09-23-96 CC�") -1 t , , - 4 j " -�—
hE��%bJr�N do�w�S k2 ✓�n��
T S eYLCecL Y\. a- Y - e c, w �t� �z)6 c) le- 2r
`pY--br�'L `1 � zwtemlc L) r a X vate(, /S -a,
o� sZ n h 0- t ? 4>Le_ o- vi L S -t e- d tA-W%.CLnLen
O -f\ mCL ? `
a u V �' o �- Ste►^ '��
�, �� ► G � O �� C 2 v' e v- ►'"
1 �'1 �1'v'r m 2 `� V� c�� `i' VL J► S cl C e
rtcessa-tet )Dc%-rk:h ? -T- �dE
o C y (1 0. n `t'iti e o c e loo w -t- ` k
t
U C) S l� C P_
SS "- �S �ere-- L-Jc,-,
CA -ted
i�� s in viSP .�- Yecc d��►�
rk S o -n n c/ o s �e n n �l
\0s`{-�r5 �� G n arm c� ��h vL e_
Y",
.J
S w ��� '�Q_ CL -),-,,n
CjL it�yLLC �z
< 0 5 -2 i' t �- ' `' � T NC- 4),n KJT <-- C? I I c �tAo J
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION
DEPARTMENT
MEETING DATE
4.A.
Special Presentation
September 23, 1996
ITEM NUMBER:
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
4A.1.
Levenson & Grote
Judy Hudson DC
BACKGROUND
The City Clerk requested this to be placed on the City Council Agenda under
Special Presentation.
The City Council denied their request for rezoning at the July 8, 1996 City Council Meeting.
Mr. Levenson and the Grote's wrote a letter dated July 15, 1996 (attached) to the Planning
Commission expressing their disappointment in the denial. Andrew MacArthur responded to
them via letter dated July 26, 1996 (attached).
Mr. Levenson and the Grote's sent a letter to the City Council dated August 26, 1996
(attached) asking the City Council to reconsider their original request for re -zoning and sub-
division and to meet on site with City Officials in order to view and discuss the request and clarify
questions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Elaine Beatty will be in attendance at the City Council Meeting for any further discussion
or recommendations.
TO: CITY OF OTSEGO, CITY COUNCIL
08/26/96
PLEASE ACCEPT THIS LETTER AS A REQUEST TO RECONSIDER THE DECISION
MADE ON OUR REZONING APPLICATION. WE BELIEVE THAT DECISIONS MADE AT THE
PLANNING LEVEL WERE BASED PRIMARILY ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE ARE
NOT REQUESTING IN OUR APPLICATION.
OUR INTENT IN THIS REQUEST IS TO UTILIZE THIS AREA AS LARGE LOT
RESIDENTIAL, NOT SMALLER "CITY SIZED " LOTS. BY DIVIDING THE EXISTING 2 LOTS, WE
ARE ONLY INCREASING THE TOTAL TO 4, WITH EXISTING HOMES ON 2 OF THEM. WE ARE
LOOKING TO DIVIDE EXISTING PARCELS INTO LOTS WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE ( PER THE
ZONING REGULATION) OF 1 AC., WITH THE ACTUAL LOT SIZES TO BE MORE IN THE
RANGE OF 1.8 TO 2.4 AC. (APPROX.) . THESE RESULTING LOTS WOULD CERTAINLY BE
LARGE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT PRIVATE SEPTIC SYSTEMS. A NEW RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT VERY NEAR TO THE SOUTH WEST, IN FRANKFORT TWP. IS OF THE SAME
NATURE AS WE ARE REQUESTING. THE SURROUNDING AREA IN OTSEGO IS OF A
RESIDENTIAL NATURE NOW. THERE ARE LOTS RANGING AS SMALL AS 1 AC. IN THE
IMMEDIATE AREA. WE ARE NOT WISHING TO DIVIDE TO A LOT SIZE THAT WOULD
REQUIRE SERVICING BY A PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM. THE EXTENSION OF QUAM AVE. AND
THE ACTUAL USE OF THE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD SEEM TO MAKE THIS DIVISION A
SIMPLE DECISION. WE DON'T FEEL THAT WE WOULD BE A BURDEN TO EXISTING OR
FUTURE CITY SERVICES.
IN CLOSING, WE WOULD ASK THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY IN
ORDER TO RECONSIDER OUR ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR RE -ZONING AND SUB -DIVISION. WE
WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET ON SITE WITH THE
NECESSARY CITY OFFICIALS IN ORDER TO VIEW AND DISCUSS THE REQUEST AND
CLARIFY QUESTIONS ANYONE MAY HAVE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
SINCERELY,
2, //�J
PAUL LEVENSON JER$,Y & LYNN GROTE
William S. Radzwill
indrew J. MacArthur
Michael C. Couti
Megan M. McDonald
July 26, 1996
Jerome & Lynn Grote
16155 NE 62ND
Elk River, MN 55330
RADZW I,L & COURT
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
RE: Denial of Property Rezoning
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Grote:
IE OWE
,�(� 2 91996
�VI
I have been forwarded a copy of your correspondence to the Planning
Commission dated July 15, 1996. The proper remedy for denial of a
request for rezoning is by appeal to the District Court pursuant to
Minn. Stat. 462.361.
The City Zoning Ordinance prohibits submission of a similar
application for amendment for at least one year after the initial
submission. However, there can be reconsideration of a matter if
the Council approves reconsideration by a 4/5 vote. (See attached) .
If you have any questions
Administrator, Elaine Beatty.
Very t ly yours,
A rew J. cArth r
RADZWILL COURI
Encl.
cc:,City of Otsego
Bob Kirmis
Paul Levenson
please contact the City Zoning
20-3-2: PROCEDURE:
* A. Requests for rezoning (text or map) shall be filed with the
City on an official application form. Such application shall
be accompanied by a fee as provided by City Council
resolution. Such application shall also be accompanied by
five (5) large scale copies and thirteen (13) reduced scale
(not less than 11" x 1711) copies of detailed written and
graphic materials fully explaining the proposed change,
development, or use. If, in the opinion of the Zoning
Administrator, reduced scale drawings (11" x 1711) are
determined to be illegible, the submission of larger scale
materials shall be required. The scale of such materials
shall be the minimum necessary to ensure legibility. The
request for amendment shall be placed on the agenda of the
first possible Planning Commission meeting occurring fifteen
(15) working days from the date of submission of the
application. The request shall be considered officially
submitted when all the informational requirements are complied
with.
B. Proof of Ownership or Authorization: The applicant shall
supply proof of title of the property for which the rezoning
is requested, consisting of an abstract of title or registered
property abstract currently certified together with any
unrecorded documents whereby the petitioners acquire a legal
ownership or equitable ownership interest and as applicable
supply documented authorization from the owner(s) of the
property in question to proceed with the requested rezoning.
C. Upon receipt of said application, the City shall set a public
hearing following proper hearing notification as applicable.
The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report
its findings and recommendations to the City Council. Notice
Amended 13 Dec. 1993, Ord. No. 93-15 and 10 Oct. 1994, Ord. No. 94-13
48
, SECTION 3
ADMINISTRATION - AMENDMENTS (TEXT AND MAP)
Section
20-3-1:
Amendments to Zoning Ordinance
20-3-2:
Procedure
20-3-3:
Amendments - Initiation
20-3-1:
AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE: The regulations, restrictions
and boundaries set forth in this Chapter may from time to time
be amended, supplemented, changed or repealed; provided,
however, that no such action may be taken until after a public
hearing in relation thereto, at which parties with interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard. At least
ten (10) days` notice of the time and place of such hearing
shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in
the City. Any action taken pursuant to this Section shall also
be in compliance and accordance with the rules and regulations
of the Department of Natural Resources, State of Minnesota,
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
20-3-2: PROCEDURE:
* A. Requests for rezoning (text or map) shall be filed with the
City on an official application form. Such application shall
be accompanied by a fee as provided by City Council
resolution. Such application shall also be accompanied by
five (5) large scale copies and thirteen (13) reduced scale
(not less than 11" x 1711) copies of detailed written and
graphic materials fully explaining the proposed change,
development, or use. If, in the opinion of the Zoning
Administrator, reduced scale drawings (11" x 1711) are
determined to be illegible, the submission of larger scale
materials shall be required. The scale of such materials
shall be the minimum necessary to ensure legibility. The
request for amendment shall be placed on the agenda of the
first possible Planning Commission meeting occurring fifteen
(15) working days from the date of submission of the
application. The request shall be considered officially
submitted when all the informational requirements are complied
with.
B. Proof of Ownership or Authorization: The applicant shall
supply proof of title of the property for which the rezoning
is requested, consisting of an abstract of title or registered
property abstract currently certified together with any
unrecorded documents whereby the petitioners acquire a legal
ownership or equitable ownership interest and as applicable
supply documented authorization from the owner(s) of the
property in question to proceed with the requested rezoning.
C. Upon receipt of said application, the City shall set a public
hearing following proper hearing notification as applicable.
The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report
its findings and recommendations to the City Council. Notice
Amended 13 Dec. 1993, Ord. No. 93-15 and 10 Oct. 1994, Ord. No. 94-13
48
of said hearing shall consist of a legal property description
and description of the request, and shall be published in the
official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to hearing.
As required by State Statute, written notice of said hearing
shall be mailed to surrounding property owners at least ten
(10) days prior to the hearing. Requests affecting and
located within platted areas of the City shall be noticed to
all property owners within three hundred fifty (350) feet of
the property in question. Requests affecting and located
within non -platted areas of the City shall be noticed to all
property owners within five hundred' (500) feet of the property
in question. A copy of the notice and a list of the property
owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be
attested and made a part of the records of the proceeding.
D. Failure of a property owner to receive said notice shall not
invalidate any such proceedings as set forth within this
Section provided a bona fide attempt has been made to comply
with the notice requirements of this Section.
E. The Zoning Administrator shall instruct the appropriate staff
persons to prepare technical reports where applicable, and
provide general assistance in preparing a recommendation on
the action to the City Council.
F. The City Council and the Planning Commission shall consider
possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment. Their
judgement shall be based upon (but not limited to) the
following factors:
1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific
policies and provisions of the official City
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future
land uses of the area.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance
standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading,
noise, etc.).
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is
proposed.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the
area in which it is proposed.
6. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to
capabilities of streets serving the property.
7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services
and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and
utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's
service capacity.
49
G. The City Council, the Planning Commission, and the City staff
shall have the authority to request additional information
from the applicant or to retain expert testimony at the
expense of the applicant, said information to be declared
necessary to establish performance conditions in relation to
all pertinent sections of this Chapter. Failure on the part of
the applicant to supply all necessary supportive information
may be grounds for denial of the request.
H. The applicant or a designated representative thereof shall
appear before the Planning Commi.43sion*in order to answer
questions concerning the proposed request.
I. The Planning Commission shall recommend approval or denial of
the request.
J. The City Council shall not act upon an amendment until they
have received a report and recommendation from the Planning
Commission or until sixty (60) days after the first regular
Planning Commission meeting at which the request was
considered.
K. Upon completion of the report and recommendation the Planning
Commission, the request shall be placed on the agenda of the
City Council. Such reports and recommendations shall be
entered in and made part of the permanent written record of
the City Council meeting.
L. Upon receiving the report and recommendation of the Planning
Commission and the City staff, the City Council shall have the
option to set and hold a public hearing if deemed necessary.
M. If, upon receiving said reports and recommendations of the
Planning Commission, the City Council finds that specific
inconsistencies exist in the review process and thus the final
recommendation of the City Council will differ from that of
the Planning Commission, the City Council may before taking
final action, refer the matter back to the Planning Commission
for further consideration. The City Council shall provide the
Planning Commission with a written statement detailing the
specific reasons for referral. This procedure shall be
followed only one time on a singular action.
N. Approval of a proposed amendment shall require passage by a
four -fifth's (4/5's) vote of the entire City Council.
O. The amendment shall not become effective until such time as
the City Council approves an ordinance reflecting said
amendment and after said ordinance is published in the
official newspaper.
P. Whenever an application for an amendment has been considered
and denied by the City Council, a similar application and
proposal for an amendment affecting the same property or
50
Ordinance change shall not be considered again by the Planning
Commission or City Council for at least one (1) year from the
date of its denial except as follows:
1. Applications are withdrawn prior to the City Council
taking action on the matter.
2. If the City Council determines that the circumstances
surrounding a previous application have changed
significantly.
3. If the City Council decides to reconsider such matter by
a four -fifth's (4/5's) vote of the entire City Council.
20-3-3: AMENDMENTS - INITIATION: The City Council or Planning
Commission may, upon their own motion, initiate a request to
amend the text or the district boundaries of this Chapter.
The procedural requirements of Sections 20-3-2.A and 20-3-2.B
of this Section shall not apply to such proposed amendments
except to the extent required by State Statute. Any person
owning real estate or having documented interest therein,
within the City may initiate a request to amend the district
and map boundaries or text of this Chapter, so as to affect
the said real estate.
51
JULY 15,1996
TO: MEMBERS OF THE PLANING COMMISSION, CITY OF OTSEGO
THIS LETTER IS IN REGARD TO OUR REQUEST THAT WAS HEARD ON WEDNESDAY,
7/19/96. OUR REQUEST WAS TO ALLOW RE -ZONING OF OUR PROPERTIES IN ORDER TO
FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOMES IN THE AREA. WE WOULD LIKE TO
EXPRESS OUR EXTREME DISAPPOINTMENT IN THE RESPONSE WE RECEIVED TO THIS
REQUEST.
THIS LAND IS CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL UNDER OTSEGO'S CURRENT
ZONING. ANY REVIEW OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD SHOW THAT THIS IS FAR FROM THE
ACTUAL USE OF THIS AREA. THERE ARE HOMES ON LOTS SIZED FROM 1 AC. TO 5.5 AC. THE
CONSENSUS OF MOST PEOPLE IS THAT IT SHOULD BE LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL. THE
ADDITION OF THE NEW QUAM AVENUE EXTENSION THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING BUILT BY
MN/DOT, AVAILS THIS AREA TO RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION. THE AREA CERTAINLY
HOLDS NO AGRICULTURAL VALUE AS IS.
WE HAVE REQUESTED TO BE ZONED R-3, SO WE COULD CONTINUE TO UTILIZE
THIS LAND IN A MANNER THAT WE BELIEVE IT IS BEST SUITED FOR MANY PEOPLE THAT
WE HAVE TALKED TO SEEM TO THINK THAT A REQUEST OF THIS NATURE WOULD BE A
"NO BRAINER" OR ARE SURPRISED TO FIND OUT THAT IT ISN'T ALREADY ZONED IN A
MANNER THAT WOULD ALLOW LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. IT IS OUR DESIRE TO
DEVELOP THE NEWLY CREATED LOTS AS LARGE RESIDENTIAL. WE HAVE NO DESIRE TO
HAVE WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED "CITY SIZED LOTS". WE ENJOY THE FREEDOM AND
ROOM THAT LARGE RESIDENTIAL LOTS AFFORD US.
DURING DISCUSSION AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MOST OF THE
TALK REVOLVED AROUND CITY SEWER. THE LOT SIZES THAT WE INTEND ON HAVING
WOULD CERTAINLY SUPPORT PRIVATE SEPTIC SYSTEMS. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT
ALTHOUGH OUR REQUEST MAKES SENSE, IT IS PREMATURE DUE TO THE LACK OF CITY
SEWER AVAILABILITY. IF WE WERE MAKING A REQUEST FOR SMALLER CITY SIZED LOTS,
THIS WOULD BE UNDERSTANDABLE. WE ARE NOT MAKING A REQUEST FOR LOT SIZES
THAT CANNOT SUPPORT PRIVATE SEWER SYSTEMS. WE FEEL THAT THE PLANING
COMMISSIONS RECONB ENDATION AGAINST THIS REQUEST IS OUT OF LINE, AS WE
WOULD NOT REQUIRE CITY SEWER, NOR COULD THE CITY PROVIDE IT IF IT WAS
REQUESTED. WE CAN SEE NO REASON WHY, BY THE ADDITION OF TWO BUILDING LOTS,
THAT THE URBAN SERVICE AREA NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED, MUCH LESS A SANITARY
SEWER SERVICE DISTRICT CREATED, SINCE THERE IS ACTUALLY NO MORE THAN A
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A SEWER SYSTEM IN EXISTENCE. IF ANYTHING IS PREMATURE, IT
WOULD BE A DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BASED ON A SEWER SYSTEM
THAT IS NOT IN EXISTENCE, AND IS ONLY AN IDEA AT THIS POINT IN TIME. FROM A
COMMON SENSE STANDPOINT, WE CANNOT SEE ANY GOOD REASON WHY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE RECOMMENDED AGAINST THIS REQUEST.
ON THE POSITIVE SIDE OF OUR REQUEST, DEVELOPING THIS LAND AS NEW LARGE
LOT RESIDENTIAL IS A BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY. THE ASCETICS OF THE LAND
WOULD BE IMPROVED, WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO THE RESIDENTS THAT WILL HAVE TO
TRAVEL PAST IT ON A DAILY BASIS. THE ABILITY TO HAVE HOMES ON LOTS THAT ARE
OVER 1 AC. IN SIZE (THESE LOTS BEING CLOSER TO 2 AC. IN SIZE) LENDS SOME VALUE TO
THE CONCEPT OF HAVING A SOMEWHAT "RURAL SETTING" IN THE COMMUNITY AND
WOULD BLEND NICELY WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN FRANKFORT TWP.
THAT IS MERELY A STONES THROWAWAY. ONE MORE ALWAYS IMPORTANT ISSUE IS THE
ADDITIONAL VALUE OF THE DEVELOPED PROPERTIES TO THE TAX ROLLS OF THE
COMMUNITY. IN LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY, IN DISCUSSIONS WITH NEIGHBORS, IN
TALKS WITH BUILDERS AND REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS IN THE AREA, WE HAVE NOT
BEEN ABLE TO COME UP WITH ONE NEGATIVE ASPECT TO THIS REQUEST.
IN CLOSING, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DO
ANYTHING, AND EVERYTHING WITHIN THEIR POWER TO CORRECT THIS PROBLEM AS IT
STANDS, AND TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE REQUEST FOR RE-
ZONING BE APPROVED AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY REQUESTED. IF THERE ARE ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS, WE WILL BE AVAILABLE TO DISCUSS THEM OR MEET ON SITE IF THAT
WOULD BE HELPFUL IN ORDER TO VIEW THE PROPERTY AND PUT THIS REQUEST IN THE
PROPER PERSPECTIVE. WE ANXIOUSLY AWAIT YOUR RESPONSE.
SINCERELY,
PAUL LEVENSON
/j, L�
JEROME & LYNN GROTE
DOCUMENT HAS BEENCOPtED
& DISTRIBUTED T .
MAYOR PC
COUNCIL `� EDAAC
CLERK PKS & REC
PLANNER BLDG IPSP _
ATTORNEY OTHER/ �,
ENGINEER _... DATE
-��
CITY OF OTSECO
REQUEST FOR COUNCEL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE
5. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK Sept. 23, 1996 - 6:30PM
iTh;M NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB, CC
5.1. Consider Chris Bulow - Excavation Permit for Driveway
RACRGi QVff D
Chris Bulow asked to build a driveway back off of #39 to his lot on
the Mississippi River. I understood he was not excavating. We found
out that he was excavating soil and adding granular material.
This requires an excavation permit. The fee for this is $75.00 and we
needed plans. He drew up the plans and showed where the material was
being excavated and how the driveway was to be built and where.
We charged him double fee ($150.00) for getting a permit late and the
inspections we had done. Larry Koshak and Jerry Olson have both
reviewed the project and agree that it is in compliance and recommend
approval of the Excavation permit.
STAFF RECObOdENDATION:
Approval of the Excavation Permit as ger Professional Staff
recommendation.
Thanks,
Elaine
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION
DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE
5.
Consent Agenda September 23, 1996
ITEM NUMBER:
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
5.2.
Vacation of part of ODean Ave Judy Hudson DC
BACKGROUND
This is from the result of the street construction project of Odean Avenue at the
intersection of CSAH 37.
The City Attorney has everything prepared for this Hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to set the Hearing Date for vacation of Odean Avenue at the intersection of
CSAH 37 for October 14, 1996 at 8 PM. (City Council Meeting).
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION
DEPARTMENT
MEETING DATE
6.
Planning
September 23, 1996
ITEM NUMBER:
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
11 6.1.
CUP Move in Home
Judy Hudson DC
BACKGROUND
Mr. and Mrs. Scott Moehlmann have requested a CUP to move in a house on their lot at
9060 95th Street.
The Planning Commission held a Hearing on September 4, 1996 and approved their request
subject to all thirteen conditions listed in the attached Findings of Fact.
The condition the Planning Commission changed was #3 regarding the driveway access changing
from CSAH 39 to Jalger Avenue. They changed to reflect access relocation shall occur only if the
following conditions can be satisfied:
a. The cost of the driveway relocation is borne entirely by Wright County.
b. A determination is made by the Building Inspector that the driveway
relocation will not adversely affect the location of the site's drainfields.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
To accept the Planning Commission's Recommendation for approval of the Conditional Use
Permit to allow a relocated single family residence to 9060 95th Street NE, of Section 15, Range
24, 118-800-152201 subject to the conditions listed in the Findings of Facts.
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:
Otsego Mayor and City Council
Bob Kirmis
11 September 1996
Otsego - Moehimann CUP
176.02 - 96.17
Attached please find Findings of Fact applicable to the Moehlmann conditional use permit
request.
Please note that the findings reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation.
This item is scheduled for City Council consideration on 23 September.
PC: Elaine Beatty
Jerry Olson
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Wayne Fingleson
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPROVAL
CITY OF OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
IN RE: FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
Application of Scott and Gary Moehlmann for a conditional use permit to allow a relocated
single family residence to lie upon an existing lot of record within the City.
On 23 September 1996, the Otsego City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting
to consider the application for the conditional use permit. Based on the application, the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, and the evidence received, the City Council
now makes the following findings of fact and decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to allow a relocated single
family residence to lie upon an existing lot of record.
2. The subject property is zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural Service.
3. The placement of a relocated single family residence is a conditionally permitted
use the City.
4. The Legal description of the property is as follows:
The northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 121, Range 24, W. Wright County
Minn. Beginning at the southwest corner of the north half of said northwest quarter
thence north along the west line of said Section 255.1 feet thence east at right
angles 275.67 feet for a point of beginning thence continuing east along the same
line 140 feet thence south parallel with the west line to the center line of County
Highway 39; thence northwest along center line 224 feet to a point; thence north in
a straight line to the point of beginning except that part now being used for County
Highway No. 39.
5. Section 20-4-21 of the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and
City Council to consider seven possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional
use. The seven effects and findings regarding them are:
a. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and
provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use of the subject property will be compatible with adjacent
properties. As such, the use is consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
b. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of
the area.
The enforcement of building code requirements shall ensure compatibility
with surrounding uses. In consideration of the residence's condition, design
type, and applicable building code requirements, the proposed use will be
compatible with present and future land uses in the area.
C. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained
herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
The proposed use will conform to all applicable performance standards.
d. The proposed use's effect on the area in which it is proposed.
The proposed use will not tend to or have an adverse effect upon the area
in which it is proposed.
e. The proposed use's impact upon the property values of the area in
which it is proposed.
The proposed use will not tend to depreciate area property values.
f. Traffic generated by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of
streets serving the property.
Traffic generated by the proposed use is within the capabilities of County
Road 39 which serves the property. Such access location does, however,
conflict with a comprehensive plan policy which discourages single family lot
access to high volume streets.
g. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities
including parks, schools, streets and utilities, and its potential to
overburden the City's service capacity.
The proposed use will not overburden the City's service capacity.
2.
6. The planning report dated 22 August 1996, prepared by Northwest Associated
Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein.
7. On 4 September 1996, the Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing to consider the proposed conditional use permit application preceded by
published and mailed notice. Upon review of the conditional use permit application
and evidence received, the Otsego Planning Commission closed the public hearing
and recommended that the City Council approve the conditional use permit based
on the aforementioned findings.
DECISION
Based on the foregoing considerations and applicable ordinance, the applicant's request
for a conditional use permit to relocate a single family residence to an existing lot of record
is approved in its present form and subject to the following stipulations.
1. The structure is fully converted from a two family to a single family unit. To ensure
such conversion, the dwelling shall be wired for one electric meter and provided
one water meter. In no case shall the structure be occupied by more than one
family.
2. The relocated structure is shifted so as to comply with the applicable 35 foot
setback from Jalger Avenue.
3. The existing driveway access to County Road 39 is obliterated and a new access
be provided from Jalger Avenue. Such access relocation shall occur only if the
following conditons can be satisfied:
a. The cost of the driveway relocation is borne entirely by Wright County.
b. A determination is made by the Building Inspector that the driveway
relocation will not adversely affect the location of the site's drainfields.
4. The relocated residence comply with all applicable requirements of the State
Building Code. This item should be subject to further comment by the City Building
Official.
5. The relocated structure is ready for occupancy within six months from the date of
location on the site.
6. The applicants comply with the recommendations of the City Building Official and/or
the City Engineer in regard to well and sewage treatment issues.
c
7. The relocated structure comply with applicable A-1 District height requirements.
8. The applicant provide proof to the City that the house move is performed by a
licensed mover in accordance with applicable State requirements.
9. The applicant notify the City of the route and exact timing of the move.
10. The site's existing structure is removed from the subject property prior to occupancy
of the relocated building.
11. The applicants comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer in regard to
easement establishment.
12. A performance security is posted in an amount determined appropriate by the
Zoning Administrator. The security should be reflective of anticipated improvement
costs (foundation work, etc.).
13. Findings are made by the Heritage Preservation Commission that the home to be
demolished is of no historical significance.
ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this _ day of , 1996.
ATTEST:
Bv:
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
4.
CITY OF OTSEGO
IN
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
v �2
M
4 w o67
Zj ,dY
7855
WRIGHT COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Elaine Beatty, Clerk
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue Northeast
Otsego, Minnesota 55330
Wright County Public Works Building
1901 Highway 25 North
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
Jct. T.H. 25 and C.R. 138
Telephone (612)682-7383
Facsimile (612) 682-7313
September 17, 1996
Subject: Otsego - Moehlmann Building Relocation CVP
CSAH 39/Jalger Avenue
Dear Elaine:
D,
SEP 1 9 1996
YNE A. FINGALSON, P.E.
Highway F.n ginm..
682-7388
VIRGIL G. HAWKINS, P.E.
Assistant Highway Engineer
682-7387
RICHARD E. MARQUETTE
Right of Way Agent
682-7386
This letter is a follow-up to my phone conversation with Bob Kirmis of NAC
regarding above -referenced conditional use permit. I appreciate the city's comprehensive
plan policy which discourages single family lot access to high volume streets. This is, of
course, consistent with Wright County's Transportation Plan.
As I discussed with Mr. Kirmis, the Wright County Highway Department would be
willing to remove the existing driveway access to County State Aid Highway No. 39, if that
would help expedite this matter. We would not, however, construct the new access from
Jalger Avenue.
I trust this information is helpful to you. Please keep me posted of the timetable for
this issue.
Sincerely,
tWayeFingals
gineer
PC: Bob Kirmis, NAC
Steve Meyer, Maintenance Superintendent
Virgil Hawkins, Assistant Engineer
Richard Marquette, Engineering Assistant
js
Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION
DEPARTMENT
MEETING DATE
6.
Planning
September 23, 1996
ITEM NUMBER:
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
6.2•
CUP Move in Home
Judy Hudson DC
BACKGROUND
Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Jackson have requested a CUP to move in a house on their lot at 14036
67th Circle.
The Planning Commission held a Hearing on September 4, 1996 and approved their request
subject to all ten conditions listed in the attached Findings of Fact.
The Planning Commission also requested the applicant provide documentation to the City of the
location of the ordinary high water mark which would be done by the DNR. This information
has not been received as of 9-19-96 but will be required prior to the issuance of a Building
Permit. Another concern of the Planning Commission was the condition of the foundation. This,
of course, will be the Building Official's responsibility.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
To accept the Planning Commission's Recommendation for approval of the Conditional Use
Permit to allow a relocated single family residence to Lot 1, Block 1, Praught's Addition
subject to the conditions listed in the Findings of Facts.
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
COMMUNITY PLANNING 9 DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Otsego Mayor and City Council
Bob Kirmis
11 September 1996
Otsego - Jackson CUP
176.02 - 96.18
Attached please find Findings of Fact applicable to the Jackson conditional use permit
request.
Please note that the findings reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation.
This item is scheduled for City Council consideration on 23 September.
PC: Elaine Beatty
Jerry Olson
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837
M
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPROVAL
CITY OF OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
IN RE: FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
Application of Douglas and Debra Jackson for a conditional use permit to allow a relocated
single family residence to lie upon an existing lot of record within the City.
On 23 September 1996, the Otsego City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting
to consider the application for the conditional use permit. Based on the application, the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, and the evidence received, the City Council
now makes the following findings of fact and decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to allow a relocated single
family residence to lie upon an existing lot of record.
2. The subject property is zoned R-3, Residential -Immediate Urban Service Area.
3. The placement of a relocated single family residence is a conditionally permitted
use the City.
4. The Legal description of the property is as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Praughts Addition, City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota
5. Section 20-4-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and
City Council to consider seven possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional
use. The seven effects and findings regarding them are:
a. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and
provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use of the subject property will be compatible with adjacent
properties. As such, the use is consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan the property's R-3 zoning designation.
b. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of
the area.
The enforcement of building code requirements shall ensure compatibility
with surrounding uses. In consideration of the residence's condition, design
type, and applicable building code requirements, the proposed use will be
compatible with present and future land uses in the area.
C. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained
herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
The proposed use will conform to all applicable performance standards.
d. The proposed use's effect on the area in which it is proposed.
The proposed use will not tend to or have an adverse effect upon the area
in which it is proposed.
e. The proposed use's impact upon the property values of the area in
which it is proposed.
The proposed use will not tend to depreciate area property values.
f. Traffic generated by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of
streets serving the property.
Traffic generated by the proposed use is within the capabilities of 67th Street
which serves the property.
g. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities
including parks, schools, streets and utilities, and its potential to
overburden the City's service capacity.
The proposed use will not overburden the City's service capacity.
6. The planning report dated 21 August 1996, prepared by Northwest Associated
Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein.
7. On 4 September 1996, the Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing to consider the proposed conditional use permit application preceded by
published and mailed notice. Upon review of the conditional use permit application
2
and evidence received, the Otsego Planning Commission closed the public hearing
and recommended that the City Council approve the conditional use permit based
on the aforementioned findings.
DECISION
Based on the foregoing considerations and applicable ordinance, the applicant's request
for a conditional use permit to relocate a single family residence to an existing lot of record
is approved in its present form and subject to the following stipulations.
1. The relocated residence comply with all applicable requirements of the State
Building Code. This item should be subject to further comment by the City Building
Official.
2. The relocated structure meet all setback requirements, including the 100 foot
shoreland setback requirement to Mud Lake.
3. The relocated structure is ready for occupancy within six months from the date of
location on the site.
4. The applicants comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer in regard to
the drainage and utility easement.
5. The applicants comply with the recommendations of the City Building Official and/or
the City Engineer in regard to well and sewage treatment issues.
6. The applicant provide proof to the City that the house move is performed by a
licensed mover in accordance with applicable State requirements.
7. The applicant notify the City of the route and exact timing of the move.
8. The site's existing structure is removed from the subject property prior to occupancy
of the relocated building.
9. A performance security is posted in an amount determined appropriate by the
Zoning Administrator. The security should be reflective of anticipated improvement
costs (foundation work, etc.).
10. Access to the new home be provided only from N.E. 67th Circle. Direct lot access
from County Road 37 shall be prohibited.
4A
ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this _ day of , 1996.
ATTEST:
91
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
4•
CITY OF OTSEGO
M
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
U,
William S. Radzwill
Andrew J. MacArthur
Michael C. Couti
Megan M. McDonald
September 18, 1996
RADZWILL & CO URI
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
City Council Members
City of Otsego
c/o Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: Revised Feedlot Ordinance- Proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendments
Dear Council Members:
Enclosed, as directed, please find a proposed Feedlot Ordinance
that hopefully meets with the approval of the City Council, and is
in concurrence with the consensus reached at the recent workshop
meetings regarding this matter.
The new ordinance prohibits the establishment of any new feedlot
within the City. I have defined a feedlot as an operation that
contains more than ten (10) animal units so as to allow small
operations and hobby farms. The draft ordinance also prohibits the
expansion of any operation less than ten (10) animal units to
animal feedlot size.
The draft ordinance also prohibits the expansion of any existing
animal feedlot. Existing facilities are allowed to continue as
legal non -conformities. I have put in the ordinance specific
criteria for what is to be considered an "alteration" of use under
Section 20-15 of the present zoning ordinance related to the unique
nature of a farming operation.
In other words, because of the seasonal and cyclical nature of
farming, there are going to be fluctuations in the number of animal
units at a facility. As far as enforcement is concerned, I believe
the City would have a difficult time enforcing small increases in
the number of animal units.
Letter to Otsego City Council
September 18, 1996
Page 2
Therefore, the draft ordinance sets forth guidelines for
interpretation of the term "alteration" as used in Section 20-15 of
the Zoning Ordinance, which are specific to the Section on Feedlot
Regulations. The intent of this provision is to allow existing
facilities to continue operating in their "traditional" manner and
to only trigger an alteration in use at such time that construction
is proposed or done for additional facilities to house animals, or
construction of a lagoon related to expansion of animal units. It
allows expansion of the number of animal units as long as they can
be housed in existing structures and are in conformance with City
regulations regarding the care and treatment of animals, and other
City ordinances. The ordinance also provides an absolute cumulative
cap on the increase of animal units at one hundred and twenty (120)
percent of the number existing at the time of adoption of the
ordinance.
I have also provided a provision that allows a lawfully established
animal feedlot to reconstruct to the same level of operation even
if more than fifty ( 50 ) percent of the value of the building is
destroyed. This specifically exempts it from 20-15-3, J which
requires other non -conformities to conform if more than fifty (50)
percent of the building is destroyed.
The ordinance provides that all animal feedlots be in compliance
with all applicable MPGA rules and regulations, and that they take
responsible measures to minimize odors.
All animal feedlots may continue operating at their present
location as long as they are in compliance with this Section and
any other applicable City ordinances.
The manure/ stockpile application setbacks have been retained as
they apply to existing facilities.
The section on facility closures has been retained, although the
portion regarding security has been deleted since there will be no
application process in which the City could collect the security.
The section on abandonment as been retained.
The other sections of the proposed ordinance mostly have to do with
necessary changes in language throughout the ordinance to provide
consistency with the changes proposed.
I would note the following changes:
1. A special section of the Definition section of the Zoning
Ordinance has once again been established but many of the terms
have been deleted. Only those necessary to the new ordinance have
been retained.
Letter to Otsego City Council
September 18, 1996
Page 3
2. The definition of farm has been changed to include language
indicating the new ordinance regarding animal feedlots.
3. The definition of farming has also been changed to include
reference to the new ordinance language on animal feedlots.
4. Section 20-51-5,D, 1,2, and 3 have been deleted which allowed
feedlots as a conditional use in the A-1 District has been deleted.
You will also find enclosed with this letter a proposed resolution
amending certain portions of the City Comprehensive Plan to more
specifically set forth a distinction between the current
agricultural operations within the City and what the City seeks to
prohibit; large, concentrated, industrial farming. This proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is also set for hearing on
October 2 before the Planning Commission.
As the City Council is aware, the issues presented to the City of
Otsego are being fought out throughout the state. While the poor
choice of words used by the Court of Appeals in the Valadco case
has somewhat obscured the issue of the authority of local units of
government versus the state authority over feedlots, I believe that
the ordinance presented herein is defendable for some of the
following reasons:
1. Otsego is a municipality with zoning authority apart from the
County. It is not uncommon for a County ordinance to prohibit
feedlot operations from half a mile upward from a municipal border.
2. The Preamble to the MPCA Rules specifically indicates that land
use decisions are left to local units of government.
3. Recent District Court decisions have rejected the idea that MPGA
rules preclude local zoning authority over the location of
feedlots. See Charles Neitzel et al. v. County of Redwood et. al.,
521 NW2d 73 (Minn. App. 1994), and that control of pollution from
feedlots is fully covered by State law. See Blue Earth County Pork
Producers, Inc. v. Blue Earth County (May, 1995), currently on
appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
4. The rapid growth in the area and the number of residents within
the City limits at this time would argue strongly that. the area is
not "rural" at this time and quite clearly will rapidly lose any
"rural" character within the very near future.
It came to my attention last week that the Planning Commission had
included in their agenda for this week possible discussion of the
ordinance prior to Council review. As I believe that this would
cause an inappropriate and confusing record, that meeting was
cancelled at my request.
r
Letter to Otsego City Council
September 18, 1996
Page 4
The intent of this ordinance was to effectuate the perceived intent
of the Council at the last meeting to prohibit new feedlots and
feedlot expansions, but to allow existing operations to continue,
with some flexibility. We have been given a very short time frame
to attempt to effectuate this. This ordinance will probably not
cover every conceivable scenario, but it. -is our attempt to
effectuate the perceived intent of the Council.
I will be available to discuss this matter further at the City
Council meeting on Monday night.
Ver my yours,
rew ac ur
RADZAIt & COURI
Encls.
cc: Bob Kirmis, NAC
Larry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson
Feedlot Committee
Planning Commission
DRAFT 3- 9/18/96
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
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 definition:
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 other areas not normally used for pasture or
crops and in 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. Animal Feedlot Permit: A permit issued by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) when the potential pollution hazard
will not be corrected within ten (10) months of the date of permit
issuance or when manure is not used as domestic fertilizer. This
permit shall contain such conditions and requirements as the agency
deems necessary in order to insure compliance with applicable state
rules.
1. Animal Unit (AU): A unit of measure used to compare differences
in the production of animal manures that employs as a standard the
amount of manure produced on a regular basis by a slaughter steer
or heifer. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following
equivalents shall apply:
Animal
One mature dairy cow
One slaughter steer or heifer
One horse
One swine over
One duck
One sheep
One swine under
One turkey
One chicken
55 pounds
55 pounds
AU Per Animal
1.40
1.00
1.00
.40
.20
.10
.05
.018
.01
For animals not listed above, the number of animal units shall be
def ined as the average weight of the animal divided by one thousand
(1,000) pounds.
3. Domestic Fertilizer:
A. Animal manure that is put on or injected into the soil to
improve the quality or quantity of plant growth; or
B. Animal manure that is used as compost, soil conditioners or
specialized plant beds.
4. Earthen Basin: A dike or excavated structure , often lined with
clay or synthetic liner, in which manure is stored. The basin is
emptied at least once each year. It is designed by a professional
engineer or Natural Resources Conservation Service/Soil and Water
Conservation District (NRCS)/(SWCD) technician.
2. Feedlot, Animal: A lot or building or combination of lots and
buildings intended for the confined feeding, breeding, raising, or
holding of animals and specifically designed as a confinement area
in which manure may accumulate, or where the concentration of
animals is such that a vegetative cover cannot be maintained within
the enclosure. For purposes of these parts, open lots used for
feeding and rearing of poultry (poultry ranges) and barns, dairy
farms, swine facilities, beef lots and barns, horse stalls, mink
ranches and zoos, shall be considered to be animal feedlots.
Pastures shall not be considered animal feedlots under these parts,
nor shall any area as above described which contains ten (10)
animal units or less.
3. Feedlot, New Animal: An animal feedlot constructed and operated
at a site where no animal feedlot existed previously or where a
pre-existing animal feedlot has been abandoned or unused for a
period of five (5) years or more.
4. 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.
5. Interim Permit: A permit issued by the MPCA which expires no
later than ten (10) months from the date of issuance.
4. Lagoon: A manure treatment structure, typically earthen. Lagoons
can be aerobic, anaerobic, or facultive depending on their design.
An anaerobic lagoon is different from an earthen storage basin in
that the lagoon is managed for manure treatment. Anaerobic lagoons
are only partially emptied each year whereas earthen storage basins
are emptied once or twice a year.
5. Manure, Animal: The fecal and urinary excretions of livestock
and poultry. Manure can include bedding material and water used for
livestock. Types of manure have descriptive names such as liquid,
slurry and solid. Manure that has a content of more than ninety-six
(96) percent moisture is liquid. Manure with a moisture content
between ninety (90) and ninety-six (96) percent is referred to as
slurry. A moisture content of less than eighty-four (84) percent is
considered solid.
6. Pastures: Areas where grass or other growing plants are used for
grazing and where the concentration of animals is such that a
vegetation cover is maintained during the growing season except in
the immediate vicinity of temporary supplemental feeding or water
devices.
Section 3. Section 20-2-2, F, of the Otsego City Code ("Farm
definition") is hereby amended to read as follows:
Farm: An unplatted tract of land having one quarter -quarter section
containing approximately ten (10) acres or more, or two or more
abutting parcels under the same ownership having an area of ten
(10) acres, measured from the centerline of abutting roads, usually
with a house and barn and other buildings, and on which crops are
raised as well as livestock in numbers which do not constitute an
animal feedlot, unless the operation is allowed to keep a larger
number of animals pursuant to rights as specified in Section 20-15
of this Chapter.
Section 4. Section 20-2-2, F, of the Otsego City Code ("Farming"
definition) is amended to read as follows:
Farming: The process of operating a farm for the growing and
harvesting of crops which shall include those necessary buildings,
related to operating the farm, and the limited keeping of animals
which does not constitute an animal feedlot, unless the operation
is allowed to keep a larger number of animals pursuant to rights as
specified in Section 20-15 of this Chapter.
Section 5. Section 20-26-3 of the Otsego City Code ("Farms") is
hereby amended to read as follows:
ANIMAL FEEDLOTS: Animal Feedlots are prohibited, except for
operations which are allowed to continue operating pursuant to
rights as specified in Section- 20-15 of this Chapter.
Section 6. Section 20-27-4.0 of the Otsego City Code ("Farm Animal
Regulations") is hereby 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 7. Section 20-27-4.E of the Otsego City Code ("Farm Animal
Regulations") is hereby amended to read as follows:
E. All regulations imposed by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) 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 8. Section 20-27-5, D of the Otsego City Code ("Animal
Regulations") is hereby amended to read as follows:
D. Manure and other waste materials shall be removed and
distributed so as to eliminate unsightly odors, insect, and rodent
problems or any condition which operates as a public or private
nuisance. The storage of manure and other waste materials shall be
in compliance with Section 20-38 of this Chapter.
Section 9. Section 38 of the Otsego City Code ("Feedlot
Regulations") is hereby amended to read as follows:
FEEDLOT REGULATIONS
SECTION:
20-38-1
Purpose
20-38-2
Allowed Feedlots
20-38-3
Prohibited Feedlots
20-38-4
Construction of Section 20-15 "Alterations"
20-38-5
Destruction Of Existing Animal Feedlots
20-38-6
Existing Feedlots: Compliance With MPCA Requirements
20-38-7
Odors
20-38-8
Feedlot Setbacks
20-38-9
Manure Stockpile/Application Setbacks
20-38-10
Facility Closure
20-38-11
Abandonment
20-38-1: PURPOSE: The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to
prohibit the establishment of new animal feedlots within the City
of Otsego and to regulate existing feedlot operations within the
City of Otsego in a manner conducive to the health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens of Otsego. These controls are needed due to
the recent incorporation from township status to City status and
the unique location of the municipality in relation to the
Metropolitan Area. These regulations are also necessary to promote
the planning process within the City and to protect the health,
safety, and welfare of the residents of the City as well as to:
A. Establish conditions under which existing animal feedlots within
the City can continue to operate.
B. Prohibit the establishment of new animal feedlots within the
City.
C. To prohibit the expansion of existing animal feedlots to levels
not conducive with the present character of the City.
D. To provide regulations which can be applied in a fair and
equitable nature, but that take into account the inherent fluid
nature of an ongoing farm operations and the difficulty of applying
strict numbers as criteria for control of an ongoing operation.
D. Promote best farm management practices.
E. Protect valuable groundwater and surface water resources.
F. Protect human and animal health.
G. Implement specific policies and provisions of the official City
Comprehensive Plan.
H. Promote compatibility of uses.
I. Promote continuance of agricultural uses at their present scale,
while protecting the residents from nuisances caused by large, non-
traditional, and intense agricultural uses which are better located
away from a municipality.
J. Coordinate and assist state agencies in the administration of
state-wide statutes and regulations governing livestock operations.
20-38-2: ALLOWED FEEDLOTS: Those feedlots presently existing within
the City may continue operations at the present level as legal
nonconforming uses as set forth in Section 20-15 of this Chapter,
and as long as they do not constitute a potential pollution hazard.
Such feedlots may only continue on the condition that they obtain
approval from MPCA, if necessary.
20-38-3: PROHIBITED FEEDLOTS: No new animal feedlots shall be
established within the City. No existing animal feedlot is allowed
to expand beyond its level of operation at the date of passage of
this ordinance, subject to 20-38-4 of this Section. No operation or
facility established with ten (10) animal units or less may expand
to more than that number.
20-38-4: CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 20-15: It is understood that by
its nature the raising of animals and farming creates a situation
where there are seasonal, natural, fluctuations in the number of
animals within a facility. Due to these peculiar situations, and
only for purposes of this Section, the phrase "alteration"
contained in Section 20-15 of this ordinance shall only be
construed as an alteration of a legally established pre-existing
use in the following circumstances:
1. In a case where a new structure is constructed or is
proposed for construction for the purpose of housing additional
animals.
2. In a case where a lagoon or earthen basin associated with
an increase in animal units is constructed or proposed for
construction.
3. In a case where an existing animal feedlot is not in
compliance with the terms and conditions of an MPGA permit or
Interim Permit.
4. In the case where additional animal units place the
facility in violation of current City Ordinances regarding the care
of animals.
5. Any increase of the total number of animal units in an
animal feedlot which raises the cumulative total of animal units
above one hundred twenty (120) percent of the number present at the
date of adoption of this ordinance.
6. Ongoing violations of other City ordinances.
20-38-5: DESTRUCTION OF EXISTING ANIMAL FEEDLOTS: Notwithstanding
20-15-3, J of this Chapter, any animal feedlot lawfully existing as
a non -conforming use and any structures or buildings lawfully
existing and which are used for the purpose of containing animals
associated with the non -conforming animal feedlot use which are
destroyed or partially destroyed to the extent of more than fifty
(50) percent of its fair market value may be restored and the same
use resumed (if such use was lawfully existing as a non -conforming
use prior to such damage and destruction) or any conforming use
established, provided that such reconstruction be completed within
twelve months after the date of such damage or destruction.
20-38-6: COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REQUIREMENTS: All existing animal
feedlots operating on the date of this ordinance shall continue
operating only in strict compliance with all applicable MPCA rules
and regulations.
20-38-7: ODORS: Existing 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.
20-38-8: FEEDLOT SETBACKS: Lawfully established feedlots existing
prior to the effective date of this ordinance may be continued in
the location existing on such date.
20-38-9: MANURE STOCKPILE/APPLICATION SETBACKS: The following
manure stockpile and application setbacks are required for all new
and existing feedlots:
CATEGORY
MANURE APPLICATION
Surface/ Incorporated
Irrigation or Injected
Public lake, 300 feet
river, or
stream
Public streets 25 feet -
(as measured surface
from the outer 300 feet -
boundary of the irrigation
right-of-way)
STOCKPILES
100 feet -lake 300 feet
50 feet-
river/stream
10 feet 25 feet
Platted 300 feet- 300 feet 300 feet
Subdivisions surface
1,000 feet -
irrigation
Municipal wells
200
feet
200
feet
300
feet
Private wells
200
feet
200
feet
200
feet
Public or 300 feet 100 feet 300 feet
private ditch
Residence other 300 feet- 300 feet 300 feet
than landowner surface
or operator 1,000 feet -
irrigation
20-38-10: FACILITY CLOSURE:
A. Responsible Parties: The landowner, owner and operator of
an existing animal feedlot shall be responsible for the ongoing
management of manure and the final closure of the facility
including the cleaning of buildings and the emptying and proper
disposal of manure from all manure holding facilities.
B. Closure: If an existing feedlot operation ceases operation,
the owner and/or operator shall be responsible for the following:
1. All wastes from the feedlot operation and its waste
control system shall be removed and disposed of on land or in some
other legally permissible manner as soon as practical, but no more
than six (6) months, and in a manner conducive to the public
health, safety, and welfare.
2. Closure of the operation may be postponed for a period
of twelve (12) months if the property is posted for sale.
3. Notification to the City that the feedlot operation
has been discontinued, and that the property is in compliance with
this Section of the ordinance.
4. If the property is for sale, notification shall be
given to all potential buyers of the status of the feedlot use of
the property as a legal nonconformity which must comply with all
presently applicable zoning ordinances if the legal nonconformity
is discontinued for a period of six (6) months, as well as the
other provisions of Section 20-15 of this Chapter.
20-38-11: 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 10. Section 20-51-2.A of the Otsego City Code (11A-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.
Section 11. Section 20-51-5.D, 1,2, and 3 of the Otsego City Code
(11A-1 District Conditional Uses- Commercial Feedlots"), is hereby
deleted:
Section 12. Section 20-52-2.A of the Otsego City Code (11A-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 13. 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:
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
By:
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTSEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
RELATED TO CITY AGRICULTURAL POLICY AND TO THE RURAL USES PORTION
OF THE CITY LAND USE PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Otsego desires to establish certain changes in
the existing Comprehensive Plan to address the issue of large,
concentrated agricultural operations, which cannot be properly
accommodated within a municipality; and
WHEREAS, such operations have the potential to operate as a
nuisance within the community, are not compatible with residential
uses, and are not appropriate within a municipality which will be
undergoing substantial residential, commercial, and industrial
expansion in the near future; and
WHEREAS, the present Comprehensive Plan does not adequately draw a
distinction between the presently existing agricultural operations
within the City and those more intense operations, such as large
scale animal feedlots.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
OTSEGO, AS FOLLOWS:
That the following amendments are hereby made to the existing
Otsego Comprehensive Plan:
1. Page 33, Policies, Agricultural, No. 4, is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"The keeping of the present levels of farm animals shall be
confined to the rural designated areas of the community or farming
operations already established. There shall be no new animal
feedlots established within the City. Presently existing animal
feedlots which were legally established may continue operating at
their present level, but any further expansion of these operations
shall be prohibited. It is not in the best interest of the City to
allow large, concentrated, and intensive animal facilities within
the municipal limits, especially in light of the present rate of
urbanization."
2. Page 34, Policies, Agricultural, No. 7, is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Unless there is a threat to public health or safety, the present
level of agricultural activity shall not be limited or curtailed
due to the impacts upon non-agricultural uses which have or are
proposing to encroach into rural areas. However, those types of
high intensity agricultural uses, not presently undertaken within
the City, which have the potential for significant adverse affect
on adjoining non-agricultural uses, shall be discouraged within the
municipal boundaries."
3. Page 90, Land Use Plan, Rural Uses, is hereby amended to add the
following paragraph:
"Another issue of City concern relates ' to the proposed
establishment of new higher intensity agricultural uses,
specifically, high intensity animal feedlots located within the
community. Concern is also raised by the possible expansion of
existing animal feedlots to a more intensive level of activity. At
the present rate of City growth, and with the present number of
residences and their concentration throughout the City, including
the areas now designated as rural, further establishment of new
animal feedlots of any size shall be discouraged. Further,
expansion of existing animal feedlots shall be prohibited in order
to insure that such uses do not have an adverse affect on adjoining
non-agricultural uses within the City, do not adversely affect the
general health, safety and welfare, do not adversely affect
property values within the City, and do not adversely affect the
City's planning process."
ADOPTED this
IN FAVOR:
OPPOSED:
day of October, 1996.
CITY OF OTSEGO
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
A
SECTION 15
NON -CONFORMING LOTS, BUILDINGS, STRUCTO S AND USES
Section
20-15-1: Purpose
20-15-2: Non -Conforming Lots of Record
20-15-3: General Provisions
20-15-1: PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the
regulation of legal non -conforming lots, buildings,
structures, and uses and to specify those requirements,
circumstances and conditions under which legal non -conforming
lots, buildings, structures, and uses will be operated and
maintained. The zoning ordinance establishes separate
districts, each of which is an appropriate area for the
location of uses which are permitted in that district. It is
necessary and consistent with the establishment of these
districts that non -conforming lots, buildings, structures, and
uses not be permitted to continue without restriction.
20-15-2: NON -CONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD:
A. Vacant Lots.
1. For the purposes of orderly development, a single-family
dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be erected
on non -conforming lots of record at the effective date of
this Chapter, provided that the lot fronts on an improved
public right-of-way and provided that the frontage, depth
and area measurements are at least seventy-five (75)
percent of the minimum requirements of the district where
the use is permitted.
2. The preceding subsection 1 is not intended to permit a
reduction in setbacks or required yards.
3. In the event that the measurements of such lot's area and
width do not comply with subsection 1 above, then
approval for the construction of a single family dwelling
may be requested as a conditional use permit; subject as
regulated by Section 4 of this Chapter.
B. Developed Lots. An existing conforming single family use on
a lot of substandard size may be expanded or enlarged if such
expansion or enlargement meets all other provisions of this
Chapter.
73
20-15-3: GENERAL PROVISIONS:,
A. Except as provided below, any non -conforming structure or use
lawfully existing upon the effective date of this Chapter
shall not be enlarged or reconstructed, but may be continued
at the size and in the manner of operation existing upon such
date except as hereinafter specified or subsequently amended.
B. Any proposed structure which will, under this Chapter, become
non -conforming but for which a building permit has been
lawfully granted prior to the effective'date of this Chapter,
may be completed in accordance with the approved plans;
provided construction is started within sixty (60) days of the
effective date of this Chapter, is not abandoned for a period
of more than one hundred twenty (120) days, and continues to
completion within two (2) years. Such structures and use
shall thereafter be a legally non -conforming structure or use.
C. Except as herein provided, normal maintenance of a building or
other structure containing or related to a lawful non-
conforming structure or use is permitted, including necessary
non-structural repairs and incidental alterations which do not
physically extend or intensify the non -conforming use or
structure.
D. Except as herein provided, alterations may be made to a
building containing lawful non -conforming residential units
when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they
will not increase the number of dwelling units, or size or
volume of the building. A dwelling may not, however, be
demolished and a new dwelling constructed unless the new
dwelling is in full compliance with this Chapter.
E. A legal non -conforming, single family dwelling unit may be
expanded to improve livability as a conditional use, as
regulated by Section 4 of this Chapter, provided that the non-
conformity is not increased.
F. Nothing in this Section shall prevent the placing of a
structure in safe condition when said structure is declared
unsafe by the Building Official, providing the necessary
repairs shall not constitute more than fifty (50) percent of
fair market value of such structure. Said value shall be
determined by the City.
G. No non -conforming building, structure or use shall be moved to
another lot or to any other part of the parcel of land upon
which the same was constructed or was conducted at the time of
this Chapter adoption unless such movement shall bring the
non-conformance into substantially closer compliance with the
requirements of this Chapter.
74
H. When any lawful non -conforming use of any structure or land in
any district has been changed to a conforming use, it shall
not thereafter be changed to any non -conforming use.
I. A lawful non -conforming use of a structure or parcel of land
may be changed to lessen the non -conformity of use. once a
non -conforming structure or parcel of land has been changed,
it shall not thereafter be so altered to increase the non-
conformity.
J. If at any time, a non -conforming building, structure or use
shall be destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50)
percent of its fair market value, said value to be determined
by the City, then without further action by the Council, the
building and the land on which such building was located or
maintained shall, from and after the date of said destruction,
be subject to all the regulations specified by said zoning
regulations for the district in which such land and buildings
are located. Any building which is damaged to an extent of
less than fifty (50) percent of its value may be restored to
its former extent, if it is reconstructed within twelve (12)
months after the date of said damage. Estimate of the extent
of damage or destruction shall be made by the Building
official. In such cases involving single family dwellings on
substandard lots, the provisions of Section 20-15-2.A of this
Chapter shall be applicable.
K. Whenever a legal non -conforming use of a structure or land is
discontinued for a period of six (6) months, any future use of
said structure or lands shall be made to conform with the
provisions of this Chapter.
L. Any legal non -conforming use of land not involving a
structure, and any legal non -conforming use involving a
building or structure with a market valuation upon the
effective date of this Chapter of Five Thousand Dollars
($5,000) or less, may be continued until 1 July 1997,
whereupon such non -conforming use shall cease.
M. Non -conforming buildings, structures, and/or uses, which based
upon documented study and evidence, pose a danger and/or
threat to the health, safety, and general welfare of the
community, shall:
1. Be legally declared a nuisance by the City. -
2. Upon being identified by the City and upon the owner
being notified in writing by the City, the owner shall
provide to the City a documented time schedule and
program with rationale to support the proposed
amortization of the building, structure, or use
investments which will result in the termination or
correction of the non -conformity.
75
a. The termination/correction time schedule shall be
based upon, but not limited to, factors such as the
initial investment and the degree of threat or
danger being posed.
b. The acceptability of the time schedule shall be
determined by the Zoning Administrator with right
of appeal.
C. In no case shall a time schedule exceed five (5)
years.
76
William S. Radzwill
Andrew J. MacArthur
Michael C. Couri
Megan M. McDonald
September 10, 1996
Mr. Lee W. Hanson
Attorney at Law
Hall & Byers, P.A.
First Bank Place
1010 West St. Germaine
Suite 600
St. Cloud, MN 56301
RADZW I,L & CO URI
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
RE: City of Otsego- Wastewater Treatment Study
Dear Mr. Hanson:
SEP 12 19%
The City Council of Otsego has asked me to respond to your
correspondence dated August 30, 1996 related to the City's ongoing
study of sewer treatment -needs. Whether or not the present document
before the Council now constitutes a full fledged Facility Plan is
open to debate. Nonetheless, even if it were interpreted as such,
the City has no obligation to include analysis of your clients
existing system within a facility plan.
Minn. Rule 7077.0272, Subpt. 2, A states as follows: "A complete
description and evaluation of the existing wastewater treatment
system and problems that need correction. This evaluation must
consider the age, condition, design capacity, and treatment
capabilities of each treatment unit, the systems ability to meet
current or proposed permit requirements, and- the location,
frequency, and quantity of any bypasses. For existing individual
sewage treatment systems, a survey must also be prepared which
identifies whether or not each individual sewage treatment system
in the project service area conforms to the requirements under
chapter 7080."
Individual sewage treatment systems are defined as, "Individual
sewage treatment system means a waste water treatment system, or
part of the system, serving one or more structures with wastewater
flows, which uses soil treatment and disposal." Minn. Rules
Letter to Attorney Hanson
September 10, 1996
Page 2
7077.0105, Subp. 16a.
Subpart 2 refers, in the
treatment system. Obviously,
existing facility.
singular, to an existing waste water
in the case of Otsego, the City has no
The system operated by your client is a separate, private system
with an NPDES permit for discharge into the Mississippi River, not
a system which uses soil treatment and disposal. I see no
reasonable interpretation of the rule you cite that would require
the City to evaluate your system as a part of a facility plan for
submission to MPGA, especially in light of the fact that MPGA
should already have all of the relevant information regarding your
client's system at their disposal through the permitting process.
The City intends to follow all proper legal procedures in the
process of serving the citizen's needs for waste water treatment.
I strongly disagree with the implication in your correspondence
that your clients have just recently become aware of the City's
ongoing plans for a wastewater treatment plant. This fact has been
well publicized and has been addressed at numerous public meetings
by the City Council.
Mr. Odell, an employee of the Darkenwalds, also sits on the City's
EDAAC and has been informed regarding this matter all throughout
the process. In fact, Mr. Odell participated in the drafting of a
letter to the City Council regarding criticisms by the EDAAC of the
Bonestroo report. It is very disingenuous to appear at this point
in the proceedings and attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the
process while professing ignorance of what has gone before.
You and your clients previously approached the City about the
possibility of franchising, prior to the Council fully committing
to their present course of action. This was approximately two years
ago. At that time the Council wisely determined that they would
need far more information before they could make a reasoned
decision about the possibility of franchising.
The matter then became an issue of money, someone had to pay for
the initial reports. This issue was never resolved and the
requested reports were never prepared.
Without such a report the City could not make an intelligent
decision as to whether or not it was in the best interests of the
City as a whole to support a limited area franchise which could
conceivably have an adverse affect on a more comprehensive solution
to the City's wastewater treatment problems.
Other issues that the City Council had to consider are the
Letter to Attorney Hanson"
September 10, 1996
Page 3
attendant expense of creating agreements which do not presently
exist within the State of Minnesota, as evidenced by your previous
submission to the City of agreements from the State of Indiana, the
issue of what type of expansion of your facility would be required
to serve a reasonable franchise area, the issue of potential City
liability upon the granting of a franchise, the terms and
conditions of the franchise, and the issue of necessary security to
insure continued delivery of services as well as proper repair,
maintenance, and closure of the facility. All of these questions
remained unanswered and the City has received no further input from
you until this date.
Without such information, the City proceeded upon the logical
course of seeking the best way of providing the entire City with
needed infrastructure. At this point it is the intent of the City
to proceed along this track and attempt to provide needed City
services in the most cost effective and logical manner for the
benefit of all citizens of Otsego.
Very truly yours,
Zr:e:
w J. t r
RADZWILL COURI
cc: City of Otsego
Ted K. Field, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates
Larry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson
Dave Licht/Bob Kirmis, NAC
09-20-1996 11:55RM FROM Radzwill & Court Law Offi TO
WUUam S.
tndr w J. =ur
Aftchael C. url
Megan M. M I nald
'I'
Septa"er 20, 11996
i
i
I
city.(Council Members
City ;of Otsego
RADZMU L & CO UJU
Anorne.)►r at Law
705 Canthal Avenue East
PO Baur 369
St. Midwel, MN 53376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAV
c/o Blaine Beatty, City Clerk
88991Nashua Avenue NE
4418823 P.02
Elk. River, M 55330
RE: Barb Kolb Request For Extension of Temporary Dwelling Permit
Dear
,Council Members:
i have been asked to review certain materials regarding the
applicant's request for extension of time for a temporary dwelling
permit. These permits are only for a ninety day priod and are not
reneiable by the terms of the ordinance.
I sent her a letter at the request of the City outlining her
options, to either request a variance or appeal to the Council as
the board of Adjustment. The date of issuance of the permit is
r
cleat cin its face, it is unclear to me when exactly the permit was
received.
By the. terms of the permit, the dwelling was to be removed by
September 21.,The building inspector indicates that no substantial
worklhas been done on the house which was damaged. The applicant
hasreceived-the insurance proceeds for reconstruction.
The cipplicant has long involved stories about why the work was not
accoiplished which are generally irrelevant to the City. However,
there are children involved in this matter and it is unclear when
the 'pplicant became aware of what the permits term was and what
would be necessary to gain an extension.
I
I hale, indicated to the applicant that based upon my conversations
with�her that:I would recommend to the Council that they grant her
a limited extension of the permit subject to terms and conditions
09-20-1996 11:56AM FROM Radzwill & Couri Law Offi TO
4418823 P.03
Letter 'to City Council- Kolb
September 20,'1996
Page 2
acce table to",the Building Inspector. However, I further indicated
that this matter would have to be decided by the council.
Very{ fly yoi=s,
RAbZjaMr& COQRI .
cc: Barbara Kolb
Jerry Olsen, Building Inspector
ob Kirmi's, NAC
TOTAL P.03
l
William S. Radzwill
Andrew J. MacArthur
Michael C. Couri
Megan M. McDonald
September 16, 1996
Ms. Barbara Kolb
15046 92nd Street
Otsego, MN 55330
RADZWILL & CO URI
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Bas 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
RE: Temporary Dwelling Permit
Dear Ms. Kolb:
C 2 0 W [2
D
SEP 17 XM
Pursuant to Findings of Fact and Decision issued by the City of
Otsego on June 21, 1996 you were granted a temporary dwelling unit
permit for the period of ninety days. This temporary permit was
issued so as to enable you to live in a mobile home while your home
was being rebuilt due to fire damage. On September 5, 1996 you
were notified by Jerry Olson, the City of Otsego Building official,
that your temporary dwelling unit permit would be revoked, as no
repair work has begun on your fire damaged home within the sixty
day period allowed by the Otsego City Ordinance.
In my opinion you have two options pursuant to Otsego Zoning
Ordinances. First, you could petition for a variance. Please
note, however, that one of the criteria for granting a variance is
that "The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue
hardship are not the result from the actions of the applicant."
Otsego Zoning Ordinance 20-5-2-(B)(2)(c).
Based upon the file material given to me for review, it appears
that your present hardship is the result of your own actions, as
you have apparently interfered with the ability of contractors to
complete your home within the time required by your temporary
dwelling permit.
Next, you could appeal to the City Council as the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals seeking an interpretation of the legislative
intent of the temporary dwelling permit rules. Otsego Zoning
r
Letter to Barbara Kolb
September 16, 1996
Page two
Ordinance 20-6-3 (A). The problem is, however, that you had an
appropriate period of time to remedy your situation. The reason
that the situation was not remedied was again, within your control.
In my opinion, the ordinance language is clear and unambiguous.
On September 23, 1996 the Otsego City Council will have its
regularly scheduled meeting. If you wish to be placed on the
agenda for the City Council meeting on September 23, 1996, you must
call the City Clerk and make such a request. If you seek Council
action, you must be prepared to make an official application for
council action prior to the meeting, or no action will take place.
Attached please find relevant Otsego Zoning Ordinances for your
review.
If no action is taken on your part in response to this letter, your
temporary dwelling permit will automatically expire on September
21, 1996. The continued presence of a mobile home at 15046 92nd
Street will be in violation of Otsego ordinances, and may be
prosecuted by the City as a misdemeanor, or the City may apply to
the District Court for injunctive relief.
Sinc y
w J. c th
RADZWILL COIIRI
cc: Larry Kohsak
Jerry Olson
Bob Kermis
September 17, 1996
To The City Council Members:
I am requesting an extenuation on the permit to keep the Mobil Home
until my house is repaired for the folio ing reasons . fDqk
G�/G
1,7
1 Undo Hardship
1 . Everyone knows that children need a stable place to live , losing
their home is hard enough to deal with . Constant moving, is not
emotional stability. At the motel we were staying at after the fire we
had 3 day's notice that our room had been reserved by someone else
for the weekend. No family member has the room to house four extra
people, this is why I wanted the Mobile Home in the first place so
that I would not be having to find a place to live, then go back to
the Motel and then having to find a place to live because yet another
weekend finds our room reserved by someone else. This is something
that happens all the time when someone stays at a hotel or motel for
any length of time.
2. My children are in school they need stability so they will be able
to do their school work at their best abilities.
3. I have been injured in three car accidents , I have several injuries
some of which are spinal stenosis, nerve root compression, nerve root
damage, spinal cord compression, heirniated disc., annular tears in disc
bone spurs on my brain stem. I should not be doing any type of
work such as what is needed to be done in moving , I can not take
the chance to further increase my injuries or pain. I have already
fallen trying to do the demolition as my pupils become unevenly
dilated with to much lifting and I become uncoordinated. Besides
having to possibly move allot while in the Mobile Home my children
will have to do most of the work.
4. It would cost the Insurance Company more money if I do not stay
here. The cost of the rooms we need would be over $1,350.00 a
month then their is the cost of food and the gas that is not covered.
The Insurance Company will have every right to deny those extra
charges.
5. I only have so much money in temporary living expenses ,after that
money is spent I am then responsible for what ever costs are needed
I have to maintain my monthly house payments and gas and electric
so piping will not bust from the cold when the weather changes. I can
not afford to pay any extra money because I reached the policy limits,
it's against the law to write bad checks but this is what I will have
to do as the needs will still be there but no coverage from the
Insurance Company.
Was Work Done Before 60 Days
1 . Debrie removal was started the end of July to the 1 st. of August.
2 . Demolition was started August 17 . By August 30, doors, paneling,
sheet rock, carpet had been removed. As of today's date the upstairs
has been gutted , the carpet remains . The siding is almost removed
as well . I have had placed a 20 yard roll -off dumpster on my property
as well . ( exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K ) .
Am I Responsibly For The Delays
1 . I state no , and the work that has been done is threw my
direction.
2 . There were two kids who were sent to my house to do the debrie
removal and demolition, one 18, the other 19. The first day the two
kids that came out my contents that had been thrown outside were
gone threw and thrown in the roll -off . I went threw the house and
showed these two what I wanted and didn't want , we also discussed
the obvious things that had to be thrown. After they left that day
my girls and I went in the house and nothing was done, nothing had
been taken out .
3. The next day only one should up the 18 year old , who stated he
could not do the work by himself after caring out a bookshelf, I
could not understand this as there were things that still could have
been done.
4 . Before he left I told him I would write on a paper what I wanted
saved and what I did not and would leave this in the house on
Monday . I was unable to do this as I was told the contents for
cleaning was not done and I had been waiting for these items to be
taken. There were various statements made by these two that led me
to believe the contents cleaning portion was done , and they had no
rapping paper to rap anything. I needed to talk to the Public Adjuster
I had retained before I could write my list as something's were to be
taken for cleaning and others not, they could not be just all placed in
the garage . I was unable to get a hold of him , I therefore could not
write my list but I had stated and had shown what was to be done
and there was enough obvious other work that could have been done
my list was not actually needed.
5. Monday came I did not expect anyone until mid-morning as this
was the time that was stated on the day only one came . At 9:00 -
10:00 I went over to the house no one was there I waited until
around 1:00 -2:00 and realized no one was coming out . I later called
the Public Adjuster asked him if he had heard anything he stated no .
I asked him if he would call the construction company to see what
happened , he said he would . since he did not get back to me in a
few day's I had to call him , he stated they had come out but no
one was up. I stated I was up at 6:30 in the bath at 8:00 I went
outside at 9:00 - 10:00 and there was no one here . He stated they
were here at 8:00 the time I was in the bath that is why I did not
hear them. I then asked him if he would call them and have them
come back he stated he would . I waited a few day's no one called
me or came out. I felt I could wait no longer and even though I had
been told all has to threw the Public Adjuster he's the boss I called
the construction company myself to arrange for someone to come out .
I was told that two would be there at 8:00 in the morning of which
they were.
6. The
first day not much was done ,
their actual working time was
around
3 1/2 hours for various reasons
. It matters not what
those
reasons
are, only 3 1/2 hours of work
was done and maybe
5 things
were taken out. I finally stated that I
would do the cleaning
that I
needed
to do this as it was my house
and it would be the
last time I
could clean the house . I felt this was safer than stating your going to
slow.
7. The next day the heavy items were started to be removed at 10:00
after they got here at 8:00 , they finished this at around 1:30 . I
assumed that the smaller items would then be delt with, they were
not. They were to still remove the rest of the contents I had packed
in boxes , throw out the bags of contents that were bagged . After
they left I went over to the house and again these items were not
taken out .
8. They straitened my garage , yes this needed to be done as items
were placed in there unorganized. This was not going to have
anything to do with my house being repaired , it was not for sure
those items I would be able to use, as most of them smelled of
smoke really bad . I just wanted them, to have some control of my
contents . The garage could have been done after the house was done
9. I called the construction company and asked them if they have
older more mature workers , I was told yes then asked why . I
basically told him I felt there were more delays in how the work was
going and I had to do something about it, He said he would talk to
them. I said I still could not have them return as I would be
embarrassed with them knowing I had called and basically issued a
complaint. When no different workers came out in two days I realized
I had not actually verified different workers were coming out , no time
was given for one, I again called the company . We again discussed
the kids who had come out, I stated I felt I could do the work faster
even with my injuries . I asked if I could do the work myself I was
told I could do it myself or have anyone I wanted , but maybe I
shouldn't because of my injuries. I said no I'll do the work I'm here
something has to be done I need to see a start somewhere.
11. As I stated it matters not what the causes of the delays were in
working with these kids, the delays happened . In a three day period
that two people came out I believe more should have been done than
the heavy items removed and a few boxes.
12. It is being said that I fired Master Craft , I did not. I asked if I
could do the work because it was two days and no one had come out
I felt I had a responsibility to do what I could for the house to be
finished as soon as possible. I never stated I, my girls, nor the person
I hired was going to do the area that was burned that none of us
has the knowledge to do this or the equipment.
13. I do not think anyone completely understands my frustrations in
seeing each day go by and nothing is done . The fire was May 24,
no one came out to do anything until the Building Inspector came to
my residents and told me complaints had been called in because of
the contents that had been thrown outside . There was no bid done on
the house by the Insurance Company until late July and no copy was
sent to my Public Adjuster until August 13, it was not even typed
until August 12. The Public Adjuster sent our bid to the Insurance
Company either June 12 or July 12. I heard of no response until I
asked the Adjuster personally towards the end of August.
14. What Construction company would even start demolition on any
house until they know exactly what is going to be accepted for repairs
or not . And because there is so much difference in the two bids ,
there would have been demo done that was not covered , the
Insurance Company not agreeing to pay for the demo nor the repair.
15. I do not know if I had the right to call the construction company
before they first came out here the end of July , I do know I was
told all has to go threw the Public Adjuster , he is the boss. I do
know nothing would be done now if I had not made the calls that I
did. It is my claim that is why I took control, I was the one who
was going to have to live whatever the concenquiences or
repercussions for the delays .
16. I do not want to move back into my house in the winter time ,
this is something I was concerned about in July, and was one of my
questions I faxed to the Insurance Company and the Public Adjuster.
17. The bid that was done by the Insurance Company contains many
errors, these are not another contractors personal opinion they are
facts. Windows were missing, windows were changed in design,
things I had at the time of the fire were visible but not listed.
The Insurance Company stated this is the bid they are accepting and
sent a check. I requested to have in writing that these obvious things
will be acknowledged and covered, this was refused. I requested that
the bid is to be corrected , this was refused. I called the construction
company myself and arranged to have him come out to correct the
errors and missing items . He came out we went over the items made
an agreement. The new bid that was written did not contain all that
had been discussed and agreed upon. I then called the Insurance
Adjuster who was handling the claim told him that I needed to have
in writing that these items would be covered , why a check was
written when they had the knowledge there were missing items, that I
had only been told things found after repairs had been started could
be sent in a supplement bid yet there were missing windows etc. now
, that by what I had been told those items visible at the time of the
fire would not be covered. I was told that a letter would be written
that stated those items would be acknowledged now and insinuated
they would be covered. The letter that I was sent does not state this
it states what I had been previously told, and that the Insurance
company would only consider them. I had every reason to refuse to
cash that check , I still do not see the need for what happened it
would have been so simple to honor my request I would have a
clear understanding of what was going to happen I would be able to
proceed as I needed to . I can not help the fact I do not understand
claims , or supplement claims . I can only ask for clarification for what
I need , I do not see the point this was refused me.
18. When my Public Adjuster knew there were actual things missing in
the bid that were there at the time of the fire, a request could have
been made for the Insurance Company to have their company correct
their bid and that submitted to the Insurance Company rather than the
company we used. I found all to hard to understand so I led the
me
Attorney's general's office and spoke with someone there who
do not cash the check , go ahead and have someone start the repairs
and insist that bid the Insurance Company accepted is corrected and a
proper check is written . That I have every right to state the bid is
boigis, Contractors can have a difference of opinions on certain things
but not on visible errors on things that were there such as windows
missing and attached humidifiers etc.
19. Because I stated I would not cash that check the delays have
been placed onto me.
20. I was told by J. Bensen that they would be able to repair the
house in less than 90 days , I will hopefully be able to have this in
writing when I appear at the council meeting Monday night.
21. I would like to be on my lot to observe my house being repaired .
22. There're seams to be some confusion as to when I received my
permit , and a copy of the city ordinance. The first I was aware that I
was to reapply before 30 day's from when the permit expires was
September 6, when the Building Inspector came to my residents and
hand delivered it to me . They were under the impression I had
received a copy in the mail I believe, I had not. It is a well known
fact that letters are lost in the mail no matter how important they are .
I would not have waited until now to address the issue of renewing
the permit . I would not place unnecessary stress on myself as stress
increases ones pain. I would not place the well-being of my own
children in jepperity . I would have as stated in my letter to the
Building inspector and Elaine B. had in writing what I needed to send
to the Insurance Company and my Public Adjuster what I needed to
insist the various things needed to be done are in fact done to start
the repairs on my home.
23. I am going to state I do have both long term and short term
memory loss that is why I have to write everything down , I can with
certainty state I had not received any copy of the permit nor the
ordinance . At the same time I state I have paid my house payments 4
months in advance and have no memory of doing so, etc.
24. That I was told I have until Thursday at 11:00 to turn in my
necessary paper work, that Andrew city hall's council and the
Building Inspector are both going to recommend that the permit
extenuation is granted, I thank you both for this. And that if I do
turn in my paper work by the stated time I will be allowed to keep
the Mobile Home until that night at least ,who ever granted this I
thank you and if for some reason the permit is not granted . I
request adequate time coordinating with my circumstances to remove
my belongings .
Thank you
<7:y:
Barbara J. Kolb
( " 6 A"� q- I g -01 ('
CARMELA A. CARSON
NOTARY PUB
�`� ' MY Comm. Exp anJ . 31, 2000 l
ti
f
n
L,
i
OTSEGO, MINNESOTA
ZONING/SUBDIVISION REQUEST
TEMPORARY DWELLING UNIT PERMIT
(EMERGENCY)
APPROVAL
..MN�N���M�M��Mw�/M���Mw��
June 21,1996 Ownem
Barbara J Kalb
15046 NE 92ND SF
Elk River, MN 55330
PROPERTY: PID #f 118-041-003210
Legal Description: Lot 21, Block 3, Mississippi Shores 5TH Add,
City of Otsego, County of Wright, State of Minnesota
APPLICANT: Same as above
REQUEST/ACTION:
$equest is for:
*Request is for a Temporary Use Permit to allow a Temporary Dwelling Unit (Mobile
Home in an emergency situation (Owners dome Burned). Permit is for 90 days, or when
the Cert. of Occupancy is issued for rebuilt home, if that should occur sooner, within 3 -
weeks of that C.O.
DATE: Approved Above ese City of OL•eao Zoning Administrator on
June 21.1996.
CONDITION SUARY:
Conditions of approval have been met (see attached Findings and info.) d2ted 6/21196
APPLICANTS NOTE:
Any request involving a Conditional Use Permit or Variance must be exercised witbin twelve months
from the date orapprovaT, or the approval will lapse. if a time extension is necessary, It is the
applicant's responsibility to file ror such extension at least 30 days prior to the lapse of approval.
�Elainc Beatty, City Clerk/ ing Administrator
CITY OF OTSEGO:
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
esota. 55330
)fficial/City Assessor/City Planner/File
City of Otsego
Engineer's Agenda Items
City Council Meeting
September 23, 1996
8.1 CONSIDER ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR 85TH STREET PROJECT
• Find accompanying this packet is a copy of the Feasibility Report. At this
point, we would recommend review of the report before setting a date
for the public hearing.
• We would like at some time either at a regular meeting or at a workshop
to go over in more detail with you the project and answer any questions
you may have after your individual review of the report.
• The only action needed is to accept the report and you could delay that
if you wish until we have had time to discuss the report in more detail.
8.2 DISCUSSION OF 62ND STREET & TH101 CUL-DE-SAC PAVING BY MN/DOT
• In a telephone conversation with David Miller, Project Engineer, he stated
that the original plan for TH 101 showed paving all of the cul-de-sacs that
were to be created by the elimination of access on 62nd (east and west),
65th (west), and 72nd (west). If the councils wish, all or any of the cul-
de-sac could be paved.
In particular, 62nd Street cul-de-sac could be completed without cost to
the City.
The direction I gave to Mn/DOT was not to pave the cul-de-sacs because
these paved cul-de-sacs would be on gravel roads and not necessarily
compatible. Few of the residences living on the streets will use the cul-
de-sac. It's only primary use is for maintenance, school bus, and
delivery/ pickup vehicle turn -around.
• Mn/DOT will need redirection if you decide to change the position that I
had given them.
agenda9.23
8.3 CONSIDER APPROVING A PARTIAL PAYMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 95-1
AND 95-2, MISSISSIPPI SHORES AND ISLAND VIEW ESTATES
• Find enclosed a copy of Partial Payment #2 in the amount of
$140,394.34. We recommend approval. We are retaining 5% of the
total plus we have not paid for any work not completed.
• Also find enclosed the final cost projection for the above mentioned
projects.
8.4 CONSIDER REPLY TO ALBERTVILLE ON THE EAW FOR PROPOSED
MINNEAPOLIS FACTORY SHOPPE
• Find enclosed a draft letter addressing the issues we felt needed to be
expanded upon for this projected project.
• The primary interest is the Storm Water planning keeping the Otsego
Creek Authority in mind.
• If you feel there are other issue please direct us to them. Otherwise the
comments are due September 26, 1996, and we intend to send the letter
as is to Albertville staff with your approval.
8.5 ANY OTHER ENGINEERING BUSINESS
agenda9.23
PAY ESTIMATE NO. 2
July 29, 1996
Midwest Asphalt Corporation
PO Box 5477
Hopkins, MN 55343
RE: Public Improvement Projects No. 95-1 and 95-2
City of Otsego; Mississippi Shores 95-1 and Island View Estates 95-2
Bid Amount: $539,478.52
Award Date:
Completion Date:
Bid Schedule "A":
Estimated Unit
Item Description Quantity Price
Item 8,3
Owner
Contract Used to
(:nSt flats Gv+crani...,
1. Mobilization 1 LS
2. Bituminous patching mixture 75 Ton
3. Type 41A Wearing course mixture 7,550 Ton
TBituminous
1T ��aieri11 �al�for tack coat 5,650 Gal
$3,000.00 LS
65.00 Ton
18.60 Ton
1.20 Gal
$3,000.00
4,875.00
140,430.00
6,780.00
1 LS
17.57 Ton
6,425.53 Ton
1,850 Gal
$3,000.00
1,142.05
119,514.86
2,220.00
Bid Schedule "B":
Item Description
4 1aa,uu5.uu
$125,876.91
Estimated Unit Contract Used to
Quantitv Prire (`net n.,+„ r7.,�___:__
Mobilization
2. Clearing and grubbing
3. Remove concrete driveway pavement,
4. Remove bituminous pavement
5. Remove concrete headwall
6. Sawing concrete pavement full depth)26
7. a ing bituminous pavement full depth)
8. Salva a iron pipe culvert
1
1
25
1,130
1
635 ILF
50 ILF
LS
LS
SY
SY
EA
LF
I5.00
$6,000.00
2,800.00
4.00
1.00
150.00
4.00
1 2.00
LS
LS
SY
SY
EA
LF
LF
LF
$6,000.00
2,800.00
100.00
1,130.001,158
150.00
104.00
1,270.00
250.00
1.0
1.00
25
0
25
633
65
LS
$6,000.00
LS
SY
SY
2,800.00
100.00
1,158.00
EA
LF
LF
0.00
100.00
1,266.0_0
LF
325.00
OT331 P2.WK4 Page 1
Estimated Unit Contract Used to
Item Description Quantitv Price rnct nntm r=vfnr%e;r%n
9.
Salvage 12" CMP
140 LF
$5.00
LF
$700.00
147 LF
_ $735.00
10.
Salvage 15" CMP
294 LF
5.00
LF
1,470.00
227.5 LF
1,137.50
11.
Salvage and reinstall wood fence
26 LF
10.00
LF
260.00
0 LF
0.00
12.
Salvage and reinstall timber
40 LF
25.00
LF
1,000.00
0 LF
0.00
13.
Salvage and reinstall yard light
1 EA
1,700.00
EA
1,700.00
1 EA
1,700.00
14.
Common excavation
12,700 CY
2.96
CY
37,592.00
12,700 CY
37,592.00
15.
Sub rade excavation
4,533 CY
2.96
CY
13,417.68
1,038.3 CY
3,073.37
16.
Gravel entrance reconstruction
52 EA
70.00
EA
3,640.00
50 EA
3,500.00
17.
Granular borrow
7,700 Ton
4.35
Ton
33,495.00
421.36 Ton
1,832.92
18.
Geotextile Fabric Type V stabilization
6,565 SY
0.90
SY
5,908.50
373 SY
335.70
19.
Sub rade preparation
103.6 RS
75
RS
7,770.00
103.6 RS
7,770.00
20.
Aggregate base, Class 5
11,920 Ton
5.34
Ton
63,652.80
10,762.69 Ton
57,472.76
21.
T e 41A Wearing course mixture
2,710 Ton
19.20
Ton
52,032.00
2,748.74 Ton
52,775.81
22.
ape 31B Base course mixture
3,650 Ton
18.35
Ton
66,977.50
3,387.72 Ton
62,164.66
23.
2" Bituminous wearing course(driveway)
1,170 SY
5.75
SY
6,727.50
1,238.3 SY
7,120.23
24.
Bituminous material for tack coat
1,750 Gal
1.20
Gal
2,100.00
400 Gal
480.00
25.
Relocate mailbox
71 EA
60.00
EA
4,260.00
71 EA
4,260.00
26.
15" RC pipe culvert, Class V
326 LF
19.40
LF
6,324.40
336 LF
6,518.40
27.
18" RC pipe culvert, Class III
44 LF
22.65
LF
996.60
36 LF
815.40
28.
27" RC pipe culvert, Class 111
32 LF
34.60
LF
1,107.20
32 LF
1,107.20
29.
30" RC pipe culvert, Class 111
40 LF
38.40
LF
1,536.00
40 LF
1,536.00
30.
15" CM pipe culvert
432 LF
14.40
LF
6,220.80
334 LF
4,809.60
31.
15" RC pipe apron
16 EA
375.00
EA
6,000.00
16 EA
6,000.00
32.
18" RC pipe apron
2 EA
450.00
EA
900.00
2 EA
900.00
33.
27" RC pipe apron
2 EA
550.00
EA
1,100.00
2 EA
1,100.00
34.
30" RC pipe apron
4 EA
600.00
EA
2,400.00
2 EA
1,200.00
35.
15" CM pipe apron T
18 EA
130.00
EA
2,340.00
16 EA
2,080.00
36.
Salvage and reinstall 15" CMP
501 LF
12.00
LF
6,012.00
465.5 LF
5,586.00
37.
Extend culvert
12 EA
240.00
EA
2,880.00
14 EA
3,360.00
38.
Random rip rap CL 3 w/ eotextile fabric
55.5 CY
60.00
CY
3,330.00
55.5 CY
3,330.00
39.
Furnish and install sign panel (stop)
1 EA
145.00
EA
145.00
0 EA
0.00
40.
Furnish and install sin panel left turn
1 EA
140.00
EA
140.00
0 JEA 1
0.00
OT331 P2.WK4 Page 2
Item Description
Estimated Unit Contract Used to
Quantitif Price Cost Date Extension
41.
Furnish and install sign panel (right turn)
1
EA_
$140.00
EA
$140.00
0 EA
$0.00
42.
Furnish and install sign panel (hill /w percent grade -8%)
1
EA
140.00
EA
140.00
0 EA
0.00
43.
Furnish and install sign panel (trucks use lower ear)
1
EA
140.00
EA
140.00
0 EA
0.00
44.
Furnish and install sin panel (speed limit plaque)
1
EA
60.00
EA
60.00
0 EA
0.00
45.
Furnish and install sin panel dead end)
1
EA
140.00
EA
140.00
0 EA
0.00
46.
Furnish and install sign panel (no outlet)
1
EA
140.00
EA
140.00
0 EA
0.00
47.
Salvage and reinstall sign
20
EA
46.00
EA
920.00
20 EA
920.00
48.
Bale check (per bale)
100
EA
5.40
EA_
540.00
19 EA
102.6_0
49.
Silt fence, re -assembled
2,300
EA
1.90
EA
4,370.00
120 EA
228.00
50.
Bituminous lined flume
7.5
SY
31.00
SY
232.50
9.9 SY
306.90
51.
Temporary rock construction entrance
3
EA
188.00
EA
564.00
0 EA
0.00
52.
Mulch material, Type 1 '
25
Ton
110.00
Ton
2,750.00
0 Ton
0.00
53.
Seedin0
12.6
jAcre
98.00
Acre
1,234.80
0 Acre
0.00
54.
Seed Mixture 800
650
LB
2.15
LB
1,397.50
0 LB
0.00
55.
Disk anchoring
12.6
Acre
32.40
Acre
408.24
0 Acre
0.00
56.
Wood fiber blanket, type regular
6,125
SY
1.10
SY
6,737.50
0 SY
0.00
57.
Wood fiber type high velocity
5,000
SY
1.50
SY
7,500.00
0 SY
0.00
58.
Commercial fertilizer, 20-10-10
3.25
Ton
320.00
Ton
1,040.001
0 ITon
0.00
1 U IAL tSIU CiUNtZUULt "b
SUMMARY OE -WORK P _ R� FORMED TO DATE:
TOTAL SCHEDULE "A":
TOTAL SCHEDULE "B":
TOTAL OF WORK:
Less Retainage (5%):
Less Pay Estimate No. 1
AMOUNT DUE CONTRACTOR:
OT331 P2.WK4 Pape 3
$384,393.52
$293,599.04
$125,876.91
293,599.04
$419,475.95
(20,973.80)
(258,107.81)
$140,394.34
APPROVALS:
CONTRACTOR; Certification by Contractor; I certify that all items and amounts shown are correct for the work completed to date.
Midwest Asphalt Corporation
Signed
Title
Date
ENGINEER:
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Signed
Title
OWNER:
CITY OF OTSEGO
Signed
Title
OT331 P2.WK4
Date
Date
Paqe 4
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
September 14, 1996
Mayor & City Council
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue
Otsego, MN 55330
RE: Final Project Costs
95-2; Island View Estates and 95-1; Mississippi Shores
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Item 8.3
3601 Thurston Avenue
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-349-}'
as-ao
Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. have with the assistance of Phyllis Cokley,
Finance Director, accumulated the cost associated with the above referenced projects
as of this date.
We also have estimated the remaining engineering and contractor costs, uncompleted
or unbilled, for Island View Estates. We feel the costs are adequate for final project
costs.
Mississippi Shores Improvement Project 95-1 (Final):
Contractor
Engineering
Field Service
Preparation of Assessment Roll (to be billed)
Publishing
Administrative
Bonding: Standard & Poor $1,250.00
Springsted 6,547.18
Kennedy & Graven 1,045.16
TOTAL PROJECT COST; Mississippi Shores
235 units @ 5649.57/unit
$125,876.91
12,658.15
3,987.42
1,000.00
102.55
180.90
$152,648.27
Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors
Mayor & City Council
Page 2
September 14, 1996
Island View Improvement Project 95-2 (Final):
Contractor
$356,996.57
Engineering
24,831 .82
Engineering (yet to be billed)
3,013.91
Field Service
31,166.66
Field Service (yet to be billed)
4,533.00
Preparation of Assessment Roll (yet to be billed)
1,000.00
Appraisal Fee
500.00
Soils Engineering services
10,057.55
Publishing
102.56
Legal
433.10
Administrative
1 80.90
Bonding: Standard & Poor 1,250.00
Springsted 6,547.18
Kennedy & Graven 1,045.16
8,842.34
TOTAL PROJECT COST; Island View
$441,658.41
90 units @ $4,907.32/unit
The assessment hearing notice sent to the landowners was for the amount that was
projected last spring after bids were received. In the case of both projects, the final
cost is less than at the time when bids were received.
I will be available to discuss the costs with you at the September 23, 1996 Council
Meeting.
Sincerely,
HAKANSOX-;�NDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
La�vrpfice (:� Kv�hak, PE
WE
cc: Elaine Beatty, Clerk
Phyllis Cokley, Finance Director
OT329.may Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
September 19, 1996
Garrison Hale
City Administrator
City of Albertville
PO Box 9
5975 Main Avenue NE
Albertville, MN 55301
RE: Minneapolis Factory Shoppes
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Mr. Hale:
3601 Thurston Avenue
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-34#6-1-- 0520
Item 8.4
The City of Otsego has received a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) for the above mentioned project. The City Council has directed us to respond
to issues affecting the City of Otsego.
Our comment and concerns will be related to Itgm- s 12, 14, and 18.
.r
Item 12; Physical Impacts on Water Reser" rces.
,s
The project area shown in�the is ithin the Otsego Creek Watershed. The
Watershed consists polio he City,,o�\ Albertville, Otsego, and St.
Michael, and the,�Ta. il' of . onticellpja.''�ortions of the City of Otsego,
Albertville, and IVlonti�loyownship dram b t'hthrough the project area to
School and Mud fakes; The ovedfow' fror hool Lake and Mud Lake flows
into Otsego Creek and-ultimate;ly to th�N�}ississippi River.
Will the proposed development wNtrict flows �g�hthe
stream through the
project? What storm event desrgn will flow thr conduit that replaces
the ditch?
The City is concerned that plak'nt of this development in the area could
comprise the ultimate drainage plan. The plan was prepared for the Otsego
Creek Authority and is dated December 20, 1993. The Cities of Albertville and
Otsego are members of the Otsego Creek Authority.
Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors
Garrison Hale
Page 2
September 19, 1996
Item 14; Water Related Land Use Management Districts
The area of the project as previously mentioned is part of the Otsego Creek
Watershed. The Otsego Creek Authority, a joint effort between the Cities of
Albertville and Otsego, should review the project for impact on the Watershed
District.
Item 18; Water Quality, Surface Water Runoff
School Lake and Mud Lake are a of MIgn1ioririu ,program so directed by the
Mn/PCA as a result of the expansion 'AI ert 's Wastewater Treatment
Facility. If specific goals have len set fEh thkes, the impact of this
development should be addressec'kiy comp•ar" its discharge goal with that of
s•�
the lakes goals and the ultirLiate discharge tsego Creek.
k
Storm Water Drainage is the ^primary issue ooncern due to the multiple jurisdiction
within the watershed and.'the potential'.oevelopment occurring in the area. The
project storm water management goajsould be compatible with the Watershed plan
and the issue of Storm Water agement needs to be addressed by the EAW
authors.
If you have any questions on the above, please contact myself or Elaine Beatty at the
City Hall.
Sincerely,
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Lawrence G. Koshak, PE
jlg
cc: Otsego City Council
Elaine Beatty, Clerk
Andy MacArthur, Attorney
Bob Kirmis, NAC
OT916.gh
all Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
September 14, 1996
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Otsego, MN 55330
RE: 85th Street Feasibility Study
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
3601 Thurston Avenue
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-3-61
osad
Please find attached a feasibility study for the above referenced project. We have
determined, in a preliminary way, that the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-
effective, and feasible and should be made as proposed.
If the Council decides to proceed with the work, or decides that it is beneficial to
proceed with obtaining additional data, we recommend that a portion, or all, of the
attached resolution be passed. The resolution orders the following work to be
performed:
1. Order a public hearing for the improvement and set a time and
date for the same.
2. Obtain an appraiser to review the proposed assessments and
-comment as to the relative benefit to the properties.
3. Perform soil test borings along the length of the roadway.
4. Obtain entry rights to the area of the regional pond and perform
soil test borings in this area.
5. Perform field survey work necessary for preparation of plans and
specification for the proposed improvement.
Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors
Honorable Mayor & Council Members
Page 2
September 14, 1996
We will be available at the September 23, 1996 Council Meeting to discuss these
issues further.
Sincerely,
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ld�ence,)6. K906hak, PE
kas
Enclosure
cc: Elaine Beatty, Clerk
Bob Kirmis, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Law Office
OT332.hon
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
FEASIBILITY REPORT
FOR
PROPOSED BITUMINOUS STREET
RECONSTRUCTION OF
85TH STREET
OTSEGO, MINNESOTA
Prepared by:
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
3601 Thurston Avenue
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
Telephone: (612) 421-5860
I hereby certify that this Plan, Specification, or Report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under State
of Minneso tatutes 3 6.02 to 326.16.
L wr nce G. Kosha , PE Reg. No. Date
OT332.rpt
Z32 1)
9h 9A g
Kevin P. Kielb,
PE
Reg. No.
Date
OT332.rpt
CONTENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................1
II STUDY AREA BOUNDARY......................................1
III ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT .............................. 1
A Existing Conditions ....................................... 1
B Proposed Improvements ................................... 2
C Estimated Costs ............................ . ............ 3
D Financing and Assessments ................................. 4
1 MSA Account ...................................... 4
2 Assessment Policy .................................. 5
3 Projected Roadway Assessments ........... . ............ 6
IV STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ........................... 8
A
85th Street Storm Sewer ..................... . . ... .... .... 8
B
Halls Pond Area Improvements ..............................
9
C
Storm Sewer Assessments ................................
12
D
Projected Funding Balance .................................
13
E
Special Considerations - Storm Sewer ........................
13
F
Sequencing of Improvements ..............................
14
G
Sub -Regional and Local Improvements ........................
14
1 Pond in NW'/4 of SW'/4 of Section 21 ....................
14
2 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 3rd Addition Improvements ......
15
3 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 2nd Addition East Improvements ...
16
4 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 2nd Addition West Improvements ..
17
5 Area west of OTSEGO Acres 1 st Addition Improvements ......
18
6 Area west of Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates Improvements ......
19
7 Otsego Acres and Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates Improvements ...
20
8 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 3rd Addition Pond Improvements ..
21
9 Area 5A and 5B (North Odean Avenue) Improvements ........
22
H Assessments for Sub -Regional and Local Improvements ............ 23
1 Direct Benefit Assessment ............................ 23
2 Uniform Assessment ................................ 24
V PROJECT SCHEDULE........................................26
JI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 26
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX A
Exhibit A -
Project Location and Halls Watershed District Boundary
Exhibit B -
Typical MSA Urban Street Section
Exhibit C -
Roadway Construction Benefitting Properties
Exhibit D -
Hall's Pond Watershed
Exhibit E -
85th Street Storm Sewer and Area of Benefit
Exhibit F -
Regional Pond and Area of Benefit
Exhibit G -
Areas removed from or routed away from Hall's Pond
Exhibit H -
Sub -regional Pond in Area 313 and area of benefit
Exhibit I -
Area 3A Storm Sewer and area of benefit
Exhibit J -
Area 5H Storm Sewer and area of benefit
Exhibit K -
Area 4J Storm Sewer and area of benefit
Exhibit L -
Area 2C Storm Sewer and area of benefit
Exhibit M -
Area 4A and 4K Storm Sewer and area of benefit
Exhibit N -
Area 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F, and 4G Storm Sewer and area of benefit
Exhibit O -
Area 4B Storm Sewer and are of benefit
Exhibit P -
Area 5A and 53 Storm Sewer and area of benefit
.-APPENDIX B
RESOLUTION ORDERING HEARING AND ADDITIONAL WORK
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to determine the feasibility of upgrading 85th
Street from Page Avenue to Nashua Avenue to Municipal State Aid (MSA)
Standards. This study will also analyze the feasibility of constructing storm
sewer improvements for areas tributary to the 85th Street storm sewer
system. This study will analyze existing conditions, required improvements,
funding sources, and assessment policies. The study area boundary is
depicted on Exhibit A.
Il. PROJECT LOCATION
The roadway portion of the project is located within Sections 20, 21, and 22,
Township 121 N, Range 23W, in Otsego, Minnesota.
The roadway location, along with the Halls Pond Watershed District boundary,
is depicted on Exhibit A at the back of this report.
III. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
A. Existing Conditions
The project consists of improving 85th Street from Page Avenue to
approximately 700 feet east of Nashua Avenue. The project termini are
the extents of previous MSA projects which improved 85th Street to
MSA Standards.
85th Street is a 24 foot wide paved rural design street with ditch
sections and culverts to provide drainage. The existing shoulders
consist of 0.5' to 2' of topsoil in some areas, and are non-existent in
others. Odean Avenue traverses the street, separating it into east and
west segments. The west segment is located between Nashua Avenue
and Odean Avenue and is designated as MSA route 217-102-015. The
east segment is located between Page Avenue and Odean Avenue and
designated as MSA route 217-102-020. The west segment is
approximately 5,000 lineal feet. The east segment is approximately
4,025 lineal feet. Both segments of roadway have exhibited signs of
pavement distress in recent years. The western segment has required
patching in recent years to replace areas of severe alligator cracking.
The alligator cracking is caused by structural failure of the roadway
section, and may be attributable to the poor subgrade materials.
1
The soils in the project area appear to vary from fine sands, to sandy
loams, to loams. Inclusions of silty clay loams were noted in the
section of 85th Street between Nashua Avenue and Odean Avenue.
The subgrade soils are thought to be generally unsuitable for roadway
construction. Test borings must be performed during the design phase
of the project to determine the exact subsoil characteristics.
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps indicate that several of the
low areas within the existing right-of-way are Wetland Conservation Act
of 1991 (WCA) wetlands. These areas will require special attention
during the project design phase. The wetland areas must be delineated
and work must be performed within the guidelines of the WCA.
The existing ROW is 66 feet along the length of the roadway. There
are no known drainage and utility easements located adjacent to the
ROW.
The roadway profile exhibits sharp vertical curves, reducing site
distances in some areas. Site distance is also limited at several
roadway intersections along the project length due to horizontal
obstructions, primarily tree growth.
The average daily traffic along the roadway is expected to increase in
the near future due to proposed development work. An executive style
golf course is planned for the NW'/4 of the SE'/4 of Section 20. A
residential development is in the conceptual stage for the NW'/4 of the
SW'/4 of Section 21. Both developments, when completed, will cause
an increase in traffic to 85th Street, and may burden the capacity of the
roadway as it exists.
B. Proposed Improvements
The project involves constructing the roadway to Municipal State Aid
(MSA) Standards. 85th Street is proposed to be a 44 foot wide urban
design section with concrete curb and gutter. Provisions for future
sidewalks would be made within a 5' wide boulevard area. Provisions
would also be made to allow for grading for a future bike -path on one
side of the road.
The typical design section will consist of a 3'/2" bituminous surface
over 6" of Class 5 aggregate base course. A 2' layer of clean sand will
be placed below the aggregate base to provide structural support where
2
A
subgrade soils are determined to be inadequate for roadway
construction. Exhibit B depicts a typical MSA urban design section.
Right-of-way purchase will be required to expand the ROW from 66' to
80'. Slope easements and temporary construction easements will be
required to allow for roadway construction. The extents of the
easements will be determined during the design phase of the project.
Estimated Costs
Costs for street construction were analyzed for each segment of the
proposed 85th Street. Our cost estimates are as follows:
Table III -1
85th Street
Odean Avenue to Nashua Avenue
MSA Segment 217-102-015
Cost Estimate
Item
Common Excavation and Subgrade Prep
Class 5 Aggregate Base Course
Bituminous Surfacing
Concrete Curb and Gutter
Erosion Control
Revegetation
Signs and Markings
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Construction Contingency at 10%
ROW Acquisition
Overhead at 20%
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
3
Estimated
Cos
$262,400
82,200
132,500
70,000
22,500
71,000
8.500
$649,100
64,910
44,250
43,730
$801,990
Table III -2
85th Street
Page Avenue to Odean Avenue
MSA Segment 217-102-020
Cost Estimate
Estimated
Item Cos
Common Excavation and Subgrade Prep $135,000
Class 5 Aggregate Base Course 66,300
Bituminous Surfacing 106,500
Concrete Curb and Gutter 57,000
Erosion Control 16,100
Revegetation 46,900
Signs and Markings 7,500
Total Estimated Construction Cost $435,300
Construction Contingency at 10% 43,530
ROW Acquisition 35,600
Overhead at 20% 87,060
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $601,490
Financing and Assessments
MSA Account
The portion of 85th Street analyzed is currently on the City of
Otsego's MSA system. The MSA segment designations are 217-
102-015 (Odean Avenue to Nashua Avenue) and 217-102-020
(Page Avenue to Odean Avenue). The roadway qualifies for MSA
funding for construction, ROW acquisition, and engineering
services. The unencumbered balance in the MSA construction
account as of September 6, 1996 was $629,191.57. An
amount of $4,671.28 is encumbered pending closeout of the
CSAH37 and Odean Avenue intersection realignment project
(MSA projects 217-105-01 and 217-020-02). In addition,
approximately $25,400 has yet to be requested from MSA for
ROW acquisition for that project. The actual MSA construction
funds available at this time are estimated at $603,791.57. The
City receives MSA allotments annually, 25% of which are
El
designed for maintenance. The remaining 75% are for utilization
for construction activities. The 1996 MSA construction
allotment was $229,489. MSA allotments are determined based
upon population and roadway mileage within the City. The
recent dissolution of Frankfort Township resulted in a net gain of
population and roadway mileage for the City of Otsego. This
could provide for an increase in the total annual MSA allotment
in the City receives. For purposes of this report, however, we
have conservatively assumed that the 1997 allotment will be
similar to the 1996 allotment.
MSA allows City's advancements on funds for construction. The
lesser of three years allotment or $500,000 can be advanced to
Municipalities for construction projects. The maximum the City
of Otsego could advance is $500,000. This is approximately 2'/2
years of construction funds. As a result of this advance, the City
would not receive the construction allotment in 1998 and 1999.
The year 2000 construction allotment would be approximately
$100,000. The advance in funds would not affect the
maintenance allotment. The following table depicts the
theoretical maximum MSA funding available for this project:
Table III -3
City of Otsego
Estimated MSA Construction Funds
Present unencumbered amount $629,191.00
Yet to be requested for CSAH37 ROW < 25,400.00>
Theoretical 1997 apportionment 229,489.00
Potential advancement of funds 500.000.00
Total Theoretical MSA Construction Funds
Available $1,333,280.00
2. Assessment Policy
The City of Otsego's Assessment Ordinance sets guidelines for
determining assessment amounts for properties which abut MSA
designated and eligible streets. The ordinance indicates that
abutting properties shall be assessed for the costs of a typical
street and any additional costs shall be paid for by the City.
Because the roadway is located within the Urban Service Area,
the typical roadway section would consist of a 34 foot wide
5
3
roadway with bituminous berms and 5' wide boulevards. Our
estimated lineal foot cost for this type of roadway is as follows:
Table III -4
City of Otsego
Estimated Construction Costs
Typical Urban Roadway Section
Item
Common Excavation and Subgrade Prep
Class 5 Aggregate Base Course
Bituminous Surfacing with Curb
Erosion Control
Revegetation
Signs
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Overhead and Contingency at 25%
Estimated
Cost per Lineal Foot
$1.90
8.50
20.50
2.35
8.75
0.90
$42.90
10.73
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST PER LF $53.63
By dividing the total estimated project cost by two, an
assessment value per front foot of property is obtained. The
estimated cost per front foot of property was determined to be
$26.82.
Projected Roadway Assessments
Potential roadway assessments were determined based upon
property access to 85th Street. Table III -5 was generated based
upon half -section maps and costs described in section III -D-2.
Where front footage could not be obtained from half -section
maps, the distances were estimated based on aerial topography
maps. The benefitting properties for the roadway construction
portion of the project are depicted on Exhibit C.
Based upon a front foot cost of $26.82, and a total assessable
front footage of 12,597.92, the total potential revenue from
street assessments was determined to be $337,876.21.
L
TABLE III -5
City of Otsego
85th Street Improvement Project
Estimated Roadway Assessments
Total Estimated Amount from Roadway Assessments $337,876
' Based on equal annual payments for 10 years at an interest rate of 8%.
VA
Cost'
Front
Cost
Total
Per
Lg
Block
Subdivision
Footage
Per FF
Cost
Year
1
1
James Addition
160.00
$26.82
$4,291
$639
2
1
James Addition
160.00
26.82
4,291
639
3
1
James Addition
160.00
26.82
4,291
639
4
1
James Addition
160.00
26.82
4,291
639
5
1
James Addition
160.00
26.82
4,291
639
6
1
James Addition
160.00
26.82
4,291
639
7
1
James Addition
155.00
26.82
4,157
620
'/4 of
NW '/4
Section 22
1,340.00
26.82
35,939
5356
5
3
Hall's Addition
200.00
26.82
5,364
799
6
3
Hall's Addition
200.00
26.82
5,364
799
'/4 of
NE '/4
Section 21
1,300.00
26.82
34,866
5196
10
1
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates
267.00
26.82
7,161
1067
2
1
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates
250.00
26.82
6,705
999
3
1
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates
250.00
26.82
6,705
999
4
1
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates
250.00
26.82
6,705
999
-
1
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates
250.00
26.82
6,705
999
1
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates
250.00
26.82
6,705
999
7
1
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates
218.40
26.82
5,857
873
8
1
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates
217.00
26.82
5,820
867
1
4
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates
367.00
26.82
9,843
1467
28
2
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 1 st Add
300.00
26.82
8,046
1 199
10
1
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 2nd Add
258.52
26.82
6,934
1033
E '/4 of
SW '/4
Section 21
660.00
26.82
17,701
2638
'/4 of
SW '/4
Section 21
2,010.00
26.82
53,908
8034
3726
85th St
Section 20
300.00
26.82
8,046
1199
3776
85th St
Section 20
300.00
26.82
8,046
1199
3830
85th St
Section 20
300.00
26.82
8,046
1 199
3882
85th St
Section 20
300.00
26.82
8,046
1 199
3922
85th St
Section 20
270.00
26.82
7,241
1079
3984
85th St
Section 20
275.00
26.82
7,376
1099
'/4 of
SE '/4
Section 20
1,150.00
26.82
30,843
4597
Total Estimated Amount from Roadway Assessments $337,876
' Based on equal annual payments for 10 years at an interest rate of 8%.
VA
IV. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The proposed roadway improvements will occur primarily in the Hall's Pond
Watershed area. The long range watershed improvements must be considered
for the design of the 85th Street improvements. The 85th Street storm sewer
will serve as a trunk facility to convey stormwater from the Hall's Watershed
to the Hall's Pond area. Additional improvements to the Hall's Pond
Watershed are required to correct local drainage problems. Subarea
descriptions utilized in this report represent the same areas as detailed in the
Storm Water Drainage Report prepared in 1995 for this area. Exhibit D depicts
the Hall's Pond Watershed and associated subareas. Exhibit D also depicts the
physical and proposed political boundaries of the watershed. A brief analysis
of the recommended storm sewer system improvements are as follows:
A. 85th Street Storm Sewer
The storm sewer system in 85th Street will be sized as a trunk storm
sewer facility. A storm drainage system must be constructed to carry
the stormwater from the proposed urban design street section.
Oversizing of the storm sewer is recommended to account for future
local improvements within the Hall's Pond Watershed. A preliminary
storm sewer design was completed based upon data included in a
Stormwater Drainage Report prepared in 1995 for the Hall's Pond
Watershed. The construction costs for the storm sewer was estimated
at $98,527 for the area between Page Avenue and Odean Avenue and
$138,050 for the area between Odean Avenue and Nashua Avenue.
The 85th Street storm sewer and area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit
E. Estimated project costs for the storm sewer are listed below:
Table IV -1
City of Otsego
85th Street Storm Sewer
Estimated Costs
Page to
Odean to
Odean
Nasha
Total
Estimated Construction Cost $98,527
$138,050
$236,577
Construction Cont. @ 10% 9,853
13,805
23,658
Overhead @ 20% 19.705
27,610
47.315
Total Estimate Project Cost $128,085 $179,465 $307,550
B. Hall's Pond Area Improvements
Construction of the 85th Street storm sewer will increase the rate and
volume of water entering the Hall's Pond area. Hall's Pond is presently
at or near full capacity, meaning improvements would have to be made
to the pond area to allow for the extra stormwater. The low water level
of Hall's Pond is set by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to
insure that a minimum surface area of the pond is maintained. The high
water elevation is governed by the low floor elevations of surrounding
residences to insure flooding does not occur. The difference in these
elevations is presently 1.5 feet. This is the allowable "bounce" in the
pond. This bounce is very small and causes a significant hinderance to
routing additional stormwater to the pond. The existing outlet from the
pond is a 24" RCP pipe, 7,586 feet in length, and at a slope of 0.1 2%.
The pipe discharges to the Mississippi River at a point north of the
Mississippi Shores Addition. The present capacity of the pipe is
approximately 8.5 cfs at maximum allowable pond elevation. Several
options were analyzed to allow for added stormwater to the Hall's Pond
area. These options are described below:
1 . Construct a regional pond in the SW'/4 of the '/4 of Section 21
This alternative allows for full development of the Hall's Pond
Watershed with restrictions as described ins Section IV -E of this
report. The excavation work would be performed in conjunction
with the 85th Street roadway project. A portion of the material
excavated would be utilized as clean fill for the 85th Street
roadways, and the remaining material would be hauled off-site or
graded into the pond easement area. Approximately 110,000
cubic yards of material would be excavated. The project would
also include site grading, topsoil import, re -vegetation, and
landscaping. Our estimated costs for this project are as follows:
9
2
3
Table IV -2
City of Otsego
Regional Pond
Cost Estimate
Construction
Easement Acquisition
Construction Contingency @ 10%
Overhead @ 20%
Total Project Cost
$175,000
32,500
17,500
35,000
$260,000
The costs shown consider simultaneous roadway construction
and pond construction. Pond construction costs will increase if
the pond is constructed as a separate project.
Purchase Surrounding Residences
This alterative would allow for increasing the high water level of
Hall's Pond to provide increased storage volume in the pond. Our
preliminary analysis indicates that approximately 10 residences
would be affected by an increase in the high water line of Hall's
Pond. The City would be required to purchase these properties
and incur relocation costs of the residents.
Based upon the relatively high number of residences involved, this
option becomes significantly more costly than Alternative 1 . We
did not pursue this option further.
Auxiliary Gravity Outlet System
This alternative involves construction of a gravity sewer outlet
pipe, parallel to the existing 24" outlet pipe, from Hall's Pond to
the Mississippi River. The existing outlet pipe is 24" RCP, 7,586
feet in length, and at a slope of 0.12%. Because Hall's Pond is
at full capacity, the auxiliary outlet pipe would have to be sized
to convey the proposed additional inflow to the pond. The
additional peak inflow is estimated at 43.9 cfs. Based upon a
computer model of the drainage, a gravity outlet alone will not
convey the additional stormwater without increasing the pond
elevation. We have estimated the cost for a 48" RCP pipe for
discussion purposes only.
10
I!
5
Table IV -3
City of Otsego
Auxiliary Gravity Outlet
for Hall's Pond
Cost Estimate
Construction $769,472
Construction Contingency @ 10% 76,947
Overhead @ 20% 153,894
Total Project Cost $1,000,313
Lift Station with Forcemain
A lift station with a forcemain could be utilized to pump the
additional inflow from Hall's Pond to the Mississippi River. The
lift station would be designed to pump the additional peak inflow
to Hall's Pond. The forcemain would also be sized to handle the
additional peak inflow flow. A 36" diameter forcemain would be
required to convey the 20,000 gpm peak flow. The lift station
would require four primary and one backup pump to provide
adequate capacity to handle the additional peak flow. We have
estimated the cost of this alternative as follows:
Table IV -4
City of Otsego
Hall's Pond Lift Station
Estimated Costs
Lift Station Structure with Pumps & Controls $200,000
Forcemain with Outlet Structure 845,000
Construction 1,045,000
Construction Contingency @ 10% 104,500
Overhead @ 20% 209,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $1,358,500
Review of Alternatives
Based upon our review of the alternatives, pond excavation
appears to be the most cost-effective means of expanding the
storage capacity of the Hall's Pond area. Non -quantifiable
11
C
implications, such as creation of a scenic park area and
recreational benefits also make this a desirable alternative. The
pond size, location, and area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit F.
6. MSA Participation for Stormwater Improvements
The MSA participation for storm sewer improvements is based
upon the percentage of area contributing to a storm sewer system
vs. the ROW area contributing to the storm sewer system. MSA
participates up to a maximum of 100%, and to a minimum of
55%. Because of the size of Hall's Pond Watershed in relation to
the ROW, the minimum of 55% will be utilized for this project.
Storm Sewer Assessment
The City's assessment ordnance indicates that the cost for construction
of storm sewers shall be assessed against the property in the area
serviced by the sewer on the basis of equivalent square footage of the
property. For the trunk facilities in 85th Street, and for the regional
pond expansion, all properties who have the potential to access these
facilities would be considered to be served by them. We have estimated
that the area of benefit for the proposed trunk facilities is approximately
468.6 acres of land. This does not include existing or proposed ponding
or easement areas. This also does not include City ROW areas for
roads. Based on an MSA contribution of 55% of the trunk facility costs,
a breakdown of costs was determined as follows:
Table IV -5
City of Otsego
Trunk Storm Sewer Facilities
Hall's Pond Watershed
Cost Estimate
Required
Item MSA Assessment Total
85th Street Trunk Facility $169,153 $138,397 $307,550
Regional Pond Expansion 143.000 117,000 260.000
Total $312,153 $255,397 $567,550
Based upon an assessment amount of $255,397 and an assessment
acreage of 468.6, an assessment per acre of property was determined
12
0
E
at $ 545.02. This equates to a cost per square foot of property of
$0.013/SF.
Projected Funding Balance
Based upon our initial review of the project, we have prepared the
following table:
Table IV -6
City of Otsego
85th Street Project
Projected Funding Balance
Special Considerations - Storm Sewer
The extra capacity provided by the proposed regional pond alone will not
allow for the entire Hall's Pond Watershed District to be directly routed
to the Hall's Pond area. We recommend several conditions or changes
be made to the watershed to allow for construction of a functional
system:
1. Area 51 (NW'/4 of the SWY4, Section 22) be diverted to the
Lefebvre Watershed at the time this land is developed.
2. Areas 5G, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6D continue to drain away from Hall's
Pond for stormwater ponding.
3. A sub -regional pond be developed in area 3B (NW'/4 of the SW'/4,
Section 21) to detain all stormwater from areas 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D,
and 3E. The pond will have an outlet to the 85th Street
stormwater system, but the outflow will be at a reduced rate.
4. All presently undeveloped lands must pond the entire 100 year
storm, and release at a reduced rate. We recommend reducing
13
Total
MSA
Assessment
Item
Cost
cost
Cos
85th Street Construction
$1,403,480
$1,065,614
$337,866
85th Street Storm Sewer
307,550
1 69,1 53
138,397
Regional Pond Expansion
260.000
143.000
117,000
Project Totals
$1,971,030
$1,377,767
$ 593,263
Special Considerations - Storm Sewer
The extra capacity provided by the proposed regional pond alone will not
allow for the entire Hall's Pond Watershed District to be directly routed
to the Hall's Pond area. We recommend several conditions or changes
be made to the watershed to allow for construction of a functional
system:
1. Area 51 (NW'/4 of the SWY4, Section 22) be diverted to the
Lefebvre Watershed at the time this land is developed.
2. Areas 5G, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6D continue to drain away from Hall's
Pond for stormwater ponding.
3. A sub -regional pond be developed in area 3B (NW'/4 of the SW'/4,
Section 21) to detain all stormwater from areas 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D,
and 3E. The pond will have an outlet to the 85th Street
stormwater system, but the outflow will be at a reduced rate.
4. All presently undeveloped lands must pond the entire 100 year
storm, and release at a reduced rate. We recommend reducing
13
the outflow rate to twice the average annual rainfall amount,
released over a six month period. This will ensure that the
localized ponds do not flood and will lessen the impacts to the
downstream storm sewer system.
By implementing the above strategies, the proposed improvements to
the Hall's Pond Watershed should provide a long term solution to the
drainage problems in the area. Exhibit G depicts the proposed
restrictions listed in Items 1 and 2 above.
F. Sequencing of Improvements
This report describes many improvements to the Hall's Pond Watershed
area. The improvements vary from local, to sub -regional to regional in
nature. Although there is no specific sequential order in which many of
the improvements can be made, there is a general order which must be
followed. Downstream improvements must be made prior to upstream
improvements occurring. This will insure that downstream areas are not
flooded due to the upstream improvements. A description of a portion
of the required sequencing follows:
The 85th Street Storm Sewer and regional pond expansion must
be constructed prior to localized or sub -regional improvements.
2. The pond in area 3B must be constructed prior to any of the
localized area 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, and 3E improvements.
3. Any localized improvements which will utilize downstream
facilities cannot be constructed until the downstream facilities are
in place.
These restrictions may limit development of land within the Hall's Pond
Watershed.
G. Sub -Regional and Localized Improvements
1 . Pond in the NW'/4 of the SW'/4, Section 21
This pond is located in Subarea 3B of the Stormwater Drainage
Report. The pond will be created around an existing wetland area
and will serve to provide stormwater control for Subareas 3A, 3B,
3C, 3D, and 3E. The pond will be created to provide stormwater
retention of the entire 100 year storm runoff, and will release at
14
2
a rate of two times the average annual precipitation rate over a
six month period. We have estimated the cost of this
improvement as follows:
Table IV -6
City of Otsego
Sub -Regional Pond Construction
Hall's Pond Watershed District 3B
Cost Estimate
Estimated
Item Cost
Construction $249,700
Easement Acquisition 50,000
Overhead and Contingency @ 25% 62,425
Total Project Cost $362,125
The area of benefit for this project would include areas 3A, 3B,
3C, 3D, and 3E. We have estimated the total area of benefit, less
roadways ponds and easements, to be 196.87 acres. This yields
a cost of $1,839.41 per acre, or a cost of $0.0422 per square
foot. Pond location, easement area, and area of benefit are
depicted on Exhibit H. Based on an interest rate of 8% and a 10
year payoff period, an annual cost of $274.13 per acre would be
incurred.
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 3rd Addition Improvements
This is area 3A of the Stormwater Drainage Report. The 85th
Street storm sewer improvements, the regional pond
improvements and the sub -regional pond improvements in area 3B
would have to be constructed prior to this improvement being
implemented.
The recommended improvements consist of constructing a
drainage ditch west of and south of the existing platted lands to
prevent direct off-site runoff from entering the platted properties.
Localized ponds would be created south of and west of the
platted lands to aid in buffering this stormwater flow. A
stormwater collection pond would be created within the platted
lands to collect stormwater to be discharged to the sub -regional
15
13
pond in area 3B. Storm sewer pipe would be utilized to connect
the local ponds and also to connect the collection pond to the
sub -regional pond. Improvements to the existing ditch system
would also be required to direct flows from the platted lands to
the collection pond. We have estimated the cost of these
improvements as follows:
Table IV -7
City of Otsego
Area 3A Drainage Improvements
Cost Estimate
Estimated
Item Cost
Construction $143,230
Easements 20,000
Overhead and Contingencies @ 25% 35,808
Total Project Cost $199,038
These improvements would benefit areas 3A and 3C. We have
estimated the total area of benefit, less roadways, ponds, and
easements to be 60.47 acres. This yields a cost of $3,291.52
per acre or $0.0756 per square foot. Pond locations, pipe size
and locations, easement areas, and area of benefit are depicted
on Exhibit I. Based on equal annual payments, an interest rate of
8%, and a 10 year payoff period, an annual cost of $490.54 per
acre would be incurred.
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 2nd Addition East Improvements
This is area 5H of the Stormwater Drainage Report. The regional
pond expansion and the 85th Street Storm Sewer would have to
be constructed prior to installation of this system.
The recommended improvements consist of construction of a
stormwater collection pond between Ogren Avenue and Packard
Avenue. Storm Sewer pipe would convey water from this pond
to the 85th Street system, and ultimately to the regional pond.
Localized ditch grading and storm sewer pipe would be required
to convey water to the collection pond. We have estimated the
costs of these improvements as follows:
16
El
Table IV -8
City of Otsego
Area 5H Drainage Improvements
Cost Estimate
Estimated
Item Cost
Construction $49,500
Easements 10,000
Overhead and Contingencies @ 25% 12,375
Total Project Cost $71,875
The area of benefit would be limited to area 5H of the
Stormwater Drainage Report. The estimated acreage of this sub-
district, less roadways, ponds, and easements, is 32.54 acres.
This yields a cost of $2,208.82 per acre or $0.051 per square
foot. Pond locations, pipe sizes and locations, easement areas,
and area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit J. Based on equal
annual payments, an interest rate of 8%, and a 10 year payoff
period, an annual cost of $329.18 per acre would be incurred.
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 2nd Addition West Improvements
This is area 4J of the Stormwater Drainage Report. The Regional
Pond expansion and the 85th Street Storm Sewer system would
have to be constructed prior to implementation of this system.
This system would require utilization and protection of existing
ponding areas within the subarea. An outlet pipe would be
constructed from these ponding areas to the 85th Street storm
sewer system and ultimately to the regional pond. Localized ditch
grading would occur to direct flows to the local ponds and to the
proposed storm sewer. We have estimated the costs of these
improvements as follows:
17
5.
Table IV -9
City of Otsego
Area 4J Drainage Improvements
Cost Estimate
Estimated
Item cost
Construction $53,585
Easements 5,500
Overhead and Contingency @ 25% 13.396
Total Project Cost $72,481
The area of benefit would be limited to area 4J of the Stormwater
Drainage Report. The estimated acreage of this sub -district, less
roadways, ponds, and easements, is 31.55 acres. This yields a
cost of $2,297.34 per acre and a cost of $0.053 per square foot.
Pond locations, pipe sizes and locations, easement areas, and
area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit K. Based on equal annual
payments, an interest rate of 8%, and a 10 year payoff period, an
annual cost of $342.37 per acre would be incurred.
Area West of Otsego Acres 1 st Addition Improvements
This is area 2C of the Stormwater Drainage Report.
Improvements to areas 4D, 4F and 4G, as well as the 85th Street
trunk system and the regional pond expansion would have to be
completed prior to these improvements occurring. This area
would also require complete ponding of the 100 year storm event
for undeveloped portions of the subareas.
This system would include construction of a stormwater retention
pond and construction of an outlet from the pond. The outlet
would discharge into Subarea 4D, and be conveyed to 85th Street
and eventually to the regional pond. We have estimated the costs
of these improvements as follows:
0
Table IV -10
City of Otsego
Area 2C Drainage Improvements
Cost Estimate
Estimated
Item Cost
Construction $55,860
Easements 10,000
Overhead and Contingency @ 25% 13,965
Total Project Cost $79,825
The area of benefit would be limited to area 2C of the
Stormwater Drainage Report. The estimated acreage of this
subarea, less roadways, ponds, and easements, is 35.69 acres.
This yields a cost of $2,236.62 per acre or a cost of $0.0513 per
square foot. Pond locations, pipe size and location, easement
areas, and area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit L. Based on
equal annual payments, an interest rate of 8% and a 10 year
payoff period, an annual payment of $333.32 per acre would be
required.
Area West of Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates Improvements
This is area 4A of the Stormwater Drainage Report and also
contains improvements to area 4K of the same report. The
improvements to area 4F and 4G, as well as the 85th Street
system and regional pond would have to be constructed prior to
this system being installed.
The improvements would consist of constructing a localized pond
and protecting several other small ponding areas within the
subdistricts. An outlet from the ponds would be constructed to
discharge into Subarea 4F and eventually into the 85th Street
storm sewer system and to the regional pond. We have
estimated the cost of this system as follows:
19
7.
Table IV -11
City of Otsego
Area 4A and 4K Drainage Improvements
Cost Estimate
Estimated
Item Cost
Construction $47,220
Easements 10,000
Overhead and Contingency @ 25% 11,805
Total Project Cost $69,025
The area of benefit would be limited to area 4A and 4K of the
Stormwater Drainage Report. The estimated acreage of these
subareas, less roadways, ponds, and easements, is 32.72 acres.
This yields a cost of $2,109.57 per acre and a cost of $0.0484
per square foot. Pond locations, pipe size and location, easement
area, and area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit M. Based on
equal annual payments, an interest rate of 8%, and a 10 year
payoff period, an annual payment of $314.39 per acre would be
required.
Otsego Acres and Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates Improvements
This is area 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F, and 4G of the Stormwater Drainage
Report. This system will also serve to carry stormwater from
areas 2C and 4A to the 85th Street Storm Sewer system and
ultimately to the regional pond. The improvements to the 85th
Street system and construction of the regional pond will be
required prior to construction of this local system.
The improvements will require protection and cleaning of existing
drainage swales and ponding areas. Several stormwater
collection ponds will be created to channel stormwater to a pipe
system. The pipe system will carry stormwater from the
collection ponds to 85th Street system and eventually to the
regional pond. Inflow from areas 2C and 4A will be accounted
for in the pipe system. We have estimated that the cost of this
system will be as follows:
20
Table IV -12
City of Otsego
Area 4C, 4D, 4E and 4G Drainage Improvements
Cost Estimate
Estimated
Item Cost
Construction $135,250
Easements 12,500
Overhead and Contingency @ 25% 33.813
Total Project Cost $181,563
The area of benefit would include areas 2C, 4A, 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F,
and 4G. The combined estimated acreage of these subareas, less
roadways, ponds, and easements, is 157.08 acres. This yields
a cost of $1,155.86 per acre or $0.0265 per square foot. Pond
location, pipe size and location, easement areas, and area of
benefit are depicted on Exhibit N. Based on equal annual
payments, an interest rate of 8%, and a 10 year payoff period, an
annual payment of $172.26 per acre would be required.
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 3rd Addition Pond Improvements
This is area 4B of the Stormwater Drainage Report. This system
will outlet to the 85th Street system and will ultimately discharge
to the regional pond. The 85th Street system and the regional
pond will have to be constructed prior to this system being
implemented.
This system will consist of constructing a local pond system and
related ditch work to convey water to the pond. We have
estimated the cost of constructing this system as follows:
21
0
Table IV -13
City of Otsego
Area 4B Drainage Improvements
Cost Estimate
Estimated
Item Cost
Construction $16,500
Easements 5,000
Overhead and Contingency @ 25% 4,125
Total Project Cost $25,625
The area of benefit would be area 4B as shown in the Stormwater
Drainage Report. The estimated area of Subdistrict 4B, less
roadways, ponds, and easements, is 19.64 acres. This yields a
cost of $1,304.74 per acre or $0.030 per square foot. Pond
locations, pipe size and location, easement area, and area of
benefit are depicted on Exhibit 0. Based on equal annual
payments, an interest rate of 8%, and a 10 year payoff period, an
annual amount of $194.45 per acre would be incurred.
Area 5A and 5B (North Odean Avenue) Improvements
Areas 5A and 5B of the Stormwater Drainage Report are located
adjacent to Odean Avenue, North of 85th Street. The system will
discharge into Hall's Pond and is an improvement to the existing
drainage system. The regional pond expansion should occur prior
to this improvement to insure adequate storage is available at the
Hall's Pond site.
This system will consist of protecting and improving existing
ponding areas and constructing a pipe system from the local
ponds to the regional pond. The existing ditch system will be
improved to carry stormwater runoff to the localized ponding
areas. We have estimated the cost of this improvement as
follows:
22
2
Table IV -14
City of Otsego
Area 5A and 5B Drainage Improvements
Cost Estimate
Estimated
Item Cost
Construction $39,385
Easements 6,500
Overhead and Contingency @ 25% 9.846
Total Project Cost $55,731
The area of benefit would be areas 5A and 5B of the Stormwater
Drainage Report. The total estimated area of 5A and 5B, less
roadways, ponds, and easements, is 28.71 acres. This yields a
cost of $1,941.17 per acre or $0.045 per square foot. Pond
location, pipe size and location, easement areas, and area of
benefit are depicted on Exhibit P. Based on equal annual
payments, an interest rate of 8% and a 10 year payoff period, an
annual amount of $289.29 per acre would be incurred.
Assessments for Sub -Regional and Local Improvements
The improvements described in Section G provide benefit to local and
sub -regional areas. We have analyzed two methods of assessments for
these improvements. These alternatives for assessments are as
described below:
1 . Direct Benefit Assessment
This method would apply assessments directly against the areas
which benefit from improvements. These are the areas described
under each improvement detailed in Section G. This leads to an
uneven assessment throughout the watershed. Areas farthest
away from Hall's Pond would be assessed for all improvements
between their properties and the regional pond. An analysis for
local and sub -regional improvements is provided in Table IV -15.
The areas shown correspond to the areas listed in the Stormwater
Drainage Report.
The assessment amount varies from $545 to $5,676, depending
upon the distance from the regional pond.
23
K
Uniform Assessment
This alternative would utilize a uniform assessment rate for all
improvements to areas tributary to the proposal regional pond.
Areas 5A and 5B do not flow to the proposed regional pond and
are not included in this analysis. The total estimated cost of the
remainder of the improvements are depicted in Table IV -16.
Based upon an estimated area of 468.6 acres, a uniform
assessment of $2,810.40 per acre or $0.065 per square foot
would be required to pay for the storm sewer improvements for
areas tributary to the proposed regional pond. Based upon a
uniform annual payment, an interest rate of 8% and a 10 year
payoff period, an annual payment of $418.83 per acre would be
incurred. This includes all local improvements as well as costs for
the 85th Street Storm Sewer and regional pond.
The regional pond and 85th Street Storm Sewer will require an
estimated $545.03 assessment per acre. Based on equal annual
payments, an interest rate of 8% and a 10 year payoff period, an
annual payment $81.23 per acre would be incurred.
Table IV -16
City of Otsego
Assessment Alternative #2
Uniform Assessment
Estimated
Improvement Cost
- Regional Pond
$117,000
85th Street Storm Sewer
138,397
Pond in NW'/4 of the SW'/4 of Section 21
362,125
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 3rd Addition
199,038
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 2nd Addition East
71,875
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 2nd Addition West
72,481
Area West of Otsego Acres 1 st Addition
79,825
Area West of Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates
69,026
Otsego Acres and Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates
181,563
Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 3rd Addition Pond
25,625
Total $1,316,954
24
Table IV -15
City of Otsego
Assessment Alternative #2
Direct Benefit Assessment
25
Sub-
Otsego
Reg.
Trunk
Regional
Acres & Vasseur's
Pond
Storm
Pond Vasseur's Vasseur's Vasseur's Area W Area W of
Vasseur's Oak Grove
Near
Sewer
located Oak Grove Oak Grove Oak Grove of Otsego Vasseur's
Oak Grove Estates Areas
Total
Hall's
Facility
in Sub- Estates Estates Estates Acres 1 st Oak Grove
North 3rd Add 5A & 5B
per
Subarea
Pond
85th St
Dist 3B 3rd Add 2nd Add E 2nd Add W Addition Estates
Pond Ave N Odean
Subarea
2C
...
$249.68.
$295.35
......................................... $2,236.62 ...........
$1,155.86 ........................
$3,937.51
3A
...
$249.68.
$295.35
$1,839.41 $3,291.52............................................................................
$5,675.96
3B
...$249.68.
$295.35
$1,839.41.....................................................................................
$2,384.44
3C
...
$249.68.
$295.35
$1,839.41 $3,291.52............................................................................
$5,675.96
3D
...$249.68.
$295.35
$1,839.41.....................................................................................
$2,384.44
3E
...$249.68.
$295.35
$1,839.41.....................................................................................
$2,384.44
4A
...
$249.68.
$295.35
................................................... $2,109.57 .
$1,155.86 ........................
$3,810.46
4B
...$249.68.
$295.35
........................................................................
$1,304.74.............
$1,849.77
4C
...$249.68.
$295.35
.............................................................
$1,155.86 ........................
$1,700.89
4D
...$249.68.
$295.35
.............................................................
$1,155.86 ........................
$1,700.89
4E
...$249.68.
$295.35
.............................................................
$1,155.86 ........................
$1,700.89
4F
...$249.68.
$295.35
.............................................................
$1,155.86 ........................
$1,700.89
4G
...$249.68.
$295.35
.............................................................
$1,155.86 ........................
$1,700.89
4H...$249.68.
$295.35
...............................................................................................
$545.03
41
...$249.68.
$295.35
...............................................................................................
$545.03
4J
...$249.68.
$295.35
................................ $2,297.34.....................................................
$2,842.37
4K
...$249.68.
$295.35
................................................... $2,109.57..................................
$2,654.60
5A.......................................................................................................
$1,941.17.
$1,941.17
5B.......................................................................................................
$1,941.17.
$1,941.17
5H
...$249.68
.
$295.35
.................... $2,208.82................................................................
$2,753.85
25
V
VI
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The following schedule would allow for project construction to begin in 1997
and be completed in 1998:
Event
Accept Feasibility Study & Order Survey Work
Hold Public Hearing
Order Plans and Specifications
Accept Plans and Order Bids
Accept Bids and Award Contract
Begin Construction
Suspend Construction
Resume Construction
End Construction
Hold Assessment Hearing
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Date
September 23,
1996
November 12,
1996
November 25,
1996
April,
1997
May,
1997
June,
1997
November,
1997
May,
1998
August,
1998
October,
1998
This report analyzed the feasibility of reconstructing 85th Street from Page
Avenue to Nashua Avenue to meet Municipal State Aid (MSA) Standards.
Stormwater drainage within the Hall's Pond watershed was also reviewed. The
85th Street storm sewer will serve as a trunk facility for that watershed. The
improvement is technically feasible as described in this report.
Reconstruction of 85th Street is necessary due to the recent structural
deterioration of the existing pavement section. Potential development in the
area may tax the capacity of the existing roadway, which makes the
improvement desirable.
The project would be funded by assessments and by MSA funding. The
project appears to be cost-effective if an advancement of MSA construction
funds is obtained by the City. The estimated MSA funds available are slightly
less than estimate construction contribution required of the MSA account. The
MSA funds available were estimated conservatively, and may exceed the
amount listed. We recommend that this study be forwarded to an appraiser for
review of the assessment amounts recommended in this report. The appraiser
should determine if the proposed assessment amounts are equivalent to or less
than the benefit of the improvement.
The storm sewer system improvements to be made in conjunction with this
project include oversizing the 85th Street storm sewer to serve as a trunk
facility and construction of a regional pond to allow for added capacity to the
26
Hall's Pond area. Both storm sewer improvements would be best made in
conjunction with the 85th Street reconstruction project.
Improvements to sub -regional and local storm sewer improvements within the
Hall's Pond Watershed were reviewed. Methods of assessments for these
improvements were discussed. The City should determine a fair and equitable
assessment policy for these improvements.
4
27
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX A
3N1� J.1�13d0�1d
In
N
N
3N1 -I .,i�J3dO�jd
W W'
LJ
F- F-
W �
Q Z U
� O �
U
pp m
ry
CD =D
m U
1
1
L
Q
p 0
_ o
CLU
¢ o a
co
Elf_0
v a� o
O
lV)�
= N
W
J
X
-
W
� O
m
0
Q
W
m
W
t--
W
Z
x
Q W
L(U
L N
d.
Ci
L N
W
o
z
af
w�}
o
Q
0
o
r'
m
E-
iw
N
D
W
Q
LLo
W
CN
Z
O
O
C°
m
C�
O
o
W
0
o
t
ZW
LLJ
m
O
0
Q
J
¢
-
Z
CD
W u
�1
-
N
�
Ln
m
N (n
V)
C/)O
Z
Cm
Q
�
Q
N
U
�
J
�p
Z
QLn
Q
U
C7
N
—
N
n
N
3N1 -I .,i�J3dO�jd
W W'
LJ
F- F-
W �
Q Z U
� O �
U
pp m
ry
CD =D
m U
1
1
Q
p 0
_ o
CLU
¢ o a
co
Elf_0
v a� o
D
lV)�
= N
X
Q LLJ
=QQ
� O
m
W
i ¢' o
a)
t--
W
O m
y��
x
Q W
L(U
L N
L N
MININIRIMMI oa
vll1:�►�,.:�ill
�' �..M
r"lI \Lr\ VI Lj l_I ILI I I
EXHIBIT H
SUB -REGIONAL POND IN AREA 3B
AND AREA OF BENEFIT
800 0 800 1600
SCALE IN FEET
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc.,Inc.
Engineers, Surveyors 6 Landscape Architects
3601 Thurston Ave. Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520
11I\Ln VI ULI`!LI I I
800 0 800 1600
SCALE IN FEET
EXHIBIT I
AREA 3A STORM SEWER
AND AREA OF BENEFIT
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc.,Inc.
Engineers, Surveyors 6 Landscape Architects
3601 Thurston Ave. Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520
600 0 600 1200
SCALE IN FEET
EXHIBIT J
AREA 5H STORM SEWER
AND AREA OF BENEFIT
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc.,Inc.
Engineers, Surveyors 6 Landscape Architects
3601 Thurston Ave., Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520
NT
600 0 600 1200
SCALE IN FEET
EXHIBIT K
AREA 4J STORM SEWER
AND AREA OF BENEFIT
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc.,inc.
Engineers, Surveyors 6 Landscape Architects
3601 Thurston Ave., Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520
/—\I\L_/'1 VI UCIVCF I I
600 0 600 1200
SCALE IN FEET
EXHIBIT L
AREA 2C STORM SEWER
AND AREA OF BENEFIT
Hakanson
7 Anderson
Assoc.,Inc.
Engineers, Surveyors L Landscape Archrtects
3601 Thurston Ave, Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520
!'1I\L—!'N vi L>L— INLI I I
600 0 600 1200
SCALE IN FEET
EXHIBIT M
AREA 4A AND 4K STORM SEWER
AND AREA OF BENEFIT
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc.,Inc.
Engineers, Surveyors L Landscape Architects
3601 Thurston Ave., Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520
1"1%f\CP-1 Ur pCIVCr l l
600 0 600 1200
SCALE IN FEET
EXHIBIT N
AREA 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F,
AND 4G STORM SEWER
AND AREA OF BENEFIT
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc.,Inc.
Engineers, Surveyors 6 Landscape Architects
3601 Thurston Ave., Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520
AREA OF BENEFIT
800 0 800 1600
SCALE IN FEET
EXHIBIT 0
AREA 4B STORM SEWER
AND AREA OF BENEFIT
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc.,Inc.
Engineers, Surveyors R Landscape Architects
3601 Thurston Ave., Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520
600 0 600 1200
SCALE IN FEET
EXHIBIT P
AREA 5A AND 513 STORM SEWER
AND AREA OF BENEFIT
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc.,Inc.
Engineers, Surveyors 6 Landscape Architects
3601 Thurston Ave., Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520
APPENDIX B
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDERING ADDITIONAL
PRELIMINARY WORK ON AN IMPROVEMENT
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the council adopted April 8, 1996, a report has been
prepared by Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. with reference to the improvement of
85th Street between Page Avenue and a point 700 feet east of Nashua Avenue, and this
report was received by the Council on September 23, 1996, and,
WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is
necessary, cost-effective and feasible,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA:
1 . The council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the
report and the assessment of both abutting and non -abutting properties as detailed
in the report for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of $1 ,971 ,030.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the day
of , 1996, in the council chambers of the city hall at p.m. and
the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as
required by law.
3. The engineer, Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc., shall proceed with obtaining
additional information related to the project to include the following:
A. Obtain an appraiser to review the proposed assessments and comment as to
the relative benefit to the properties.
B. Perform soil test borings along the length of the roadway.
C. Obtain entry rights to the area of the regional pond and perform soil test
borings in this area.
D. Perform field survey work necessary for preparation of plans and
specifications for the proposed improvement.
Adopted by the council this day of
Norm F. Freske, Mayor
1996.
Elaine Beatty, Clerk
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT. MEETING DATE
COUNCIL ITEMS FINANCE
SEPTEMBER 23,1996
ITEM NO: ITEM DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY
9.1 DAN GREENE, REVIEW AND
CONSIDERATION
OF THE 1996/97 GENERAL
LIABIfITY INSURANCE
PROPOSAL
P.COKL Y
The City's Comprehensive Municipal Property and Casualty Insurance Policy is due for renewal effective
September 25, 1996. Dan Greene, First National Insurance has received quotes for the coverages
necessary and as in years past, the League Of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust has provide the best
coverage at the best price.
The following is a premium summary comparison for the last three policy years.
COVERAGE
1996/1997 1995/1996 1994/1995
Property
$ 2,278
$ 2,187
$ 2,055
Inland Marine
676
483
545
Municipal Liability
10,362
9,815
9,690
Automobile Liability
741
840
850
UM/UIM
50
inc.
55
Auto Physical Damage
1,027
751
741
Crime
83
413
91
Bonds
324
inc.
381
Open Meeting Law
TOTAL
$16,041
$14,989
$14,908
Workers Compensation
4,489
5,649
6,139
The renewal premium quote is based on a $1000 deductible, just as last year. The property values have
increased approximately 6% to maintain the replacement coverage values, therefore, a property premium
increase. The Inland Marine coverage has increased $193 because of additional equipment. The
Municipal liability has increased $547 due to city expenditure increases. Municipal bond coverage is
included in the comprehensive property and casualty insurance package.
I would also like to point out the dividend advantage of the LMCI T. The City has received a $2,022
dividend in 1995, a $1,415 dividend in 1994, a $880 dividend in 1993, and a $175 dividend in 1992. A
dividend is also anticipated for 1996.
I have also attached for your review the workers compensation renewal information page, with
comparisons to last year's payroll, rates, premium and experience modification rate. Dan Greene has also
included for your reference and comparison, rates from other workers compensation insurance carriers.
The major factor in the reduction of the workers compensation premium is the rate reduction for covered
workers.
Mr. Dan Greene will be present to review the insurance proposal with you and answer any questions you
may have regarding the City's proposed coverages. It is recommended that the City Council approve the
proposed Comprehensive Municipal Property and Casualty Coverage as provided by the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust.
"--�Mc
Laague of Minn"ota Citi"
Cid" promoting e=Janea
Dan or Sandy Greene
First National Ins.
716 Main St. # 107
Elk River, MN 55330
145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
Phone: (612) 281-1200 - (800) 925-1122
Fax: (612) 281-1299 - TDD (612) 281-1290
Date: August 13, 1996
Re: City of Ostego
Eff. Date: 9/25/96
RENEWAL PREMIUM SUMMARY AND BINDER
THIS YR.
*Property $2,278.
*Inland Marine
*Municipal Liability
*Automobile Liability
*UM/UIM
*Automobile Physical Damage
*Crime
*Bonds
Open Meeting Law
TOTAL
*Deductible: $1 , 000 - peqer-r7
WORKERS COMPENSATION
676.
10,362.
741.
50.
1,027.
83.
324.
500,
LAST YR.
$2,187.
483.
9,815.
840.
INCL.
751.
413.
INCL.
500
$16,041. $14,989.
$4,489. $5,649.
League of Minnesota Cities insurance Trust
Group Self -Insured Workers' Compensation Plan
r Administrator
Berkley Administrators
e member of the Berkley Risk Management Services Group
P.O. Box 59143 Minneapolis, MN 55459-0143 Phone (612) 544-0311
Self-Imured Workers' Compensation Quotation
(RENEWAL of Agreement No. 02-000875-4)
OTSEGO
VACATION, SICK PAY, HOLIDAY PAY IS INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS.
07/01/1996
07/01/1997
ESTIMATED
DEPOSIT
CODE
PATE
PAYROLL
PREMIUM
STPEET CONSTRUCTION &
MAINTENANCE
5506
4.36
34444.
4104.
CLERICAL
821'
o.44
156333.
688.
S1:ATING RINK OPERATION
90'-6
a.35
3333.
78.
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
P410
i.?5
13733.
172.
ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIALS
?411
0.47
37778.
178.
Manual
Premium
520.
Experience
!''Modification 0.36
Standard
='remium
4489•
.Managed
Care Credit
0%
0.
Deductible
Credit
0%
{'•
Premium
Di=_coUnt
0.
Discounted
Standard
Premium
4429.
LMC Insurance Trust Discount
0%
`?.
Net Denosit
;-7emi"m
442J,
OPTIONAL RATES:
POOL TRI STATE FUND
MICH PHY OLD
CODE
5506
15:0711.67
T1.68
12.27 7.20
CODE
8810
.39 .37
.30
.21 .65
CODE
9016
3.92 3.15
2.91
3.06 3.76
CODE
9410
3.08 2.58
2.38
2.51 2.16
CODE
9411
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A .69
VACATION, SICK PAY, HOLIDAY PAY IS INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS.
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust
Group Self -Insured Workers' Compensation Plan
Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Agreement
Administrator
Berkley Administrators
a member of the Berkley Risk Management Services Group
P.O. Box 59143 Minneapolis, MN 55459-0143 Phone (612) 544-0311
Information Page
RENEWAL
1. The "City"
OTSEGO
8899 NASHUA AVE N E
ELK RIVER MN 55330-0000
2. The Agreement period is from 12:01 a.m. 07/01/1995 to 12:01 a.m
address.
Agreement No. 02-000875-4
"City" is: Xcity
Joint Powers Entity
Other (describe)
07/01/1996 at the "City's"
3. A. Workers' Compensation Coverage: Part One of the Agreement applies to the Workers' Compensation Law of
any state of the United States of America and the District of Columbia.
B. Employers Liability Coverage: Part Two of the Agreement applies to work in each state listed in item 3.A.
The limits of our liability under Part Two are: Bodily Injury -Each Claimant $200,000.
Bodily Injury -Each Occurrence $600,000.
Bodily Injury by Disease -Agreement Limit $600,000.
C. This Agreement includes these amendments and schedules:
4. Retro -rating option selected? NOT APPLICABLE
5. Elected Officials Covered? YES Boards and Commissions Covered (List) NONE
6. The premium for this Agreement will be determined by our Manuals of Rules, Classifications, Rates and Rating
Plans. All information required below is subject to verification and change by audit.
PREMIUM BASIS ESTI- RATES ENTRIES IN THIS ITEM, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED ESTIMATED
MATED TOTAL PER $100 OF CODE ELSEWHERE IN THIS AGREEMENT; DO NOT MODIFY ANY OF THE ANNUAL
ANNUAL
REMUNERATION I REMUNERATION NO. OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT. PREMIUM
85000. 7.20
170000. 0.65
36000. 0.69
AGENT F-416021790
FIRST NATL INS AGCY
729 MAIN STREET
ELK RIVER, MN
BA 467CG (12/92)
55330
5506
STREET CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE
6120.
8810
CLERICAL
1105.
9411
ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIALS
248.
Manual Premium
7473.
10'% Sick, Holiday, & Vacation Allowance
747•
Adj. Manual Premium
6726.
Experience Modification 0.85
Standard Premium
5717.
Managed Care Credit 0%
0•
Deductible Credit 0%
Premium Discount
0•
68.
0.00
Discounted Standard Premium
5649.
LMC Insurance Trust Discount 0'/
0•
Net Deposit Premium
5649.
DATE _05-rt0 /?
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT.
MEETING DATE
COUNCIL ITEMS FINANCE
SEPTEMBER 23,1996
ITEM NO: ITEM DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY
9.2 CONSIDER IMPLEMENTATION OF A MANAGED
CARE PLAN FOR WORKERS COMPENSATION
INJURIES
P.COKLEY
The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust recognizes the importance of managing the care of
work-related injuries, therefore, they have increased their workers' compensation premium reduction
from 5% to 10% for cities participating in a managed care program. The City of Otsego's 1996/1997
workers' compensation premium is $4,489. The savings in the premium warrants consideration of
implementation of a workers' compensation managed care plan.
Managed care providers must be certified by the State of Minnesota in the providing of workers'
compensation managed care services for employers. The key components of the program include a
select, credentialed provider network, medical case management, bill review in accordance with medical
treatment guidelines, and employer/employee support and education. Most health care providers are
certified by the State of Minnesota as managed care providers. Information from the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust indicates that there are approximately 10 different providers certified by
the State of Minnesota.
I have received quotations from four certified providers and will be prepared to discuss the services of
each provider and the costs associated with implementation of managed care at the city council meeting.
Costs are only incurred if there is an injury and are based on the level of the injury. If the injury is minor,
managed care is not implemented and there is no further costs. The purpose of managed care is to
manage the costs, manage the care, and return the injured worker back to work as soon as possible.
It is recommended that the City Council review the benefits of managed care, the costs associated, the
premium savings, and consider implementation of a managed care plan for workers' compensation.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Norman F. Freske
Councilmember Suzanne Ackerman
Councilmember Ron Black
Councilmember Larry Fournier
Councilmember Vern Heidner
FROM: Phyllis Cokley, Finance Direct
DATE: September 23, 1996
SUBJECT: Managed Care Supplemental Information
What is managed care for workers'compensation?
Managed care is a comprehensive program for managing work-related injuries and
illnesses, authorized by workers' compensation laws and offered by various health
insurance organizations. It consists of a network of medical providers committed to
providing high-quality, cost-effective care to employees who have work-related injuries or
illnesses. The goal is to effectively manage medical care and return the injured employee
back to work.
A managed care program includes:
1) A preferred provider network that includes occupational medicine, primary
care and a broad range of other medical specialists.
2) Early referral to appropriate participating providers through a 24 hour
medical information and referral service.
3) Utilization review and case management to coordinate the delivery of
medically necessary, appropriate, and cost-effective care.
4) Coordination of return -to -work initiatives with employers to keep the
employee on the job, or return the employee to work as quickly as possible.
5) Account services staff skilled in program implementation,
employee/employer training, and ongoing client support, including bill review.
Minnesota worker's compensation managed care rules require participating providers to:
1) Assess the injured employee within 24 hours of employee's initial request.
2. Provide an initial evaluation within five working days of an employee's
request for a change of provider when transferring care from a non -network provider.
3) Comply with treatment parameters established by the State of Minnesota.
4) Agree to comply with the Managed Care Plan's utilization review, peer
review, dispute resolution, billing and reporting procedures.
5) Agree to comply with communication requirements as established by the
State (Workability form) and by the Managed Care Plan's compensation services.
6) Accept as payment in full, reimbursement for compensable and medically
appropriate services, in accordance with the fee schedule developed by the State of
Minnesota.
Four quotes received:
The four Managed Care providers that I received quotes from are; Medica,
Comprehensive Care, Preferred Work Care, and HealthPartners. Mork Clinic, Elk River
is a provider in the network of all but the Comprehensive Care organization. Mork Clinic
appears to be the clinic employees have chosen when there was an injury while working
for the city. The following is a brief outline of the fee schedule for each of the four
organizations that I contacted.
Medica $95 per case for medical only claims - requires more
than one visit. Set up in system, injury that does not
need ongoing care beyond initial visit - no charges.
$550 per case for more than three days lost time.
Preferred Work Care One time enrollment fee of $100.00 - includes
implementation materials, enrollment information,
I.D. cards, and employer/employee training.
$15 per injury if case management is waived.
$35 per case, medical only for 90 days - hourly
rate thereafter.
$125 per case, medical with restrictions for 180 days -
hourly rate thereafter.
$295 per case, loss work time for 180 days - hourly
rate thereafter.
$9 - bill review.
$90 - $100 hourly rate.
HealthPartners $50 - one time fee for group installation.
$50 per case, medical only.
$350 per case, loss work time.
Comprehensive Care One time fee of $100 - will be returned in the form of
credits against monthly fees over $100 during first year.
$9 per medical bill processed.
$77 per hour for all non -physician services.
$90 per hour for all staff physicians.
Benefits:
The city will receive a 10% reduction in their workers' compensation premium if a
managed care program is implemented. The benefits of managed care also include
appropriate care and management of the injury for the employee and management of the
claim for the employer. This reduction could be used in managed care fees if there is a
number of injuries sustained by employees, although, the city's workers' compensation
claim history has been very favorable, without any serious injuries.
Recommendation:
It is my recommendation that the 10% reduction in the city's workers' compensation
premium warrants the implementation of a managed care program for the city. The
benefits the employee and city will receive should an injury occur, out weigh the cost of
the program. The Managed Care Providers that I contacted are certified by the State of
Minnesota and provide comprehensive services in the area of managed care for workers'
compensation. Preferred Work Care appears to provide the most breakdown in costs,
therefore, may be the most manageable in normal non -serious injuries. It is my
recommendation that the city authorize implementation of a managed care program with
Preferred Work Care as the managed care provider.
_ ry RRTn r..
M - I- N- N- E - S - O- T- A
Dear City Official:
TaC7F=0WE
SEP 13 1996 I
1
I wish to extend a cordial invitation to attend the League of Minnesota Cities Regional Meeting
hosted by the City of Watertown at the Watertown City Hall/Community Center.
The afternoon program begins at 2:00 p.m. You will hear presentations on new League of
Minnesota Cities programs --Lease Purchase, Ambassadors, On -Line Services, Home Page,
4M Fund and 4M PLATS Fund. You will also learn how claims against cities are handled by
LMCIT. A program schedule is enclosed. '
The afternoon program will conclude by 5:00 p.m., followed by a social hour. Dinner will be
served at 6:00 p.m. with the evening program scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. Following a
welcome to our city, LMC President Blaine Hill, Breckenridge Clerk -Treasurer, will address
the audience regarding the organization's focus for the up coming year. The evening program
will focus on local control of right-of-ways, property tax reform, and Minnesota Elections
96.
To make reservations for your city, please return the enclosed registration form as soon as
possible. In case of cancellations, please notify Michael A. Ericson at (612) 955-2681 or (metro
line) 446-1711 by October 11, 1996. Unless registrations are canceled, it will be necessary to
bill your city for those who did not attend and did not cancel.
If anyone from your city requires special accommodations or has special dietary needs, please
advise us in advance so special arrangements can be made.
I look forward to seeing you on October 17, 1996.
Sincerely,
oLt Q
Norman A. Bauer
Mayor of Watertown
enclosures
HEART OF THE LUCE LINE TRAIL
309 Lewis Avenue South. P.O. Box 279, Watertown, Minnesota 55388
Telephone (612) 955-2681, Metro Line 446-1711 FAX (612) 446.1701
_ryF,RTnr'&.
M - I - N N - E - S . O - T - A
REGISTRATION FORM
We will have city officials attending the regional meeting in Watertown and we agree
to pay for these meals unless the host city is notified of any changes by October 11, 1996.
NAMES/TITLES OF PERSONS ATTENDING:
(Please furnish names of people
attending so that name tags can
be prepared). —
Persons making reservation(s):
CITY:
*Number of attendees
Number of attendees
PHONE: ( )
x $15.00 registration fee =
x $9.00 dinner =
TOTAL PAYMENT ENCLOSED $
Please make checks payable to City of Watertown and return with registration form to:
Michael A. Ericson
City Administrator
P.O. Box 278
309 Lewis Ave S
Watertown, MN 55388
$15.00 registration fee applies only to the first ten registrants. There is no charge for more than
10 registrations from one city.
HEART OF THE LUCE LINE TRAIL
309 Lewis Avenue South, P.O. Box 279, Watertown, Minnesota 33388
Telephone (612) 955.2681, Metro Line 446.1711 FAX (612) 446.1701
J
M/C
145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
Loarw of Min„eroM 0f es Phone: (612) 281-1200 - (800) 925-1122
Cieim PMOO&9 wMuca Fax: (612) 281-1299 - TDD (612) 281-1290
1996 REGIONAL MEETING PROGRAM
AFTERNOON PROGRAM
2:00-2:30 p.m. "I'M GOING TO SUE YOU " How claims against cities are handled
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Staff
2:30-3:00 p.m. WHATS NEW. How the League's Home Page, Ambassadors Program, Investment
Programs (the 4M Fund and the new 4M Plus Fund) and other new League services will
benefit your city.
League of Minnesota Cities Staff
3:00-3:15 p.m. Break
3:15- 4:00 p.m. WHAT'S DUE. ARE WE PAYING TOO MUCH? An explanation of the sales tax on cities with
an emphasis on what purchases are exempt.
Minnesota State Department of Revenue Staff
4:00-5:00 p.m. AROUND THE TABLE. Each city presents its latest accomplishments
Tom Thelen, Field Representative, League of Minnesota Cities
5:00-6:00 p.m. SOCIAL HOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THE AFTERNOON PRESENTERS AND
TO INTERACT WITH OFFICIALS FROM OTHER CITIES.
6:00-7:00 p.m. Dinner
EVENING PROGRAM
7:00-7:15 p.m. INTRODUCTION
Jim Miller, Executive Director, League of Minnesota Cities
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REMARKS
WELCOME
Host City Mayor
7:15-8:30 p.m. LOCAL CONTROL. View the video on whether cities will retain control over their rights of
way. Will property tax reform diminish the ability of cities to provide services? Tips for
bringing the impact on cities of these and other MINNESOTA ELECTION 96 ISSUES to the
attention of national and state candidates.
Gary Carlson, Director, Intergovernmental Relations
Sharon Klumpp, Associate Executive Director, League of
Minnesota Cities
8:30-9:00 p.m. OFFICIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. What kinds of business transactions between a
councilmember and the city are legal, illegal or unwise.
9:00 P.M. Adjourn
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
L�
To Hwy. 1
ZG atertown
.n
Population 2,459
WA p Jew lr
Hqh School and Mdd1° Sc
t� y N �y `o �, `� 1►
S0
V0
C,4/.b
tiya'' �'F•.
To Hwy j
Fad qf, w
I c
tit w TOH qv£ 4
SE c,� .oa `�•f `�' Sf y � c,�j �e'
z C `' "►y •9 O � f' w
�f
St_
z �ti Tr LES / y o F
'7
fit,/,�° .iy o
LA C
' NIXON AVE .
N� S
f .ry tiF ,� y �F Riversldo.Twracs
l`i�•r0 Y� Mobile Home Park
Lnti
C�/cry Site of New
0 '�' �.'o Softball Fields
To Hwy. 7 • .�
N �• N �'
P
HuntAf DrtvA :+ (i
SUGARBUSH ADDITION
N
C J z, i rn s L i -_ L f C, r i C.vz; I
CLAIM
TOTAL
3
FeR wl !AT P�PP 99E
4
BANK OF ELK RIVER
PRINCIPAL AND INT. -WATER
REV.BONDS 09/19/96 1830
28,155.00
7
Ne
.Y. U RECYlbL'i2v;...N�"-'l- 25
2'
Q5E47
-coi, ev- F,
'fix4
PPLI AP
W-
At
?4 ee
CORROW TRUCKING
6A
RECYCLING SERVICES
09/19/96 1835
1,156.25
12
CUB FOODS
FOOD FOR HERITAGE DAYS
09/19/96 1836
:100.00
13
r -Ar
_41; zm lix
ik'92
:4
1
jA838�
N�
5
4%
1.
ELK RIVER AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEMBERSHIP
09/19/96 1840
180.00
ELK RIVER FLORAL
FUNERAL ARRANGEMENT
09/19/96 1841
57.75
:7
20
LONG & SONS
AUGUST CLEANING
09/19/96 1844
867.98
231
24
MINNESOTA MUTUAL
OCTOBER PREMIUM -LIFE & STD 09/19/96 1845
164.20
Z5
NAN,", Mi
r
".Plf
.1; N
f
111,
Ad ml��
Rm
2 211.
PITNEY BOWES
RENTAL -POSTAGE METER
09/19/96 1847
171.73
29
DALE SAMPSON
HORSE & WAGON -APPRECIATION DAYS 09/19/96 1848
50.00
aar
149/9-6
'5'3
WRIGHT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPT SIGNS
09/11" 8
277.83
WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITOR -TREASURER MAILING LABELS-ASSESS.HEARING 09/19/96 1854
24.00
37
PC
rM4
38
. -
AO
41 RADZWILL LAW OFFICE
AUGUST LEGAL SERVICES
09/19/96 1857
3,956.52
42
43
44
XUA
M
awd
43
A7
4a
49
so
Wlll� I
ml
53
54
'3
RIP
7"
PMV
BANK OF ELK RIVER
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST
TOTAL YEAR TO DATE
Claims Licit fol Approval
CLAIM TOTAL
oiirusT ENGINEERING SERVICES
— " o ion 1 A SQ
FED.WITH,SS,MEDICARE-MONTHLY 9/7/96 09/19/96 1862
PAY PERIOD 9/7/96
.-,..v n MTnn crmnFn 9/7/96
C� J
09/19/96 1863
09/19/96 1864
X67,9�11
6 3/a, 7/
3,159.34
474.36
125.00
444 176.