The URL can be used to link to this page

09-05-96 CCCITY OF OTSECO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE 4A SPECIAL PRESENTATION CITY CLERK Sept. 5, 1996 - 6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,ee 4a.1. Tom Constant and Jeff Bartheld, Park and Rens. Comm. - Discussion of City Plans for Old Township Hall. BACKGROUND: Attached is information from Tom Constant and Jeff Bartheld. They are at this meeting to discuss same. STAFF RECOWENDATION: Tom and Jeff are here to get Council input on this project. Thanks, Elaine �, UQJE�• �G aCl� a�C/ � �' 4G� Ofi�'E'�a Tow�SfF/� �}AC.L fl c A -r/0 .✓ J�? 6T5 EG a i /�JPfj/�P/ "sr �A s 2, by " �3 cL) La� CA 8- ?� A �v A u s� u �T'�E' c Tu •e,� -- Tff //STo2l e A L �.PFSFr.Q (/,4T •-� a �► .•, S Sic N �it�D—?'f�� _,� 5-_Z �Av - /C 'F—L' /QrZATl a tet/ d /� 1 /t-� ! SSl 9 41 a L� ulsa, �'L C I� � U X CITY PROPERTY JI I I ar 914.6 C7 /( r 9109 /� ✓ �I,,, ,� 0 ry'1I., / PARK PROPER LIN ir' ----- 1 (� IST G `'` I To, y1 1 L 'v+ � i•i �' i �� I I _ 650lit I CITY HALL 91/�I 1 91 / I. I I• I i 605 \ -TREE CLEARI THERE 913 `) 91A v I Po SS 16 LO -0 A.* II OLD TavvA)5MiP HAL`i Z I T CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE 6. BOB KIRMIS CITY CLERK Sept. 5, 1996 - 6:302M TTTI 11L1"1 LVU111mr, : ITEM VESU ZiPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,CC 6.1. Oiscuasion of Zoning of newly Annexed Frankfort Area BACKGROUND: August 1, 1996 the annexation of Frankfort property into Otsego became effective. (The area South of 60Th ST and East of #101 to the Crow River). The land came into Otsego zoned A-1 Ag, See the attached Memorandum dated August 27, 1996 from Bob Kirmis regarding options available. STAFF RECCNIENDATION: Professional and City Staff are recommending a Motion from the City Council to approve initiation of rezoning of the newly annexed properties to designations similar to those previously applied (consistent with Alternative #3). The former development rights (one versus two units per 40 acres) should be addressed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Thanks, Elaine Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: BACKGROUND Otsego Mayor and City Council Bob Kirmis / David Licht 27 August 1996 Otsego - Annexation 176.08 Acknowledging the recent Frankfort Township land acquisition, immediate attention needs to be given to the development rights applicable to the properties. The purpose of this memorandum is to highlight issues associated with such development rights, identify various alternative actions, and provide specific recommendation. ISSUES Existing Zoning. According to Section 20-50-4 of the Zoning Ordinance: All territory hereafter annexed to the City of Otsego which is not shown on the Zoning Map shall automatically upon annexation be classified within the A-1 District and shall be subject to all regulations, notations, references, and conditions as are applicable to said district until such time that a determination may be made as to the proper district classification for such territory and an amendment can be made to that effect. Based on the preceding provision, all recently annexed Frankfort lands hold an A-1 zoning designation and are afforded only the development rights provided by such district. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 NOTE: See attachment for zoning district boundaries As shown above, major differences between Frankfort's and Otsego's Zoning Ordinance provisions exist in the A-1 Districts where two per forty and one per forty densities are applied. Generally speaking, however, the City of Otsego's Zoning Ordinance includes district provisions which are similar to those previously imposed in Frankfort Township. Alternative Actions. In consideration of former property development rights, the following options may be worthy of consideration: Alternative #1 - Retain Interim A-1 Zoning. One option would be to retain the existing A-1 zoning designation until the area in question is studied (as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update). This option is not recommended as it removes development rights previously afforded area property owners and may (on an interim basis) allow "undesirable" uses typically allowed in A-1 Districts (i.e. animal hospitals, riding stables, etc.). Alternative #2 - Establish Moratorium. A second option would be to establish a development moratorium over the area until the area is studied as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. While this option is preferred over Alternative #1 as it would prohibit questionable use establishment, concern remains over the loss of pre-existing development rights. 3 Minimum Lot Width Building Type Lot Size Business Districts: Frankfort (B-1, 1 acre 150 feet Maximum 50% exposed Business) metal on all sides Otsego (B-2, Highway 1 acre 200 feet Maximum 50% exposed Commercial and B-3, metal on all sides General Business) Industrial Districts: Frankfort (1-1, General 1 acre 150 feet Sides abutting streets and Industry) residential uses finished in wood, brick, stone, etc. - Otsego (1-1, Limited 1 acre 150 feet Maximum 50% exposed Industrial) metal on all sides NOTE: See attachment for zoning district boundaries As shown above, major differences between Frankfort's and Otsego's Zoning Ordinance provisions exist in the A-1 Districts where two per forty and one per forty densities are applied. Generally speaking, however, the City of Otsego's Zoning Ordinance includes district provisions which are similar to those previously imposed in Frankfort Township. Alternative Actions. In consideration of former property development rights, the following options may be worthy of consideration: Alternative #1 - Retain Interim A-1 Zoning. One option would be to retain the existing A-1 zoning designation until the area in question is studied (as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update). This option is not recommended as it removes development rights previously afforded area property owners and may (on an interim basis) allow "undesirable" uses typically allowed in A-1 Districts (i.e. animal hospitals, riding stables, etc.). Alternative #2 - Establish Moratorium. A second option would be to establish a development moratorium over the area until the area is studied as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. While this option is preferred over Alternative #1 as it would prohibit questionable use establishment, concern remains over the loss of pre-existing development rights. 3 1 .5 0 SCALE 1N MILES 1 J AGRICULTURAL / RURALk»,` EXISTING SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL NEW SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS ( PUBLIC WATER AVAILABLE OR CONTIGUOUS DEVELOPMENT POSSIBLE ) COMMERCIAL NOTE : APPLICABLE ZONING HIGHLIGHTED INDUSTRIAL IN PARENTHESIS P PUBLIC SP SEMI-PUBLIC LAND USE PLAN CITY OF OTSECO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE 6. BOB KIRMIS CITY CLERK Sept. 5, 1996 - 6:302M ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,CC 6.2. Conaideration of Feedlot Ordinance BACKGROUND: The feedlot ordinance has been an ongoing process for quite some time now. The Planning Commission held hearings on the version recommended by the Feedlot Committee. They sent their revised version to the City Council, who has now been working in Workshop Council Meetings to further determine a version of the Feedlot Ordinance to send to Hearing. We have a revised Feedlot Ordinance that will be brought to Workshop on the 4th of September at 6:30PM. This item is on the Agenda anticipating the Council will come to a conclusion on the 4th of September Workshop. Attached is a copy of the updated Zoning Ordinance: Feedlot Regulations dated August 28, 1996 prepared by Bob Kirmis, NAC and Andy MacArthur, City Attorney for your review. STAFF RECOI01ENDATION : This item was added with the assumption that the Workshop Meeting on the 4TH of September produces a product to discuss at this Council Meeting. If much progress is made, possibly we will have an Ordinance to send to the Planning Commission for Hearing. If not we can continue to the next Council Meeting- of September 23, 1996 at 6:30PM. Thanks, � L_ Elaine FAC Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO; Otsego Mayor and City Council Bob Kirmis / Andy MacArthur 28 August 1996 Otsego - Zoning Ordinance - Feedlot Regulations 176.08 - 95.28 At the City Council's directive, we have proceeded to revise the previous 5/28/96 draft version of the feedlot ordinance to integrate various comments received at the 13 August City Council workshop. It appears that there is a general consensus on most crucial policy issues. This memorandum is intended to focus discussion on those matters that need further clarification. ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS: The following specific changes have been made to the previous draft feedlot regulations. Section 20-38-1 - Purpose Item B of the ordinance's purpose statement has been expanded to specifically reference size regulation. Section 20-38-2 - MPCA Permit Requirements The draft ordinance prohibits the establishment of new animal feedlots of greater than 10 animal units (Threshold for MPCA permit application). Resultantly, the previous reference to new feedlots in excess of 10 animal units has been omitted. Section 20-38-4 - Prohibited Feedlots This section has been revised to prohibit new feedlots in excess of 10 animal units. While the Council's directive of "no new feedlots" is acknowledged, it is believed some realistic allowance should be made for the small scale keeping of animals such as that associated with hobby farms. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837 This section has further been modified to allow existing feedlots to expand to a maximum of 750 animal units. Section 20-38-6 - Information Requirement Item I of this section has been added which requires certification of existing number of animals units (applicable to feedlot expansions). Section 20-38-7.113 - Feedlot Setbacks This section has been expanded to specify that feedlot expansions must comply with various setback requirements as suggested at the 13 August workshop. Specific setback changes from the previous draft ordinance include the following: Addition of a municipal boundary setback of/z mile. 2 Private residence and well setbacks have been changed to 500 feet for facilities having less than 300 animal units and 750 feet for facilities greater than 300 animal units. Section 20-38-9 - Conditional Use Permits Conditional use permit qualification requirements have been changed to include: Feedlot expansions where the cumulative total exceeds 150 animal units. 2. An expansion of a feedlot by more than 100 animal units. OUTSTANDING ISSUES: In preparing the various ordinance revisions, we discovered several policy areas which we feel need clarification from the City Council. MPCA Permit Requirements. Section 20-38-2.6 states that a change of ownership, including family members prompts an MPCA permit. Considering that the inclusion of family members is not part of the Minnesota Rule and that this subject has been an issue of previous debate, we request clarification on this matter. If a change is directed, the provision could be revised to read as follows: B. A change of ownership, excepting transfers to members of the immediate family. Prohibited Feedlots. As noted previously, the draft ordinance makes provision for new feedlots less than 10 animal units (i.e., hobby farms). Considering that this issue was not specifically addressed at the 13 August workshop, staff requests that the City Council 2 establish a specific position on this matter. To what degree new "small scale" feedlots are allowed is considered a policy matter to be determined by the City Council. Information Requirements. Within Section 20-38-6, some concern exists in regard to the applicability of the various information requirements. Specifically question exists whether all requirements should apply to "small scale feedlots (including hobby farms). To address this concern, item "J" could be added to read as follows: J. At its discretion, City staff may waive certain informational requirements for minimal expansions, defined as expansions of twenty (20) animal units or less which will result in a cumulative total of fifty (50) animal units or less. Setbacks. Non -Conforming Uses. We are uncertain as to the Council's position regarding setbacks applicable to existing feedlots which fail to meet new feedlot setbacks. For instance, can an existing feedlot which fails to meet new feedlot setbacks expand? The Planning Commission had previously recommended that legal non -conforming feedlots (which fail to meet new feedlot setback requirements) may be expanded provided the degree of setback non -conformity is not increased. This issue should be clarified by the Council. Private Residence Setbacks. The 13 August meeting minutes are not entirely clear on preferred private residence setbacks. Specifically, question exists whether the Council wishes to establish a specific setback for feedlots of 150 animal units or less. Church Setbacks. Church and similar facility setbacks are to reiterate private residence setbacks. Thus, clarification is needed as to whether a separate setback is desired for feedlots of 150 animal units or less. Manure Stockpile/Application Setbacks. No changes to sectlin 20-38-8 of the ordinance (regarding manure setbacks) were directed by the City Council. We have some concern regarding an ordinance footnote which states that residence setbacks apply only if the occupants of the residence specifically request such setback in writing. The Council should determine whether this provision should be included. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The prohibition of new animal feedlots (over ten animal units) represents a change in current City policy. If the draft ordinance, as currently written, is given final consensus by the City Council, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will be necessary. 3 This material is scheduled for City Council review at the forthcoming 4 September City Council workshop. pc: Elaine Beatty Otsego Feedlot Committee. DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 96 - AN ORDINANCE ADDRESSING ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF OTSEGO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-2-2.F of the Otsego City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to delete the following definitions: Feedlot, Commercial The place of confined feeding of livestock or other animals for food, fur, pleasure or resale purposes in yards, lots, pens, building, or )ther areas not normally used for pasture or crops and _n which substantial amounts of manure or related other wastes may originate by reason of feeding such animals. Section 2. Section 20-2-2.F of the Otsego City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following definitions: Feedlot Related: 1. 2. 8/28/96 MN Rules 7020.0500 Subp. 4,B,2 3. 4. E ><`<2 ... D.;;.,.pds. The total number of animal units subject to permit or registration shall be determined by including operations located within one-half mile which utilize a common area or system for manure disposal. a.remts; ;:and the livestock operation does not create or maintain a potential pollution hazard or the potential pollution hazard has been corrected to meet MPCA requirements. Corrective or Protective Measures: A practiced}. structure, condition, or combination 'the�4pf which prevents :or reduces the discharge,'o pollutants from an animal feedlot to a level:': conformity with' MPGA rules. 2 MN Rules 7020.03k- Subp. 5 MN Rules 7020.030- Subp. 6 MN Rules 7020.0300 Subp. 7 MN Rules 7020.0300 Subp. 7a MN Rules 7020.0300 Subp. 8 Domatc Fertla. . Animal mrstix e khat is put on pr injected into the soil to improve the::. clualit�r; car +antty t3f }3ax�t _growth; or 21. Earthen Basin: -- A dike or excavated structure, often lined with clay or a synthetic liner, in which manure is stored - The basin is emptied at professional engineer or Natural Resources Conservation Service/Soil and Water Conservation District i technician, a 10. 11. Feedlot Operator: An individual, a corporation, a group of individuals, a partnership, joint venture, owner or any other business entity having charge or control of one or more livestock feedlots, poultry lots or other animal lots. 12. Interim"' Per tit': When required, a permit' stued by the MPGA ;which expires no'later than ten ;10} months from he,date'of-issuance, identifying the necessary corrective measures to abate potential pollution hazards. V MN Rules 7020.0300 Subp. 11 MMG Glossary MN Rules 7020.0300 Subp. 3 1 MN Rules 7020.0300 Subp. 15 MN Rules 7020.0300 Subp. 13 13. Lagoon% A manure treatment structure, typically MMG Glossar earthen. Lacroons can be aerobic. anaerobic, or facultative de7pending on their design, An anaerobic lacroon is different from an earthen storage basin in that the lagoon is managed for manure treatment, Anaerobic •••! are only ,oartial-ly emptied each year whereas earthen storaqe t)asins are emptied once or twice a year, I 14. Manure, Animal: The fecal and urinary excretions MMG Glossary nf livestock and ipoultry, Manure can include b ! _!- •-•• • material and water used for livestock, 15. 16. 17. content of more than ninety-six (96) uercent moisture is Ijauid. Manure with a moisture content between ninety (90) -and ninety-six (96) percent is referred to as a sl-�irry, A moisture content of less than eighty-four (84) percent is considered • :::<:`........................:rxton Issued to large facilities (one thousand (1,000) animal units or more) that have the potential to discharge to waters of the state. C! MN Rules 7020.0300 Subp. 14 MN Rules 7020.0300 Subp. 16 MN Rules 7020.0300 Subp. 18 '_9. Steep Slopes: Land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of these regulations. Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over twelve (12) percent, as measured over horizontal distances of fifty (50) feet or more, that are not bluffs. Section 3. Section 20-2-2.P of the Otsego City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following definitions: Park, Private: A tract of land presently owned or controlled and used by private or semi-public persons, entities, groups, etc. for active and/or passive recreational purposes. 5 MN Rules 7020.0300 Subp. 20/excluding the following language Potential Pollution Hazard* A condition which indicates a notential for pollution of the land or waters A. of An animal whose shoreland an area the state fc=pdlot boundaries or floodulain. draining dLrectly including -L or manurp storacre area are located within or are located -in to a sink hole or B. water8. drainincr overlying are located to an a fractured within well; area with shallow soils or cavernous rock, or one hundred (100) feet Of '_9. Steep Slopes: Land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of these regulations. Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over twelve (12) percent, as measured over horizontal distances of fifty (50) feet or more, that are not bluffs. Section 3. Section 20-2-2.P of the Otsego City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following definitions: Park, Private: A tract of land presently owned or controlled and used by private or semi-public persons, entities, groups, etc. for active and/or passive recreational purposes. 5 MN Rules 7020.0300 Subp. 20/excluding the following language Park, Public: A tract of land publicly owned and used by the public for active and/or passive recreational purposes. Trailways themselves shall not constitute a public park. Section 4. Section 20-27-4.0 of the Otsego City Code (Farm Animal Regulations) is amended to read as follows: C. Manure application and stockpiling activities shall comply with the applicable provisions of Section 20-38-8 of this Chapter. Section 5. Section 20-27-4.E of the Otsego City Code (Farm Animal Regulations) is amended to read as follows: E. All regulations imposed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) relating to the keeping of farm animals shall be adhered to and animal feedlots shall comply with the applicable provisions of Section 20-38 of this Chapter. Section 6. Section 38 of the Otsego City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 38 FEEDLOT REGULATIONS SECTION: 20-38-1 Purpose 20-38-2 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Feedlot Permit Requirements 20-38-3 Allowed Feedlots 20-38-4 Prohibited Feedlots 20-38-5 Pollution Control Requirements 20-38-6 Information Requirement 20-38-7 Feedlot Setbacks 20-38-8 Manure Stockpile/Application Setbacks 20-38-9 Conditional Use Permits 20-38-10 Standards for Earthen Storage Basins and Concrete Pits 20-38-11 Facility Closure 20-38-12 Abandonment R 0-38-1: PURPOSE: The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to regulate feedlot operations within the City of Otsego in a manner that is at least as restrictive as existing State regulations, and in many instances exceeding those State requirements, including those regulations related to pollution. These additional controls are needed due to the unique location of the municipality in relation to the Metropolitan Area, and in order to promote the planning process and protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City, as well as to: A. Establish a procedure for the allowance of feedlots within the City. B. Regulate the location, development, and expansion of feedlots. C. Promote best farm management practices. D. Protect valuable groundwater and surface water resources. E. Protect human and animal health. F. Implement specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. G. Promote compatibility of uses. H. Coordinate and assist state agencies in the administration of state-wide statutes and regulations governing livestock operations. 20-38-2: MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY FEEDLOT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS: A. B. A cfiang6:x; ` ` ` erSl fami ly members included. 7 MN Rules 7020.0500 Subp. 1 MMG Page 12 C. 20-38-3: ALLOWED FEEDLOTS: Those feedlots which do not constitute a potential pollution hazard and meet the applicable requirements of this Ordinance shall be allowed within the City on the condition that they obtain a certificate of compliance by the MPCA, as required. 20-38-4: PROHIBITED FEEDLOTS: The following feedlots shall be prohibited within the City: A. New feedlots in excess of ten (10) animal units. B. Expansions of existing feedlots within the Urban Service Area which exceed a cumulative total of ten (10) animal units. C. Expansions of existing feedlots within the Rural Service Area which exceed a cumulative total of seven hundred fifty (750) animal units. 20-38-5: POLLUTION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS: CM LZE C4M Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide restrictions on feedlot operations as restrictive as, or more so, than existing State regulations regarding pollution or potential pollution hazards. 8 MN Rules 7020.0400 Subp. 1 MN Rules 7020.0400 Subp. 2 E. F. G. H. feedlot opez.�4.+ozee.ts dicta roadways prgvIded �# a �...�antzr� �� : , uae as doznetC f 610 Odors: Feedlot operations shall take responsible measures to minimize odors which have the effect of creating an adverse impact on the environment and quality of life for the residents of the City. 20-38-6: INFORMATION REQUIREMENT: A. A map or aer.1a photagrapY indicating A A MN Rules 7020.0400 Subp. 3 MN Rules 7020.0400 Subp. 4 MN Rules 7020.0400 Subp. 5 MN Rules 7020.0900 , MN Rules 7020.0500 Subp. 2 (partial) MMG Page 14 B. A description of the geological condition, soil types and seasonal high water table. C. A plan indicating operational procedure, the location and specifics of proposed animal waste facilities. The quantity and type of effluent to be discharged from the site. D. Method/plan for disposal of dead animals shall be consistent with the Minnesota Board of Animal Health regulations. E. Manure Utilization Plan which will include MMG the location of all manure application sites, crop types, application rate in gallons/acre or tons/acre, and the resulting application rate of N, P and K in pounds/acre. Manure application shall not exceed agronomic rates or to build N, P and K levels beyond the soil capability of holding and utilizing them for crop use, for the prevention of leaching and potential non -point pollution problems, as determined by the Wright County Extension Educator and the Minnesota Extension Service. F. Land spreading agreements shall be provided MMG if the applicant does not own the minimum acreage to apply animal waste and the land application agreement must be signed by all owners of the property. G. Methods used to control or mitigate odor impact upon neighboring properties. H. A plan for proper closure of the facility including an estimated cost of the same. I. In cases of feedlot expansions, certification of existing animal units upon the property. J. Any other additional information as contained in the application and requested by the City or MPGA. 20-38-7: FEEDLOT SETBACKS: A. Existing Feedlots: Lawfully established feedlots existing prior to (effective date of ordinance) may be continued in the location existing on such date and are 10 exempt from the setback requirements of this Chapter. Expansions to existing feedlots shall be in compliance with the setback provisions as established by Section 20-38- 7.B below. (Legal non -conforming feedlots may be expanded provided the degree of setback non -conformity is not increased and all other applicable standards of operation specified in this Chapter are satisfactorily met.) B. New Feedlots and Feedlot Expansions: All new feedlots and feedlot expansions shall comply with each and every one of the following setback requirements: 1. Shorelands. No new feedlot or feedlot expansion shall be located within the Shoreland Districts of the City of Otsego as defined by Section 20-71 of this Chapter unless otherwise permitted by the MPCA. 2. Floodplains. No new feedlot or feedlot expansion shall be located within the one hundred (100) year floodplain area based on flood insurance rate maps and the flood insurance study for the City of Otsego. 3. Municipal Boundaries. No new feedlot or feedlot expansion shall be located within one-half (1/2) mile of an adjacent municipal boundary. 4. Steep Slopes. No new feedlot or feedlot expansion involving open lots or partial confinement buildingb shall be located within three hundred (300) feet of the crown of a steep slope as defined by this Chapter. 5. Public Parks. No new feedlot or feedlot expansion shall be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of a public park. 11 6. Drainage Ditches. No new feedlot or feedlot expansion shall be located within three hundred (300) feet of a County, City or private drainage ditch. 7. Private Residences and Wells. No new feedlot or feedlot expansion shall be located within the following distances of any residence or well other than the feedlot land owner or operator: Required Setback Less than 300 animal units 500 feet 300 or more animal units 750 feet 8. Church, School or Similar Facilities. No new feedlot or feedlot expansion shall be located within the following distances of any church, school or similar public facility: Required Setback Less than 300 animal units 500 feet 300 or more animal units 750 feet 12 0-38-8: MANURE STOCKPILE/APPLICATION SETBACKS: The following manure stockpile and application setbacks are required for all new and existing feedlots: 13 MMG Page 38 Manure Application Category Stock Surface/ Irrigation Applied Incorporated or Injected Piles Public lake. river. 300 feet 100 feet -lake 300 or stream 50 feet- feet river/stream Public streets* 25 feet- 10 feet 25 surface 300 feet - irrigation feet Platted 300 feet- 300 feet 300 surface 1,000 Subdivisions** feet feet - irrigation dunicipal wells 200 feet 200 feet 300 feet Private wells 200 feet 200 feet 200 feet Public or private 300 feet 100 feet 300 ditch feet Residence other 300 feet- 300 feet** 300 than landowner or surface** feet operator 1,000 feet - irrigation *As measured from the outer boundary of the right-of-way ** These separation distances shall only apply if the occupants of the residence specifically request it in writing of the operator. 13 MMG Page 38 20-38-9: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: A. Requirement: A conditional use permit shall be obtained in a manner described in Section 20-4 of this Chapter whenever: 1. The proposed expansion, or modification of an existing feedlot is located within a Shoreland, Floodplain, or Wild and Scenic District. 2. The expansion of an existing feedlot is proposed where the cumulative total exceeds one hundred fifty (150) animal units. 3. The expansion of 'an existing feedlot by one hundred (100) or more animal units. 4. A lagoon system, an earthen basin or any other outdoor liquid storage structure is proposed for the storage or treatment of animal waste. B. Standards for Conditional Use Permits: To protect public health, safety and welfare, the City shall impose (but not be limited to the following conditions: 1. Trees and/or shrubs are planted, as determined necessary by the City Council, for use as a wind break but not so as to interfere with the design and functioning of the feedlot operation. 2. All provisions of the Manure Utilization Plan as outlined in Section 20-38-5 of this Chapter are satisfactorily met. 3. All pollution control measures outlined in Section 20-38-5 of this Chapter are satisfactorily met. 14 4. As required by State regulations, the applicant shall provide adequate security to ensure compliance with any or all conditions of the permit, proper handling and storage of manure, and proper closure of the facility. The amount of said security shall be contained in a written agreement between the permittee and the City. 5. All applicable setback requirements of Sections 20-38-7 and 20-38-8 of this Chapter are satisfactorily met. 6. All feedlots shall be operated in a nuisance -free manner consistent with the regulations of the city and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA). 7. Approval of the conditional use permit shall be contingent upon the successful acquisition of a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) permit. 8. The use is consistent with applicable provisions of Section 26, 27 and 51 of this Chapter. 9. The provisions of Section 20-4-2.F of this Chapter are considered and determined to be satisfied. 10. All conditions of approval of the conditional use permit shall be recorded against the property. 20-38-10: STANDARDS FOR EARTHEN STORAGE BASINS, LAGOONS AND OTHER MANURE STORAGE AREAS: Earthen basins, lagoons and other manure storage areas shall be constructed in compliance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements. 15 20-38-11: FACILITY CLOSURE: A. Responsible Parties: The landowner, owner and operator of any animal feedlot shall be responsible for the ongoing management of manure and the final closure of the facility include the cleaning of buildings and the emptying and proper disposal of manure from all manure holding facilities. B. Environmental Financial Assurance: Financial security shall be posted with the City in the form of escrow, bond, or letter of credit in an amount established by State Rules or Regulations, or as amended, in order to assure proper closure of the facility. C. Closure Plan: If a permitted feedlot operation using a manure storage system ceases operation, the owner shall submit to the City and MPCA a closure plan. 1. The plan shall be submitted at least sixty (60) days prior to the final day of operation of the manure storage system. The plan shall be prepared by a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota, or a person recognized as qualified for such work by the MPGA. 2. Closure of the operation may be postponed for a period of twelve (12) months if the property is posted for sale. 3. Manure storage system closure shall include the removal of the sludge in the facilities and its disposal by proper land application at agronomic rates or by other legally permissible method. 4. Manure storage system closure shall also include filling in a basin with material from the dikes or other earthen material that may be available. Only material allowed to be buried under federal, state and local regulations may be used as fill. Un- It is necessary to fill in the basin to prevent it from being a safety hazard when it fills.in with rain and snow -melt waters. 5. All wastes from the feedlot operation and its waste control system shall be removed and disposed of on land or in some other manner which is legally permissible as soon as practical, but no more than six (6) months, and in accordance with the approved plan in order to promote and protect public health. 6. Each time ownership to the facility changes, the new owner must notify the MPCA and the City in writing within sixty (60) days of the transfer of ownership that the approved plan has been read and is understood and that all provisions of the plan will be implemented. The new owner must also provide the City with written assurance that they have assumed all obligations undertaken by previous operators or owners, including posting of any necessary security. 7. If the new ownership is to continue to operate the facility, closure shall not be necessary. 20-38-12: ABANDONMENT: Owners and operators of feedlots, either at the time of abandonment or after, shall have joint and several liability for clean up, closure or remediation of abandoned feedlot sites. Section 7. Section 20-51-2.A of the Otsego City Code (A-1 District Permitted Uses) is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Farms, farmsteads, farming and agricultural related buildings and structures subject to Minnesota Pollution Control Standards, but not including animal feedlots or other commercial operations. WA I Section 8. Section 20-51-5.D of the Otsego City Code (A-1 District Conditional Uses) is hereby amended to read as follows: D. Animal feedlots as regulated by Section 38 of this Chapter. Section 9. Section 20-52-2.A of the Otsego City Code (A-2 District Permitted Uses) is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Farms, farmsteads, farming and agricultural related buildings and structures subject to Minnesota Pollution Control Standards, but not including animal feedlots or other commercial operations. Section 10. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this day of 1996. CITY OF OTSEGO By: ATTEST: Norman F. Freske, Mayor By: Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL AC"1-10N AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE 6. BOB KIRMIS CITY CLERK Sept. 5, 1996 - 6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,CC 6.3. Discussion of Otsego - Comprehensive Plain Update - Work Program BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of NRC's Memo dated August 27, 1996 Re: Comprehensive Plan Update: Work Program. This is for your information and comment and Bob Kirmis will be here to answer questions and give an overview of the project. Larry Koshak will also be at this Council Meeting for comment on same. STAFF RECONNENDATION. This item is for discussion and information. Thanks, Elaine FA C Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Elaine Beatty FROM: Bob Kirmis/David Licht DATE: 27 August 1996 prAUG 6�adM 2 8X996 RE: Otsego - Comprehensive Plan Update: Work Program FILE NO: 176.08 - 96.14 BACKGROUND At your request, our office has formulated a work program, schedule and projected cost for the update of the 1991 Otsego Comprehensive Plan. The work covered does not include the participation of the City Engineer, which will be critical in defining and phasing future sanitary sewer service areas. We also emphasize that the material which follows should be considered preliminary and subject to further discussion with you and the City Council. The information will, however, serve as a basis upon which to initiate the process. PRELIMINARY WORK PROGRAM Task I - Planning Tactics Study In undertaking a comprehensive planning update project for the City of Otsego, attention must first be directed to organizing the effort. The primary element of this organization task which is essential to the program setup and which Northwest feels is unique to its approach is what we term "planning tactics". Too often, planning work is initiated without detailed identification of what the local community wants to achieve in its planning program. As a consequence, both time and money are typically wasted and the final product is not what is expected or wanted by a community. Northwest attempts to overcome this situation by undertaking a "tactics" study which is intended to achieve three objectives. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837 The first is definition of local decision -maker objectives and concerns. This objective would be achieved from individual interviews being conducted with each City Council and Planning Commission member, designated staff, and other individuals or groups the City may feel have valid contribution and inputs. When combined with subsequent technical analysis, this effort should serve to focus planning work more precisely. The second objective and product of the tactical stage would be a structure and organization for community and public official participation and information dissemination. If these elements are addressed at this beginning stage of the process, work on the Comprehensive Plan and other related matters can proceed in an organized and concentrated fashion without later interruption or delay. The final objective of the tactics effort is education. Through a consolidation of information, community decision -makers become more knowledgeable of issues confronting the community, plus understand more fully the planning process. Due to the community participation element, Northwest lacks total control over the time devoted to the tactical stage of the program. Normally, the tactics study is undertaken at the onset of the Comprehensive Plan process. In consideration of the sewer study status and potential change in City Council membership, we suggest that this effort commence following the November elections. The identifiable project to result from this task would be a planning and development tactical study report available for wide spread distribution. Also expected would be the formal community decision-making bodies and organized groups and neighborhood interests. Task II - Inventory and Informational Base Essential to the formulation of a viable and effective updated community development plan and program is the establishment of a sound informational and statistical base which details the City's current characteristics, status, trends and projected future needs. From a comprehensive perspective, this informational base must cover social, economic/ financial, and physical concerns. It is proposed that the inventory be accordingly divided into three main efforts. These primary informational thrusts are detailed below: A. Social Profile: Information will be assembled and evaluated on community population growth, age/sex breakdown, marital status, educational levels, employment and income. From this statistical base, an analysis will be conducted relative to the needs of the community's population from a general perspective of public facilities and services and notedly housing demands. Past studies as well as Census data will be primarily relied upon for the information they can provide. K B. Economic Base: Critical to the community's housing, economic development and financial tax base concerns is a determination of uses, activities, price ranges, and revenues which can reasonably be expected to compete and maintain economic viability within and for the City. The community must basically define and be aware of its role in relationship to the regional and sub -region, as well as its own ability to sustain levels and ranges of activities. Also an economic market evaluation will provide the City a generalized "timing function" for expected development in order to facilitate appropriate orderly responses and services to the private development sector. Such information, combined with social information, has particular relevance on land demands which will be further addressed as a physical concern. As part of the Southwest Area Study, a basic economic overview of the City was prepared. Such findings will be integrated into the Comprehensive Plan Update effort and be expanded slightly to include a regional and area overview. C. Physical Inventory: A basic knowledge of the physical characteristics and elements of the community must be gained including the recently annexed Frankfort Township territory. Information would be assembled on land use, with emphasis on housing, commercial and industrial uses, including building condition, value, and land availability and activity utilization factors. Transportation concerns such as existing street circulation systems, traffic volumes (existing and projected), accident reports, parking, and pedestrian/bicycle routings and access would be determined. Community services and facilities such as utilities, police and fire, public buildings, and park and open space would inventoried, as well as natural environmental features such as soils, topography, wetlands, lakes, vegetation, etc. Based upon City budget directives, the inventory stage of the work program would begin immediately. While not a standard procedure, the tactical study would follow later (following elections). Completion of the inventory is estimated at sixty days. Distribution of findings would be anticipated immediately upon completion for the purpose of allowing general review. Presentations of information would, however, be conducted in conjunction with subsequent stages and reports, notedly the Policy Plan, Concept Plan, and Land Use and General Facilities Plan. Within the final Comprehensive Plan document, inventory information would be summarized in the form of major issues. Task III - Development Framework The Development Framework phase of the Comprehensive Plan Update is envisioned to encompass three specific and individualized, but interrelated elements. These are the Policy Plan, the Concept Plan dealing with general overall community as well as neighborhood development patterns, and the Development Framework involving 3 categorical and neighborhood plans. Based upon the foundation established by the tactics and inventory, these three plans are formulated in a progressive fashion which establishes and permits a step-by-step logical review, evaluation and decision-making process. A. Policy Plan: Upon completion of the two initial elements of the planning process and work program, an analysis and synthesis of information will occur. From this basis and upon the knowledge gained from working with the community, the current planning and development goals, objectives and policies will be updated by Northwest. The policies will be proposed in a highly detailed and specific fashion for the eventual establishment of a practical and concise planning and decision- making framework and guide for use by both the public and private sectors. The Policy Plan will be submitted to organized private groups, and the City's review and decision-making bodies for thorough review, evaluation and comment. Northwest would expect considerable time being devoted to meetings to discuss the revised policies, their implications, and their acceptability to the community. The high degree of community input and resulting decisions and direction established through the policies will produce what may be termed a community rather than a consultant's plan and will go far in identifying parameters for the physical planning concept alternatives which are formulated in the succeeding stages of work. The preliminary policies drafted by Northwest would be submitted in memorandum form. Upon review and modification as directed by the community, a final Policy Plan would be produced as part of the total Development Framework report and made available for distribution. The initial phase of the Policy Plan task is the responsibility of the planner. Work can be expected to be completed within thirty days. The major and critical community review and comment portion of the Policy Plan is beyond the jurisdiction of Northwest. It is hoped that the community would want to proceed as rapidly as possible. In this regard, the planner would be committed to whatever reasonable time schedule the City would create. B. Concept Plan: Following the establishment of the Policy Plan, attention would be directed to translating the City's written development polices and directives into a conceptually mapped, spacial interpretation and statement. This will establish a generalized pattern and expression of desired development elements and relationships. Related to this effort are specific plans applicable to the recently annexed Frankfort Township territory. While we believe immediate development concerns of the area can be addressed on an interim basis through rezoning (to "parallel" zoning designations), specific planning efforts for this area of the community can be given n immediate priority if so directed by the City Council. It should be noted that plan establishment is highly dependent upon and should be prepared in conjunction with the City's sanitary sewer plan. Thus, resolution of the sewer issue will be necessary for plan efforts to proceed. It is anticipated that formulation of the Concept Plan will require minimal time. One to two weeks would be required by Northwest to complete the development of Concept Plan alternatives. Presentation to community groups and review bodies would follow and be in conjunction with Policy Plan review. Again, the review, comment and plan selecting process is beyond the control of Northwest. It is, however, expected the process could be accomplished in a relatively short period of time. C. Categorical/Neighborhood Plans: What may be looked upon as comprising a City's transitional comprehensive plan is the Development Framework's sections addressing categorical plans and neighborhood or planning district plans. Under current professional planning standards, categorical plans address natural resources, land use, transportation, community facilities and services, and public finance. Separate but interrelated plans and programs are formulated for each category or topic area in text and mapped format. In order to more meaningfully communicate plans and also as a mechanism to address specific concerns such as housing, commercial/industrial development, urban service areas and the like, neighborhood or planning district plans are also drafted. These geographically focused plans consolidate and refine the categorical plans for a given area. This approach facilitates a much more encompassing and thorough response to issues which confront a limited area of the community. Completion of the categorical neighborhood plans is estimated to require sixty days. Community review of the plan is expected to be extensive and take equal or more time. Following general community review and comment, modifications as necessary would be made and a finalized plan prepared. The Planning Commission would then hold a public hearing on the plan and assuming a favorable recommendation, the plan would be referred to the City Council for adoption. Depending upon the directives taken by the plan, discussions with possibly affected neighboring communities may be desirable prior to official public hearing and adoption of the plan. Consideration of this matter will begin as early as the tactics stage of the process and will be worked into the schedule as may be required throughout the duration of the program. 5 Task IV - Implementation - Programming A new standard now being followed in the planning profession is that communities undertaking a comprehensive plan must expand their scope of efforts to encompass an implementation program. As applied to the City of Otsego, this effort should include capital/community improvements. This is a logical extension of work and helps ensure realization of the planning recommendations and directions. The intent of Northwest, in cooperation with the City Engineer and City staff, would therefore be to provide the City with an overall community improvement program covering all aspects of investment required to achieve program priorities, budgets and scheduling. These efforts would be outlined for each year covering a five year period. It would be expected that the community would then annually update the program in succeeding years in order to have a constant and ongoing program of projected actions. Preferably this process would be part of an annual "visioning" session. The preparation of the capital/community improvements and implementation program would follow the logical sequence of determination on the Development Framework. Northwest would work in conjunction with the City staff as well as the City['s consulting engineer. Production time is estimated at thirty days with an equal amount of time devoted to decision -maker and general citizen review. The material would be presented in formal report form for widespread distribution. PROJECT SCHEDULE In light of the pressing need for a Comprehensive Plan Update, Northwest proposes to compress the work and review schedule to the extent considered feasible. The suggested schedule is depicted on the following page. We would note, however, that speed of completion should not result in the sacrifice of a thorough study with adequate public official and community input. In this regard, the City should be ready to take extra time if such is required for a quality end product. It is only through the active participation and detail consideration of City officials that the Comprehensive Plan Update will reflect the desire and objectives of the community and thereby lead to a realization of improvements and developments which are sought. PROJECT BUDGET Subject to possible further discussion of work program elements with City officials and staff, Northwest has formulated a preliminary project budget. This summary of costs takes into account the standard component of a Comprehensive Plan Update project plus the very special needs and concerns unique to Otsego. The results of these considerations are as follows: C.1 Task I - Planning Tactics $ 2,600.00 Task II - Inventory and Data Assembly $ 8,450.00 Task III - Development Framework $ 9,750.00 Task IV - Implementation Program $ 1,300.00 Sub -Total $22,100.00 Meetings (7 sessions @ $150/session) $ 1,100.00 Expenses, copies (25 copies of all documents, mileage, correspondence, etc.) $ 1,800.00 TOTAL $25,000.00 In response to City budget directives, it is anticipated that approximately $10,000 of the aforementioned budget will be utilized prior to the first of the year. The above figures do not include time of the City Engineer or other City staff whose participation is critical to the assembly of a Comprehensive Plan Update, nor any color graphics. If color graphics are desired, an additional charge of $1.50 per 8-1/2" by 11" page would be added. CONCLUSION As a means to confront the many complex and far reaching issues which the City of Otsego is confronting, including future sanitary sewer service, it is vital that a Comprehensive Plan Update be pursued expeditiously. In this regard, it is critical that sound policy as well as technical background be established and that the plans prepared confront head on the matters which pose both problems as well as opportunities for the community. With this need in mind and upon completion of an initial review of the information herein presented, Northwest is available to meet with officials and staff to more fully discuss the work program and costs and finalize project details. 7 CITY OF OTSEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULE Sept. I Oct. I Nov. I Dec. lian. I Feb. I Mar. lApr11 I May I June I July IAug. PLANNING TACTICS INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK POUCY PLAN CONCEPT PLAN DISTRICT PLANS IMPLEMENTATION 1996 Consultant Work Community Review Preliminary Report • Final Report Public Hearing 1997 • • CITY OF OTSECO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE 7. ANDY MAC ARTHUR, CITY ATTORNEY Sept. 5, 1996 - 6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,CC 7.1. Consider Ordinance Amendment allowing the Building Official to inspect and approve alternative septic systems. BACKGROUND• Attached is a proposed Ordinance Amendment Re: Alternative Septic Systems and allowing the Building Official to inspect and approve same. This was recommended by the Council at the Meeting of 8/26/96 after reviewing Jerry Olson's letter to the Council. STAFF RECOWENDATION: Approve the Ordinance Amendment as written by Andy MacArthur. Thanks, Elaine William S. Radzwill Andrew J. MacArthur Michael C. Couri Megan M. McDonald August 30, 1996 RADZWILL & COUN Attorneys at Law 705 Central Avenue East PO Bax 369 St. Michael, MN 55376 (612) 497-1930 (612) 497-2599 (FAX) City Council Members City of Otsego c/o Elaine Beatty, City Clerk 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Elk River, MN 55330 RE: Amendment To City Sewage Disposal Ordinance- Inspection Of Alternative Systems Dear Council Members: Enclosed please find a proposed Ordinance Amendment related to 1 giving the City Building Inspector, if properly certified, the job of reviewing technical data on alternative systems. It also gives him discretion to refer the matter to the City Engineer. I have copied this proposed ordinance to both Jerry and Larry Koshak. Absent any further revisions recommended by them, I would recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. Very truly yours, rew acA ur RADZWI & COURI Encl. cc: Larry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson Jerry Olsen, Building Inspector ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.4.4 OF THE CITY SEWAGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE RELATING TO RESPONSIBILITIES FOR REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS. Section 1. The Otsego Sewage Disposal Ordinance, Ordinance 92-27, Section 5.4.4, is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.4.4 Technical review for alternative systems. The City Building Inspector, if properly certified, shall review all required information on alternative systems to determine compliance for the proposed installation, alteration, or extension of any individual sewage system as required by this ordinance. The Building Inspector may, at his discretion, refer any permit review or system design to the City Engineer, if properly certified, for an opinion and/or analysis if the Building Inspector determines that review by the City Engineer is required. The City Building Inspector or City Engineer shall make a recommendation to the City Clerk within fifteen (15) days after the City Engineer receives all required information. Failure on the part of the applicant to supply information as mandated in this Ordinance shall constitute grounds for denial of the permit. Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this day of September, 1996. IN FAVOR: OPPOSED: CITY OF OTSEGO Norman F. Freske, Mayor Elaine Beatty, City Clerk City of Otsego Engineer's Agenda Items City Council Meeting September 5, 1996 8.1 WATER AND SEWER SERVICE • We are proposing that a workshop be set up before the Public Meeting on November 13, 1996. The purpose of the workshop is to focus on what direction the City needs to go attain its goal of water and sewer service in a specific time table. • We need to identify what engineering and planning studies need to be done in what time frame. Assistance from financial advisor would also be helpful. • Comprehensive planning should be started as soon as a service area is identified. • The workshop could serve to set goals for the City and track the steps necessary to reach those goals. I will be available to discuss this item future at the meeting. { 8.2 ANY OTHER ENGINEERING BUSINESS apanda9.5 CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT. MEETING DATE COUNCIL ITEMS FINANCE SEPTEMBER 5,1996 ITEM NO: ITEM DESCRIPTION PREPARED BY 9.1 CONSIDER RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROPOSED 14,750 1996 TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 1997 P.COKLE Truth In Taxation Law requires that each "taxing authority" must approve and certify a proposed property tax levy for taxes payable 1997 to the county auditor on or before September 15, 1996. The City Council has held two budget worksessions to review the City's general operations and bonded indebtedness requirements to ultimately arrive at a proposed property tax levy for 1997. The attached resolution defines the proposed property tax levy for general government operations, park development and bonded indebtedness. General government operations includes the following departments: Mayor and City Council $ 62,410 Administration 188,566 Finance 61,431 Assessing 14,750 Legal 30,000 Planning Commission 3,700 Planner 59,900 EDA 14,790 City Hall & Peavey House 79,276 Police 100,740 Building Inspection 29,500 General Engineering 52,000 Street Lighting 10,600 Street Maintenance 267,633 Animal Control 3,100 Recycling 36,000 Community Recreation 18,725 Park Maintenance 37,989 Heritage Preservation 4,800 Capital Outlay 97,700 Total Proposed Expenditures $1,173,610 The resolution also defines the amount of HACA the City will receive from the State and subtracts that amount from the total proposed levy to arrive at a final proposed levy to be certified to the county auditor. Anticipated revenues from sources other than property taxes include, $101,805 in Local Government Aid, $140,276 in HACA, $77,000 in Municipal State Aid maintenance funds, and $131,770 in charges for service, licenses, permits, other grants and aids, interest earnings and building rent. This proposed tax levy and expenditure budget is a result of the two budget workshop meetings held in August. Recommended changes include elimination of an intern in the EDA budget, reduction in code enforcement hours by the building inspector, elimination of the purchase of recycling bins in 1997, reduction in hours of supervision for park maintenance, reduction in park maintenance engineering, and reduction in various capital items. It is anticipated that various capital items will be purchased on a lease/purchase agreement or reviewed during the 1998 budget. The City's total tax capacity number is not yet available, therefore, an estimate of the tax capacity for the City combined with an estimated tax capacity for the land annexed from Frankfort is used in the calculation of a proposed tax rate. The new estimated tax capacity is $2,317,271 which would result in a proposed tax rate of approximately 34.1116. The 1995 tax rate for taxes collectible in 1996 is 34.637. The City Council must adopt a resolution approving a proposed tax levy for 1997 budget appropriations and certify such proposed levy to the county auditor by September 15, 1996, therefore, it is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving a proposed tax levy for 1997 Appropriations. Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO 96 - RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROPOSED TAX LEVY FOR 1997 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Otsego City Council that there is hereby approved for proposed expenditures from general taxes, the following sums for the purpose indicated: General Government $ 863,034 Park Development 15,000 Bonded Indebtedness 52,700 Total Proposed Levy $ 930,734 Less HACA 140,276 Total Levy To Be Certified $ 790,458 FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that as required by Truth in Taxation Legislation, the City Clerk shall certify to the Wright County Auditor a copy of this resolution approving a proposed levy of $790,458 for the City of Otsego. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was passed this 5th day of September, 1996. Norman F. Freske, Mayor ATTEST: Elaine Beatty, Clerk/Zoning Admin. CITY OF OTSECO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE 9. COUNCIL ITEMS CITY CLERK Sept. 5, 1996 - 6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB, CC 9.2. Discussion of Hassan Townahi.p Incorporation BACKGROUND: we received a letter from Hassan Township Re: Incorporation,dated August 22, 1996 and the Municipal Board Notice of Hearing received August 28, 1996. The Council asked the I contact Rogers and Dayton to find out what their position is regarding the incorporation and bring it back to this agenda. FOR YOUR INFORMATION: I talked with Sandy Borders, Clerk of Dayton and she said the Dayton Council will not contest the incorporation, but will write a letter to the State Municipal Board stating they would like to work with Hassan Township to get an interchange on I-94. I also talked with Gary Eitel, Rogers Adm. and he said the official position of the Council has not yet been set, but will be on the 10th of September at their next Council meeting. He said there are two options: 1. Consolidation 2. Allow them to incorporate set differently (including their continued growth. He a good dividing line, when with the boundaries more land in Rogers) for felt the Co. Roads make readjusting boundaries. Gary also stated that they have been working together to provide water and sewer with joint powers agreements and they work together in many other areas: Fire protection, grading, resources, Lions club, etc. They were surprised that Hassan sent in the incorporation petition. He said they want to ensure the future working relationships with Hassan. They will attend the Hearing on September 24, 1996. As of the time I talked with Gary the Mayor was just being informed of the Incorporation request as he had been out of town.. This is for your information. Thanks, Elain 25000 HASSAN PARKWAY, HASSAN TOWNSHIP, MN 55374 PHONE: (612) 428-4100 FAX: (612) 428-2102 August 22, 1996 City of Otsego c/o Ms. Elaine Beatty 8899 Nashua Ave NE Otsego, MN 55330 Dear Ms. Beatty: As you may be aware, on August 5, 1996, the Hassan Town Board of Supervisors approved a Resolution petitioning the Minnesota Municipal Board for incorporation. In an attempt to enhance our petition, I am notifying all municipalities within District 7 of Hennepin County of our petition, and requesting a Resolution of support from each community. Enclosed is a copy of our petition, the approving Resolution and a sample Resolution to be presented to your Council. As stated in the petition, it is Hassan's intent to incorporate because we find that the township form of government no longer protects the citizens as a result of the statutory powers cities have over townships, such as the annexation laws for example. Hassan Township is an "Urban Township", which means we enjoy nearly all the statutory powers of a city. For example, we already have in place the planning, zoning and administration functions of a city, so incorporation is not that large of a leap. At the moment we are waiting for the Municipal Board to set a hearing, so we would appreciate it if you would take the Resolution to your Council as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please contact me at 428-4100. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sin erelly, a Morrison ToAdministrator - THE ONLY TOWN IN HENNEPIN COUNTY - 1-82 Hassan BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Lea De Souza Speeter Chair Paul B. Double Vice Chair Robert J. Ferderer Vice Chair County Commissioner Ex -Officio Member County Commissioner Ex -Officio Member D AUG 2 81596 L IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ) THE INCORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF ) NOTICE OF HEARING HASSAN PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA ) STATUTES 414 ) Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended, before the Minnesota Municipal Board in the above -entitled matter. The hearing will be held on the 24th day of September, 1996 in the Hassan Town Hall, 25000 Hassan Parkway, Rogers, Minnesota, commencing at 9:30 a.m. All persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard orally and to submit written data, statements or arguments concerning the above -entitled matter. The right to testify and the admission of testimony and other evidence shall be governed by the Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Board. [The Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Board may be purchased from the Documents Section, 117 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, (612) 297-3000.) The property proposed for incorporation is all of the Town of Hassan, Hennepin County, Minnesota. -2 - After all testimony is complete and the record is closed, the Board will meet from time to time to deliberate, approve and issue its findings and order. Persons desiring to be present at such meetings or conference call meetings should contact the Board Office. For special accommodations, please contact the Minnesota Municipal Board, Suite 475 McColl Building, 366 Jackson Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1925, (612) 296- 2428; Twin Cities TDD (612) 297-5353; or Greater Minnesota TDD 1-800-627-3529. Dated this 26th day of August, 1996. MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 475 McColl Building 366 Jackson Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1925 Patricia D. Lundy Assistant Director M Council Member introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING HASSAN TOWNSHIP'S PETITION TO THE MUNICIPAL BOARD FOR INCORPORATION WHEREAS, Hassan Township is the sole township form of government within Hennepin County; that its neighboring communities in Hennepin County are statutory cities with the duties and powers outlined by law; and WHEREAS, Hassan Township is similar in size, population, development and geographic make-up as its municipal neighbors and feels that its current form of government is unable to adequately protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens; and WHEREAS, the Hassan Town Board of Supervisors believes it to be in the best interest of its citizens to Petition for Incorporation; and WHEREAS, the City of shares a common boarder with Hassan Township along the border of the City, and will receive notice from the Municipal Board of Hassan's petition and the subsequent hearing; and WHEREAS, the City of finds that Hassan Township is in the best position to serve and protect its residents; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby supports Hassan Township's petition for incorporation and recommends the Municipal Board approve the request. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and, upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF HASSAN TOWNSHIP FOR INCORPORATION PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTE, SECTION 414.02 The undersigned, being all of the Supervisors of Hassan Township hereby petition the Municipal Board for incorporation pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Section 414.02. Hassan Township is the sole remaining Township in Hennepin County with all of its neighboring communities in Hennepin County being statutory cities. Hassan Township is suburban in character, much like its neighboring communities; Hassan enforces zoning and subdivision regulations and has existing residential, commercial and industrial plats of record. The Town Board of Supervisors has determined that the township form government does not adequately protect its citizens given its geographic location and the powers that the State grants to statutory cities. The Supervisors believe it to be in the best interest of the Township to seek incorporation. That on August 5, 1996, the Hassan Town Board passed Resolution Number 8-8-96 entitled "a Resolution Approving Petition for Incorporation." The proposed name of the incorporated municipality is THE CITY OF HASSAN The names of parties entitled to notice pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Section 414.09 are: Municipality or Mailing Address Planning Agency County 1. City of Rogers Hennepin County 12913 Main 55374 Street Rogers 1 Doug I%oatSupke ps Town oa d Su isor Town Board Supervisor Dated this S day of August, 1996. 3 9 Member 7Ao►7psom introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 8-8-96 RESOLUTION APPROVING PETITION FOR INCORPORATION WHEREAS, Hassan Township is the sole township form of government within Hennepin County; that its neighboring communities in Hennepin County are statutory cities with the duties and powers outlined by law; and WHEREAS, Hassan Township is similar in size, population, development and geographic make-up as its municipal neighbors but its current form of government is unable to adequately protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens; and WHEREAS, the Hassan Town Board of Supervisors believes it to be in the best interest of its citizens to adopt the attached Petition for Incorporation and direct its delivery to the executive director of the Municipal Board for hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statute 5414.02. NOW, THEREFORE, the Hassan Town Board of Supervisors resolves to adopt the attached Petition for Incorporation and authorizes its Administrator to forward said Petition to the Executive Director of the Municipal Board, forthwith. 9-s- yT � Date ATTEST:( / dminis ator Town Board Chairman The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Member *7a,4.,7 and, upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: McCrossan, Farr, !Z+ornPson, M4r4n and Posenc}v'(s* and the following voted against the same: Ncne whereupon said Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF OTSECO REQUEST FOR COUNCEL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE 9. COUNCIL ITEMS CITY CLERK Sept. 5, 1996 - 6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,CC 9.3.A. Discuaaion Of letter from James T Elmquist, Special Projecta Administrator - Wright County dated August 29, 1996 - Re Humane Society impounding. BACKGROUND I received this letter on September 3rd and felt the Council would like to discuss it further. I called Don Hozempa and he said this is all very early in the stage of development. They are trying to find out if there is an interest in Wright County for using the Humane Society for impounding. The entities in Wright County could all contribute an amount (not determined yet) to have the Humane Society provide a service of catching, picking up dogs, impounding, etc. I told Don Hozempa we would like to learn more. At this stage he said it is lust investigation as to who would be willing to participate if the price was right. Possibly, the money received could be used to build a holding facility for vicious animals, etc. FOR YOUR INFORMATION: When I talked with Don Hozempa, he suggested that if we are at all interested in the concept of one animal control center (Humane Society) for the Wright County area we should write and let them know we are interested in hearing more and getting more information and willing to participate if the price is right and the program seems to be reasonable. Tha s, il: ati n e RICHARD W. NORMAN County Coordinator August 29, 1996 Dear City Official: CO UNTY OF WRIGHT 10 2nd Street NW, RM 235 Buffalo, Minnesota 55313-1188 Tel: (612) 682-7378 1-800-362-3667 Fax: 612-682-6178 GC�C��I� II U KEN JUDE Irst District PAT qA W4. ZZ.KR Second District JACK RUSSEK Third District JUDIE ROSE Fourth District DICK MATTSON Fifth District On Wednesday, August 28, 1996, the Ways and Means Committee of Wright County discussed the possibility of contracting with the Humane Society for the impounding of dangerous animals within Wright County. Before this is discussed further, the County is asking area Cities if there is an interest to enter into a contracting agreement with the Humane Society where each entity would pay a designated cost. While the specifics of this scenario have not been determinned, the County is interested in knowing if there is a demand for this service. Please respond before September 20, 1996, as the County will be meeting with the Humane Society shortly after. If you have questions please contact Don Hozempa, County Sheriff at 682-7620. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Sincerely, James T. Elmquist Special Projects Administrator CC: Richard Norman, County Coordinator Judy Rose, County Commissioner Pat Sawatzke, County Commissioner Don Hozempa, County Sheriff Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer e F• 1K5 I AK I 7" I CUMFIRNY FIRST CHOICE LAWN CARE e MARCO BUSINESS PRODUCTS U M :1aim Li'SC for Approval aviV 1819 1820 380.00 6.39 +9TERRY.14ITTON'�^ ro•��s, ,� ,, , ; ,4;REFUND A A. 09/03/96 1821 400.00 For the period 09/03/96 to 09/03/9b GAS SERVICE" 09/03/96 1822 115.42 26 H G WEBER OIL COMPANY CLAIM TOTAL 29 1U WHt,Mr,lD FOR WHAT r5UPPOE DATE NUMBER _LAIM s AT & T PHONE SERVICE 09/03/96 1813 20.86 ]' ELAINE BEATTY COOKIES—CC MEETING 09/03/96 1814 12.55 8.54 BUSINESS RECORDS CORP ELECTION SUPPLIES 09/03/96 1815 109.26 o ECM PUBLISHERS INC PUBLISHED LEGAL NOTICES 09/03/96 1816 299.40 '2) 37' 35` 39! 3I ELK RIVER_MUNICIPAL - 09/03/96 1 1 660.43 e F• 1K5 I AK I 7" I CUMFIRNY FIRST CHOICE LAWN CARE e MARCO BUSINESS PRODUCTS U M AutIV I r tt5—ai u .� . oV,�V AUGUST MOWING DICTAPHONE TUBING V 71 V. w 09/03/96 09/03/96 aviV 1819 1820 380.00 6.39 +9TERRY.14ITTON'�^ ro•��s, ,� ,, , ; ,4;REFUND A A. 09/03/96 1821 400.00 20 MINNECaA5C0 +z•: �•, GAS SERVICE" 09/03/96 1822 115.42 26 H G WEBER OIL COMPANY DIESEL FUEL 09/03/96 1827 1,401.46 29 WRIGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC ASSN ELECTRIC SERVICE 09/03/96 1828 767.78 30; u MINNESOTA COPY SYSTEMS NC. COPY MACHINE RENTAL 09/03/96 1823 511.36 .'3I NAPA OF ELK RIVER INC PARTS 09/03/96 1824 8.54 24 RUM RIVER CONST CO 33i PATCH & OVERLAY 09/03/96 1825 4,140.00 2s; U M CkPHONE /6 18. 449.39 .W.. 26 H G WEBER OIL COMPANY DIESEL FUEL 09/03/96 1827 1,401.46 29 WRIGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC ASSN ELECTRIC SERVICE 09/03/96 1828 767.78 30; 3z .. 33i 33i TOTAL FOR MONTH 9,442.84 361 37' 35` 39! - .: TOTAL YEAR -. TO DATE _. - - 386 ,435 .36 401 .z 9 0 a3i I . Claims List for Approval "i For the period 08/30/96 to 08/30/96 a • TO WHOM PAID FOR WHAT PURPOSE DATE NUMBER CLAIM ,5 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND PAY 8/24/96 EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYER 08/30/96 1807 872.71 i6 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST STATE CAPITAL CREDIT UNION 144 56 137 PAY PERIOD 8/24/96 PAY PERIOD 8/24/96 08/30/96 1810 08/30/96 1811