
a life of greater than ten years. In Otsego, mound systems are frequently
installed due to the limitations of the soil absorption capacity in both new and
replacement systems. We have illustrated on a map called Soil Suitability for
Septic Tank Drainfields the soil in the eastern half of the City. The map shows
where "acceptable", "case by case", and "poor soil for drainfields" are located.
Since the drainfields and wells are private, the maintenance and up -keep are
primarily the homeowner's responsibility. This situation results in a varying
degree of care of the systems. There is a movement toward the requirement
of more inspection by local officials for the septic tank/drainfields systems.
Municipal sewer and water services are operated by the Cities, Sewer & Water
Districts and Counties. The service is on going and perpetual.
Cost Comparison Estimated Cost
Standard Septic Drainfield $3,500
(in acceptable soils)
Hakanson
1111 Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
Mayor & City Council
Page 7
November 21, 1996
Mound System $8,500
-(in poor or marginal soils)
Waterwell (depth 80'-100') $3,000
Total Standard Systems Water & Sewer $6,500
Total Non -Standard Water & Sewer $11,500
Municipal System
Sanitary Sewer $6,800
Water Service $4,970
Total for Municipal Services $11,770
Municipal systems require a monthly fee for Operation and Maintenance. The
amount could be $20/month for both water and sewer.
Private Maintenance of both septic and well system could average $100/year.
The Municipal systems, once established, are good for _50-100 years. That
includes only the piping in the collection system.
Mechanical equipment at the treatment plant and lift stations generally have an
average life of 20 years.
The difficulty in this comparison is attempting to establish a valid method while
not using the cost of inflation. Comparing mound system cost to Municipal
Utilities cost shows that municipal systems are more cost effective even over
20 years.
The standard system is more difficult to compare to municipal until the analysis
is carried out over 50 years. By that time, most one acre or less sites have had
several revisions to the drainfields and may be at the point that a mound system
is necessary. The cost used for illustration are average cost in ideal conditions
and may or may not relate to Otsego's situation.
While installing water and sanitary sewer, street and storm sewer are generally
also installed. Therefore, the total cost to the homeowner is higher, where
street and storm sewer are required to be upgraded.
In addition, to the above discussions and explanations, we have attached to this report
a copy of a memo from Kevin Kielb to myself on the proposed Phase I Water System
for the City of Otsego.
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
Mayor & City Council
Page 8
November 21, 1996
Be advised that this report is preliminary and should be used for informational purposes
only. A comprehensive study must be completed to more accurately present the water
services proposal.
Please contact me if there are any questions on this report.
Sincerely,
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Jig
Enclosures; Memorandum
cc: Bob Kirmis, NAC
Elaine Beatty, Clerk
Andy MacArthur, Attorney
otreport.lk
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Larry Koshak
FROM: Kevin Kielb
DATE: November 21, 1996
RE: PHASE 1 WATER SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF OTSEGO
FILE: OT607
3601 Thurston Avenue
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-3-46 - 0520
I have reviewed the Phase 1 water system for Otsego. I have analyzed required
supply, storage distribution and system funding for the area. My findings are as
follows:
Source
The existing City well would have a safe capacity of 500 gpm if the flow restrictor
was removed and the well was connected to a storage tank. The sand should remain
less than 5 gpm, however, temporary increases could occur. The sand would not be
much of a factor as the water would be pumped into a storage tank, rather than
directly into a domestic system. This will allow the minor amount of sand to settle
prior to distribution.
The Ten States Standards recommends that at least two wells with a total capacity
equal to the maximum day demand be installed. The smallest well must equal the
average day demand.
At 920 REC's and an average consumption of 250 gallons per REC, the average daily
flow would be 230,000 gallon per day (160 gpm). Using a peaking factor of 3.5, the
maximum day demand would be 805,000 gallons per day (559 gpm).
Based on this information, another well should be constructed for the Phase 1 water
system. For use in this analysis, I have assumed the well will have a 500 gpm
capacity.
1
Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors
Storage should be provided to meet domestic demands as well as fire flows. Storage
for domestic demands should equal the average daily consumption, or 230,000
gallons. Based on domestic flows, a 250,000 gallon storage volume would be
recommended.
Fire flow requirements are based on complex formulas developed by the Insurance
Services Office (ISO). The commercial/industrial fire flow requirements vary depending
upon building size and configuration, construction material and type, and length of
passageways within a building. Residential fire flow requirements are determined
based upon distances between structures, and vary between 500-1500 gpm.
Required fire flow duration is also determined on a case by case basis, and is also an
unknown at this time. Future construction will determine the actual fire flow
requirements. Fire flows should be analyzed during the peak day demand flow. The
following table was prepared assuming (2) 500 gpm wells, a peak day flow of 559
gpm, and 250,000 gallons of storage:
Fire Flow Allowable
Rate (gpm) Duration (hours)
1000 7.5
1500 3.9
2000 2.7
2500 2.0
3000 1.6
A table similar to this could be provided to developers. If the developer's ISO
requirements demand higher flow rates or longer durations, the developer may have
to provide the additional source. Based on this analysis, I would recommend a storage
volume of 250,000 gallons be provided by the City.
The distribution network is depicted on the Phase 1 drawing. The distribution system
will consist of approximately 28,795 lineal feet of water main.
2
Hakanson
Anderson
1-111 Assoc., Inc.
Costs for the Phase 1 water system were estimated as follows:
Storage (250,00 gallons @ $1.50/gallon) = $375,000
Pumphouses (2 required @ $75,000 each) = 150,000
Well (500 gpm) 1 80,000
Water Main 28,795 LF @ $35.00/LF = 1,007,800
Overhead and Contingency @ 25% = 403,200
Total Estimated Phase 1 Cost = $2.016,000
12703r. -Y"
�•
Project financing will occur by utilizing connection charges for trunk facilities and
assessing lateral benefit for a portion of the watermains. Connection charges will pay
for the new well, pumphouses, water tower and over -sizing of watermains. The trunk
facility portion of the work has been estimated at $990,300. Based upon 75%
growth, an average of 69 connections per year was developed. At 69 connections per
year for 10 years, and an interest rate of 6%, a connection charge of $1950 would
be required to finance the trunk facility portion of the Phase 1 work. The lateral
portion of the Phase 1 improvement would be recouped through lateral benefit
assessments at average cost of $2020 per user.
Attachment
The attached exhibit depicts a concept for a long range water system for the City of
Otsego.
ot607.phl
3
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
?h IQ: 37 1 'r CE!='DAI
Mak.anson
Anderson
1A'SSOC., Inc.
Jovember 19, 1996
i✓ao Kirmis and Alan Brixiu3
NAC
5775 Wayzata Boulevard
Suite 555
St. Louis Park, NIN 55416
RE: Sanitary, Sevver, and Water Report
Gentlemen:
3601 Tnur�ton Av?nca
Anc,ka, Minnesota 55303
tl 1 2�•i � / • It�C)�
In response to your October 26, 1996 request for data and information, picase find he
follovling:
e..1-v^v ti,a w; 'r .,;n,..•s:+•.>.t. Ira -^n' r,,,. :.rr
� �a�ii#s,I�!fu�i re�z,���...�1�-�. �•E"'�eagra s��;
W9 can provide Phase 1 and 1 A which is comparable to the Bonestroo
report including capacity to year 2006. We have not done any projection
for later phases. A map will be provided for Phase 1 and 1 A.
..� .. ..,,.•..�. „ •• .,-. rw.rr � v ._..wry me ,u ,a s rY � tr'
I1tatxiid1r1�7�iSctQle't1a gcrarttI?,rYwear.> itc '�CCphas+3s _.
We can provide Phase 1 and 1A which again is aquivalpr:t to year 2000
capacity. Future phases have not been discussed, even among staff.
i IN
;+.:+.—ii , •ate a:"..c "-.c:: :;;::
Wo have included costs for residential streets, also wlth sanitary sevier,
water, and -,torm drainage.
Find attached sheet outlining average cost for these utilities and streets.
m2t94iMsts a S cl Rile- (d. �ith,�tF a nt facElil ppsraTtarti
The astimatad cost of 0 u N1 for water ar.d sev.ier is shot,vn on the
attached sheet:.. The 0 2u PSI for waste:^later plant treatmen* Is taksn
from the 6onestroo RGport. Not included in the 0 & til on tlne trunk lines
ar.d lift :,ration. Except for pov.,er cost these cost of general mcdest.
in�ars Land -cane Architects
rl�. �0 36 10: -rV 4!Et- ri
8cb Kirmis and Alan 6rixiu5
Page 2
November 20, 1996
�t rX1�iE�4 �tl S Rn�afCll'
,:t._,.y.w.�
We do not feel qualified to make that judgement withOul help frum a
financial consultant.
Our assumption i3 that it would taka 40 acres of residential housir,cj per
year to meet the obligation, hoMY3r, there are other fzctors to be
considered that could influence the annual dabt retirement amount.
This matter shcu;d be reviowcd by a professional when the estimated
project costs are available.
We have indicated the options si-hown on a sheet entitled Finding Optlons.
I hope the above is adequate for your report. Flease contact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
eanc% L. cShaK, Pc
J
jlg
Enciosur=_s
cc: Elaine Beatty,
Andy NtacArt'liur, Attorney
Jerry Olson, 2t:ilding Inspector
Halanson
Anderson
ii550 c., l n c.
Land Costa For
Developments of Residential Zoned Property.
with Water & Sewer Availability
Land Cost (assume $10,000/acres undeveloped land)
40 acres will provide approximately 75 reeidential housing units of developed
property
Assume five year payoff; $440,000 @ 8% interest for 5 yoars - 9 100, 1 84/yoar
Unit Cost: 0100,184 -;-76 unit - 4 13361unit
Surveying & Engineering (thru Final Plat)
Marketing Cost per unit 5% x 025,000 (estimated lot valve)
Estimated Legal Expense
Estimated Total Cost for Land Purchase
Platting, Legal & Marketing per Unit
1
Unit Cost
$1,338/unit
4750/unit
$1,250/unit
0 1351unit
03,571 /unit
P.4
Estimated Cost of Public Utilities per Residentl6l Housing Unit
Capitol Coate Only for Your 1966
Sanitary Sowcr: Estimated Avg. Cost
• Treatment' 62,100.00
• Trunk' 2,700.00
Subtrunk & Laterals 2.000.00
Subtotal Sanitary Sewer: 56,800.00/Unit
Water Service:
Trunk, Source & Storage 81,950.00
• Sub -Trunk & Lateral 2,020.00
Subtotal Water Service: 83,970.00
Storm Sewer:
Trunk Facilities" $1,000.00
• Lateral Piping & Ponding 1.575.00
Subtotal Storm Sewer_ $2,575.00
Streets:
• Residential &1.850.00
Subtotal Street $1,850.00
Total Estimate Cost of Utilities & Streets Per unit: $15,145.00
' Cost taken from Bonestroo Report
Impact Fees
2
P.5
10
P.6
Lien of Cities with
Service Availability Chargse
In near by Geographical Area
3
S
VQ
Albertville
$.2,200.00
$ NA
Elk River
1,300.00
1,000.00
Champlin
11250.00
625.00
Monticello
1,500.00
500.00
St. Michael
3300.00
1.300.00
Cambridge
1,020.00
400.00
Zimmerman
1,750.00
1150M
Average of Charges
Sewer Availability Charges (SAC)
$1,760.00
Water Availability Charges (WAG)
$929.00
3
City of Otsego
Estimated Cost of Operation & Mairrtenance
Based on Phase 1 & 1 A
Utilities:
Wastewater Treatment
"Sludge Disposal
*Activated Sludge
Sub -total Wastewater:
* "Water Service
Water & Sanitary Sower 0 & M Cost
per year for Phase 1
"Per Soneetroo Study
"Estimate for Phase 1 Area System
GI
• ••6 •
• ••1S ••
kjE,VA4.'fj � •
$200,000.00
P.7
NOV 20 '96 10:40 HAKANSON ANDERSON
FUNDING SOURCE FOR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT & SANITARY SEWER TRUNK
COLLECTION SYSTEMS AND WATER SOURCE
STORAGE AND TRUNK DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
- Service Availability Charge (SAC & WAC)
One time hookup charge to pay off annual debt retirement on water and
sewer trunk and treatment facilities bond.
- Assessment
Apply assessments according to Minnesota Statute 429 to benefiting
properties used to pay all or a portion of the annual debt retirement on water
and sewer trunk and treatment facilities bonds.
Taxing District
State of Minnesota Statutes allow for creation of special taxing districts_
Each year a levy would be set by the district to meet the projected bond
retirement needs.
- Quarterly Fee
Service fee to users billed each month or quarter of the year for O & M cost.
Also can be used in part to retire debts service on thR sewer and water trunk
and treatment facilities.
- Grants andlor Low Interest Loans
There is a limited number of grants available for sewer and water. Low
interest loans are available for those that qualify.
oT507dAt
5
P.8
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL AC' -110N
AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE
6.BOB KIRMIS, ASST. CITY PLANNER Nov. 25, 1996 -
6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,CC
6.1. Consider Lin -Bar Development, Inc, 5475 Parnell Ave NE, Rogers
Mn. PID #118-500-284300: (Cont. from 10/14/96 and 10/28/96 a
11/12/96 Agenda) (See attached letter from Engineer/Planner
A. Planned Unit Development (Concept Plan)
BACKGROUND:
On October 14, 1996 this item was brought before the Council. After
much discussion, the Council unanimously approved the PUD with the
conditions that a cluster sewer system be implemented and the final
plans are approved. Attached is a letter from Thore Meyer, Meyer
Rohline and the Planner and Engineer for your information.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The information is attached, this is a Council Decision now as to the
sewer system, but Staff feels it is premature and precedent setting
for the reasons listed in the letters attached.
T" ^ k you,
E IL
L7 -1
� 4 3 �.+.!/.:,,lU.s;,<k.se�,lcL...� i N t•17'S�'w '
—2 .02-N.B. Od4- nv!nueFri
8 \C r
} _
"s i � r � .•I ; � +` ry7sf.�v____'Sf_- '-'• r t � II(�.' ' �`I� .� ,j .ts�i''.�.iu.%,f/r'w,lr.':stx.'%T../.t
T i } - 621.69 ___ •4.ly..., - ^ l," .r ,
r I. • f: "� ,�, 1 / !18.01
or
441-
Y gip# •''- ' I .
r: �, fi �'' . \ _-'-" a , R /�*, ••moi%�'
dp
1gr� F - j•'' *•�--'��, =rte \�. i • :•�% // ''"�,,. � ,'.t't� .•: ' ;�/� X � ��
i. -284,- ' (f r 1{ ; ~..� ',, ./ / /,'.• x. �"^� r�k�
— —� {� `� �'.�„ �. �. .. 1 . m `;'. X • , � _/.a` �i car: �'C •
I Lqj 37 L3
pg
t` I 1 I r� ; S• � 1 \ - k� \ r c
L -SF - Com,. ;f' �♦ ,�J .- ,, . . ,', `. ,i'\ \ S' ! ,1', ` \ 1 '. ' ' ': ,. \, a
= �.�g ,i w' �,ai .F+r?f.-'kt �"i'a' 'q; �•••t..'�• \ y. a..'r.,+h i�'�i.v'M'�#+•;,o ,•ti�hir le s.;ir +,+� � f� fg.8
YL Y ti ^'7--7 20.9JJ ; '•'4r»Mw� I ' '� ; + '
fc 8} Z k' �• :1 \ 5 1.0/'2/'k t ;;� r , y, ,(i'•
F c ? ` i. _: � .,�� .— 1 �'� �.� `\\ �. \1 .� C�i+►�MN1�if4t�+6•t,• / Y !
f r4�fj$C���
C t R. C I
�Il if�1•i3 , 11 iG n
its
xzrD�-Fcp 1t R <:q� i� ? i x --- � man.,
CL V T
itp 'I t . I, �! :
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
Aovember 20, 1996
Mayor & City Council
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue
Otsego, MN 55330
RE: Lin Bar PUD
Dear Mayor & Council Members:
3601 Thurston Avenue
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-37-tOt- 0520
NOY 2
At the October 28, 1996 Council Meeting, the Developer's Engineer, Thor Meyer, and myself were
asked to come back to you at a later meeting with a recommendation.
We did meet on November 7, 1996, at the City Hall. Elaine Beatty, Thor Meyer, Bob Rohlin, and
myself were in attendance.
Mr. Meyer presented a concept of a cluster system. In the proposed plat I believe he had shown
ree such cluster drainfields. Sanitary sewer lines were conceptionally placed in the streets with
plan to ultimately direct the sewage to the northeast of the plat by gravity. It is conceivable that
in the future, sanitary sewer could be available to this area from the east and that a trunk sewer
would serve this plat at the northeast corner.
The concept as presented assumed 1 .0 acre residential lots. Thus, each drainfield would serve
approximately 10-20 lots. This proposed concept is not the type cluster system we had in mind.
We would propose small urban lots served by several cluster drainfields with open space between
clusters. The same density as proposed would be considered but with smaller lots and more open
space between the clusters.
The developer desires to develop 1.0 acre lots only. According to Meyer Rohlin, that is the
developer's goal.
Our concept of cluster differs from their proposed system. It was stated by Meyer Rohlin that the
cluster proposal is not cost effective for the developer. We tend to agree that the proposal is not
cost effective. We also agree that 1.0 acre lots can be served by septic tank drainfields in this
area with a minimum number being mound systems.
We do not recommend that the Council approve a 1 .0 lot subdivision in this area. The proposed
plat is outside of the immediate service area as currently established. The proposal, if approved,
so could open to other requests of similar nature for plating outside the immediate sewer area.
Continued development of 1.0 acre lots without a sanitary sewer plan will cause serious problems
in the future when existing septic drainfield systems begin to fail in significant numbers.
EnhiIIN-I'S Landscape Architects Surveyors
1ayor & City Council
gage 2
November 20, 1996
We recommend before consideration of this proposal that the Council complete the Comprehensive
Plans including sanitary sewer collection and treatment plan. Then, after the planning and
engineering issues are considered and adopted, if this area is within the plan for development as
1.0 acre lots, it could be concluded that adequate consideration was given to the proposal and the
concept of 1 .0 acre lots with septic tank/drainfields in this area is approved.
This proposal, in our opinion, however, is premature at this time.
Watershed issues for this area have not been dealt with to a level to allow further development.
This proposal is on the top end of two watershed and which both watersheds are not developed
to meet further development. We recommend that any development allowed in the area prior to
an approval plan be required to have ponding to hold two single event 100 year storms with
release of only the existing runoff.
We would also recommend if the proposal is approved septic tank/drainfields shall be standard
,stems. No mound system would be allowed to support a residential unit.
Our recommendation first is not to consider approval of the plat until the revised Comprehensive
Plan is approved.
If our recommendation is not considered, then we would recommend special conditions be applied
to the Stormwater Drainage and Septic Tank/Drainfield design of this proposal.
We will be available to discuss this matter with you at the Council Meeting.
Sincerely, -
HAKANWN ANDERSON. ASSOCIATES, INC.
rance/G. J(oshak, PE
jlg
cc: .'Elaine Beatty, Clerk
Bob Kirmis, NAC
Andy MacArthur, Attorney
Hilary Barry
Wilfred Lindenfelser
OT2176.may
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
N00--20-1996 14:36
INC
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
NAC
612 595 9837 P.02/03
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY PLANNING - DIE810N - MARKET RKIBMARCH
Otsego Mayor and City Council
Bob Kirmis /David Licht
20 November 1996
Otsego - Lin Bar PUD
176.02 - 96.21
This memorandum is intended to reiterate our position on the pending "Lin -Bar"
development proposal and express our concurrence with the City Engineer's 20 November
1996 letter to the Mayor and City Council regarding the same.
As you are aware, a request was brought before the Council to establish 34 single family
lots upon a ± 45 acre parcel of land located north of County Road 37 and east of Odean
Avenue. Recognizing that the property lies removed from the immediate urban service
area, a PUD, Planned Unit Development zoning designation was requested to
accommodate and/or justify the use. In previous consideration, the City approved the
rezoning contingent upon final plat approval of the subdivision and that a "community"
sewage treatment system be utilized.
As indicated in our office's 23 September 1996 planning report, it is our position that
development of the ± 45 acre parcel of land in question is, at this time, premature. Such
position is based primarily on the development's inconsistency with the Comprehensive
Plan and exclusion from the City's immediate urban service area. We share the opinion
of the City Engineer that approval of the proposed development will set an undesirable
precedent In fact, City staff has already received development inquiries for areas outside
the immediate urban service area with references being made to the Lin -gar project.
It has been our office's longstanding position that unsewered development within the City
be staged and located in areas where, at some future point, sanitary sewer service may
be provided.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6
PHONE 6 1 2-595-9630 FAX 6 1 2-595-9e37
NOV-20-1996 1436 NAC 612 595 9837 P.03/03
To date, there are no quantifiable studies that indicate such service could potentially be
made available to the site In question. While prellminary in nature, the City's pending
sewer plans do not include the Lin -Bar site In an area planned for such service.
In this regard, we question the appropriateness of advising the developers of possibly
"unrealistic' development opportunities which may be available when the Comprehensive
Plan work effort is completed.
In summary, we strongly share the opinions expressed by the City Engineer In his 20
November 1996 memorandum to the Council (and the position of the Planning
Commission) that development of the "Lin -Bar« site is, at this time, premature.
A representative of our office will be available at the forthcoming 25 November City
Council meeting to discuss this matter further.
PC: Elaine Beatty
Larry Koshak
Andy MacArthur
Hillary Bary
Willy Lindenfelser
2
TOTAL P.03
WEYER-ROHLIN, INC.
ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn. 55313 Fax 612-682-9492
Phone 612-682-1781 1-800-563-1781
Mr. Hillary Barry
Mr. Wilfred Lindenfelser
5475 Parnell Avenue NE
Rogers, MN 55374
RE: Lin Bar Estates
Otsego, MN
Gentlemen:
November 19, 1996
As per your request, we have researched the sewage disposal system
for the above -referenced plat in regard to individual on-site
systems and collection system with common drainfield. The following
is an estimate of costs for the two systems.
1) Individual On -Site Sewage Systems
A) Drainfield system - current costs for a 3
bedroom home range from $3,000 -
$3,500/installation. As this development is
proposing $200,000 plus home, we would add a second
septic tank making allowances for garbage
disposals, increasing the cost approximately $800
to a range of $3800 - $4300. Use an average of
$4,000.00.
B) Mound System - current costs for a 3 bedroom
home mound system range from $10,000 - $11,000
plus. Adding the extra tank at $800.00 increases
the cost to $10,800 - $11,800. Use an average of
$11,300.00
The existing 5 -lot development of Lin -Bar Addition all
tested satisfactory for an on-site drainfield system;
therefore, we would anticipate the bulk of the 34 lots
could be served by a drainfield system. In the event of
some site grading due to topographic correction for
better home siting, we are allowing approximately 1/3 of
the lots to be mound -type systems. Our estimate of costs
for on-site sewage disposal systems for the 34 -lot
development would be:
Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Licensed Land Surveyor
22 drainfield sites @ $4,000.00 = $ 88,000
12 mound sites @ $11,300.00 = $135,600
$223,600
Percolation testing and design:
34 sites @ $800.00 = 27,200
Total anticipated costs of
on-site system =
Average cost per home site = 250,800 _ 34 = $7,376
2) Collection System With Common Disposal Areas
A) Collection system - design based on serving 34'
lots with an eventual discharge to the northeast
into a future sanitary sewer trunk system.
Connection location is only speculative at this
time; however, the area topography would indicate a
possible trunk location in the lower areas to the
NE.
8" PVC,
16' ay. depth: 3950 if @ $26 =
$102,700
Manholes
(8'
depth)_: 14 ea @ $1500 =
$
21,000
Extra
depth
14 c8': 112 if @ $100 =
$
11,200
Service
wyes
92 per lot): 68 ea @ $60 =
$
4,080
4" service
to
septic (34 @ 801) and
to
ROW (34 @ 65'):5000 if @ $10
= $
50,000
Density
tests
(39): 146 ea @ $40 =
$
5,840
Crushed
rock:
100 cy @ $20 =
$
2,000
$196,820
5o contingency
9,840
150-. engineering
29,540
B) Common treatment - Septic tanks (2 per house)
would be located at the front of each home with an
effluent line from the tanks to the sewer
collection system in the street. Four common
treatment areas would be temporarily located on
platted lots, serving from 6 to 10 homes per site,
depending upon the phased construction. At such
time that a sanitary sewer trunk becomes available,
the treatment sites would be eliminated, cleaned up
and revert back to building locations. Because of
the concentration of flow and the needed grading
upon each site, mound system construction would be
required. As the mound system is designed for the
amount of flow, each common location would be
equivalent to the number of homes served at that
location.
$250,800
$236,200
30 homes @ $11,300 (individual site cost) _ $339,000
Allowance for deep collection manhole and pipe
from the collection system (6' diameter x 20"
deep): 4 Q $3000 = $ 12,000
Allowance for pumps, dosing system,
alarm system, electrical supply, and
inspection equipment: 4 Q $7500 = $ 30,000
$617,200
15% contingencies & engineering 92,580
Loss of 4 lots Q $35,000
Future sale of four lots would only offset the cost of
removing all manholes, piping, and cleanup of the site.
The $849,780 cost for the collection system with a common
disposal area serving the 30 lots reduces to
approximately $28,300/lot. Based upon a $35,000/lot
selling price leaves only $6700/lot for street
construction costs, storm drainage costs and land value.
Some additional questions arise concerning the collection
system as follows:
1. Who owns the system?
2. Who manages the system?
3. What fees are paid?
4. Where would eventual hook-up be made if not as shown?
5. What if central sewer does not become available?
6. Water system would require digging up of streets,
eliminating any savings in street construction now.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the above numbers and questions that need to be answered
concerning the collection/common treatment system, we would suggest
that the collector/common treatment system is not financially
feasible. Our recommendation for the 34 -lot Lin -Bar plat would be
the individual on-site disposal system.
Sincerely,
MEYER- OHLIN, INC.
Thore Meyer
Professional En in er
$709,780
140,000
$849,780
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE I
6.BOB KIRMIS, ASST. CITY PLANNER Nov. 25, 1996 -
6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,CC
6.2. Consideration of Planning Commission Recommendation on
Administrative Permit Approvals (Memo of November 7, 1996 from NAC)
BACKGROUND:
This information was originally brought forth at Council request by
NAC, Bob Kirmis. The Council directed this to the Planning Commission
to review. This has been reviewed and recommended by the Planning
Commission. (See attached information). It is now being brought back
to the Council for their comments and consideration.
STAFF RECOW&NDATION :
Review the attached information and direct a Hearing if you approve of
the recommendation. I personally agree with the P.C. Recommendation.
Thank you,
Elaine
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
NINC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Kirmis
DATE: 15 October 1996
RE: Otsego - Zoning Ordinance: Administrative Permits/Approvals
FILE NO: 176.08 - 96.18
At the City Council's directive, staff has compiled a listing of various City applications
which currently require approval of a conditional use permit, but in our opinion may be
more efficiently accommodated by administrative (rather than conditional) permit or simply
subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator.
The following is a listing of various requests which we and/or the City Council feel could
possibly be accommodated by administrative (rather than conditional) permit or simply
subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator:
1. Time extensions for conditional use permits (Section 20-4-6).
2. Time extensions for variances (Section 20-5-4).
3. Expansions to legal non -conforming single family dwellings to improve livability
(Section 20-15-3.E).
4. Time extensions for temporary dwelling units (Section 20-16-2.E).
5. Building relocations (Section 20-19-1).
6. Erection of model homes (Section 20-22-2).
7. Single family uses with more than one curb cut (Section 20-22-4.1-1.11).
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6
PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837
8. Off-street parking surfacing exceptions for industrial uses (where heavy equipment
may destroy standard surfacing materials (Section 20-22-4.H.12.c.4).
9. Reductions to loading berth sizes for non-residential uses (Section 20-23-6.A).
10. Reductions to required number of loading berths (Section 20-23-7.D).
11. Temporary sale of farm products produced "on-site" (Section 20-26-8.13).
12. Transfer of 1 per 40 development rights in A-1 zone (Section 20-51-5.1-1). Such
transfer would continue to be allowed in A-2 zone by CUP.
13. Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health,
safety and general welfare of the City (all zoning districts in which use is allowed).
14. Indoor limited retail sales accessory to allowed uses in the B -C Zoning District
(Section 20-66-5.C).
Of particular issue in regard to the aforementioned items is the elimination of the public
hearing process.
The City Council has requested that the aforementioned listing be subject to review and
comment by the Planning Commission (with results forwarded to the Council) prior to
proceeding with the formal amendment process.
This item is scheduled for informal discussion on 6 November.
PC: Elaine Beatty
Jerry Olson
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
CITY OF OTSEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 6, 1996
1. Chair Carl Swenson .will call meeting to order -
Chair Swenson called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 8:00 PM
ROLL CALL:
Chair; Carl Swenson, Commissioners; Ing Roskaft, Arleen Nagel, Eugene Goenner,
Bruce Rask, Richard Nichols, Jim Kolles
Council Representative; Larry Fournier
Staff: Bob Kirmis, City Planner, Carol A. Olson, Secretary
2. Consideration of the Planning Commission Minutes of Ort- 16,1996:
Chair Swenson called for any corrections or additions to the Planning Commission
minutes of October 16, 1996.
Arleen Nagel - on Pg. 3, Mr. Kienitz comments came before Mr. Kirmis'.
Chair Swenson - change closed public hearing to returned public hearing. This is in
two places. (pg 3 & pg 4)
Ing Roskaft motioned to accept the October 16, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes
with corrections. Arleen Nagel seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.
3. Discussion Items:
A. Proposed Amendment of Ordinance Re: Antennas
B. Administrative Permit -vs-CUP for several items
Mr. Kirmis went over the draft amendment to the Zoning Ordinance addressing antennas
and regulation of various types of antennas. Note regarding regulations of cellular towers
or antennas, it allows antennas to be located by or on public structures (water towers etc.)
Cities lease that space and no CUP is needed because the water tower has already been
established. Intent is to make that process smooth for the cellular companies and allows
the cities to generate some income from leasing space on the public structure. When no
such public structure is available a CUP would be required Mr. Kirmis read Sec. 33
Antennas -Sec.20-33-1: Purpose. and Sec. 20-33-2. General Standards. A through L. The
public hearing will be grouped with another amendment with the date to be established by
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator.
Chair Swenson asked the commissioners if they had any questions regarding the Draft
Amendment.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of November 6, 1996 cont'd Page 3
Richard Nichols Sec.20-33-4.A.l.a. add "professional structural engineer."
Pg. 8, Sec. 20-33-4.B. questioned overall length and repetition.
Would prefer that it be written once with exceptions listed.
Sec.20-33-5.Item 2.e. Where it states "at the discretion of the
city," if for safety it should be a requirement and not at the
discretion of the city.
Chair Swenson stated that Elaine Beatty requested tying this into another amendment. e.
Eugene Goenner motioned to set hearing date at the city's discretion on the
Antenna Amendment. Ing Roskaft seconded.
Larry Fournier - would the Planning Commission want to review the final draft
before it is sent to public hearing.
Mr. Kirmis recommended making the changes then bring it back to the Planning
Commission then set the hearing date.
Eugene Goenner moved to amend the motion to state that hearing date be set at the
city's discretion after preliminary review by the Planning Commission. Ing Roskaft
seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.
Regarding Item B. Administrative Permit -vs- CUP, Chair Swenson directed Mr. Kirmis
to go over NAC's memorandum dated October 15, 1996.
Mr. Kirmis - The City Council has asked City Staff to compile a list of various requests
which currently require Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval, but may more
appropriately be allowed through administrative approval or permit by the Zoning
Administrator. Note Item 5, Building Relocations, is one Item some City Councilmembers
felt could be handled administratively. Keep in mind when considering these changes the
public hearing that goes along with the CUP process. That is notification to property
owners and the ability to have input from adjacent land owners.
Mr. Kirmis went through the Items (1-14) requesting input as to changes to current
regulations by allowing these CUP's to be permitted administratively, if not it would be
noted and have a summary memorandum provided to the City Council.
Item 1. Time extensions for CUP:
Eugene Goenner Concerned with how long extensions are granted for and
how many times are they granted extensions.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of November 6,1996 cont'd Page 5 �
Item 4. Change to handle administratively allowing one 60 day extension.
Item 5. No change recommended CUP required.
Mr. Kirmis explained that Item six, even if handled administratively conditions
would be imposed, but would save developer time. The question to ask
is what is gained from having the City Council approval and the public
hearing process.
Chair Swenson stated that a public hearing to approve the plat has already
been done and the public is already aware.
Richard Nichols stated that the ordinance requirements for parking and
lighting etc. wouldn't change. Doesn't recommend another hearing.
Item 6.Erection of model homes. Change to allow administratively as part
of plat approval.
Item 7. Number of curb cuts. Richard Nichols concerned that favoritism could
be shown here unless ordinance could specify. Bruce Rask would like to
find a way to handle administratively but concerned with protecting the
grid work on collector and arterial streets.
Mr. Kirmis stated that if it is decided to handle administratively conditions
could be added. Findings by the engineer not to impact drainage etc.
No change recommended.
Item 8. Change to handle administratively.
Item 9. Change to handle administratively.
Item 10.Change to handle administratively.
Item I l.Change to handle administratively.
Item 12. Mr. Kirmis summarizing 1 per 40 split is allowed administratively, but
if a transfer of rights is requested there is the CUP process. The idea being
that if conditions are met you wouldn't have to go through the hearing
process. Eugene Goenner concerned that someone would continue to come
in and get around the minor sub -division that way. Concerned with multiple
transfers. Mr. Kirmis read qualifications regarding a minor sub -division.
No change recommended CUP required
Item 13. No change recommended CUP required.
Item 14.Change to handle administratively.
Memorandum dated November 7, 1996 with the Planning Commission's recommendations
to the City Council is attached.
NVZINC
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY R.LANNINO - DESION - MARKET RESEARCH
Otsego Mayor and City Council
Bob Krmis
7 November 1996
Otsego - Zoning Ordinance: Administrative Permits/Approvals
176.08 96.18
At the City Council's directive, the Planning Commission has conducted a review of the
Zoning Ordinance and offered recommendation as to various applications which currently
require a conditional use permit (or City Council approval) which may more appropriately
be allowed by administrative permit or simply approval by the Zoning Administrator.
Specifically, the Planning Commission conducted a review of the items listed in staff's 1
October 1996 memorandum to the City Council which identified possible administrative
approvals.
The following is a listing of the items identified in the referenced 1 October memorandum
and corresponding recommendations offered by the Planning Commission at their 6
November meeting.
This material is scheduled for discussion at the forthcoming 25 November City Council
meeting.
PC: Elaine Beatty
Jerry Olson
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6
PHONE 6 1 2-595.9838 FAX 8 1 2-595-9837
r�
Temporary sale of farm products produced "on-site"
Change to allow administrative approval
(Section 20-26-8.13)
Transfer of 1 per 40 development rights in A-1
No change recommended
zone (Section 20-51-5.H)
Governmental and public utility buildings and
No change recommended
structures necessary for health, safety and general
welfare of the City (all zoning districts in which use
is allowed)
'
Indoor limited retail sales accessory to allowed
Change to allow administrative approval subject to same
uses in the B -C District (Section 20-66-5.C)
conditions as currently imposed
a
k
CITY OF OTSEGO
KEQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE
9.COUNCIL ITEMS Nov. 25, 1996 -
6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,CC
9.3. Consider Claims List for Approval
BACKGROUND:
The claims list will be provided to you by Monday. Due to the
circumstances of changes, it will take a little longer than Thursday's
packet to get it to you. Thanks for your patience
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Council Approval
Thaqk you,
Elaine
MUNICIPAL OF CITY OF OTSEGO
For the period 11/25/96 to 11/25/96
CLAIM TOTAL
TO WHOM PAID FOR WHAT PURPOSE DATE NUMBER CLAIP'
TALLY HO CATERING ELECTION LUNCHEON
GOPHER STATE ONE--CALL,INC OCTOBER SERVICES 11/25/96,12009 4.0
NORTHWEST °ASSOCIATED -CONSULTANTS OCTOBER SERVICES' 11/25/966,.2010 9,247.;
,I
ST. JOSEPH EQUIPMENT
CORROW TRUCKING
EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC.
'J -CRAFT
.-CROW RIVER FARM EQUIPMENT
OCTOBER RECYCLING
11/25/96 2011
317.5
OXYGEN & ACETYLENE
EAST SIDE LEASING CO. COPIER LEASE
11/25/96
OCTOBER SERVICES --
'11/25/96 20132;
H.G.. ; WEBER OIL : CO : FUEL > OIL _
Nt
2025
--
,.. 738.8
INVOICE 47763
1/
.2.
OCTOBER RECYCLING
11/25/96 2015
1,242.5•:
SIGNS INV. 153561
11/25/96 2016
67.6.
Now -
s 11125! 6 2x1.8
27
285 2.,
a�
11/25/96 2019
426.0
11/25/96 2020
213.1=
13/2.5/,96, 201
5`
F .,<. .. Y r
11/25!96,2022 ,
.4`
WRIGHT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT SALT & SAND
11/25/96
2023
4,283.6-c
EAST SIDE LEASING CO. COPIER LEASE
11/25/96
2024
237.'n
37.'? -H.
H.G.. ; WEBER OIL : CO : FUEL > OIL _
11/25/96
2025
--
,.. 738.8
QORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY TRAFFIC SIGNAL LAMP ..
11/25/96.202b
95.1
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOC. INC. OCTOBER SERVICES
11/2S/96,2027
14,855.2
.. kR
ag
<ni` Y .�. yam, 9°:<.' �9
h
�'/%�•<'a S
4kwii, ,si<. i F'•�;:t$,3`,IC ?e w ''. s ..., . �< . bi "R"'✓,.
>
ICMA 11/16/96 PAYPERIOD 11/25/96 2037 423.28
'`
ua✓:„xk,;`_%•<.�c.....�.z? H,�sks-: x, v._
Claims List ror Approvai
MUNICIPAL
OF CITY OF OTSEGO
For the Period 11/25:96 to
!11/25/96
CLAIM TOTAL
TO WHOM PAID
FOR'''HAT
PURPOSE
DATE NUMBER CLAIM
TRUEMAN, WE
r
THE HARDW URE>
51
"�
1125/9fs O3E 27 31
BOYER TRUCK PARTS
SUPPLIES
11!25/96 2051 51.8S
BEAR ALARMS, INC.
SECURITY WORK
11/25/96 2032 272.64
fii�SESSM
Ai
11 25/9b:' 2033 s 1 ,4$1 41
ICMA 11/16/96 PAYPERIOD 11/25/96 2037 423.28
'`
ua✓:„xk,;`_%•<.�c.....�.z? H,�sks-: x, v._
k
DATE: November 22, 1996
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Judy Hudson, Deputy Clerk
REGARDING: Private driveways - Snowplowing by City Maintenance Staff
I recently received another phone call requesting the City to do the snowplowing of
their driveway. The City Council addressed this policy a few years ago. The policy
was to leave the decision up to Dave Chase who determines if there is plenty of tum
around room in the resident's yard for the equipment. This policy eliminates the majority
of driveways in the City. Also at that time, the Council set the fee at $30 per trip.
This service was discussed with Dave Chase, Maintenance Supervisor. His thoughts were
to eliminate snowplowing of all private driveways for the following reasons:
1. Driveways are hard on the equipment.
2. They often get stuck.
3. Very time consuming. (often done while staff is on over time)
Administrative Staff also discussed this. The billing is time consuming. There are
residents that are not prompt in paying or don't pay at all which creates additional billing
time. A great concern is the liability issue involved with City equipment going on private
property.
Staff has come up with the following options:
1. Continue the present service but increase the rates to $75.00 per trip.
(If this option is selected, staff recommends that service is for Otsego
residents only. Currently, as a result of recent annexation, there is one
non-resident receiving this service.
2. Discontinue this service completely, effective immediately. (A notice
would be immediately sent informing current users with a final bill).
In as much as the City is contemplating contracting out snowplowing and reviewing all
services, Staff recommends Option 2.
Immediate action by the Council is necessary in light of the fact that the SNOW is here
and Staff needs immediate direction.
Thank you.
PC: Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator
David Chase, Maintenance Supervisor
memos 196-ps
A NOV 25 '96 15:25 FROM
UAIIZ+II W SLECTRIC, INC,
10486 80TH STREET N.E.
MONTICE LO HSI 53362-8117
PHONE (612) 4974312 FAX 49749$3
NAME/ADDRESS s
OTSEGO C rY HALL
8899 NASHUA AVE N.&
ELK RIVER MN 55330
TO 4418823 PRGE.002/002
Estimate
r*
DATIr ESTIMATE NO.'
Il124J96 91
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
QTY
A5005
JOURNEYMANHOLM
4
A9000
SPECIAL ORDER 1TEI41
3
Ir3.ECTRONIC BAY.I�'I'S
A9000
SPECIAL ORDER rrEm
12 I
T- 8 Liow $Ul$S
l
.9005
MISC MATERIAL
la
1
11
i I
QUOTES ARE GOOD FOR 30 DAYSi CALL WITH QUESTIONS OR TO AU'T'IiORM WORK!
TOTAL37
** TOTAL PAGE.002 **