The URL can be used to link to this page

06-30-97 CCCITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE 4. OPEN FORUM: (5 -MIN. LIMIT) Elaine Beatty, 6/30/97 - 6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB , CC 4.1. Special Presentation. A. Darlene Solberg, Otsego Park & Recs Comm - Promotion of Family Fun Day. BACKGROUND: The Otsego Parks and Recs Commissioners have been busy planning a Family Fun Day Celebration for July 12, 1997 (Saturday). Darlene Solberg will be present to talk to the Council about what is planned for this Celebration and do a promotion of the event. Thanks T' Elaine CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE 4. OPEN FORUM: (5 -MIN. LIMIT) Elaine Beatty, 6/30/97 - 6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB , CC 4.1. Special Presentation. B. Gary Groen, Review of May Financial Statements BACKGROUND: Attached is the financial statements for May for the City of Otsego. Gary Groen will be here to review this information with you and answer any Council questions. Thanks Elaine MUNICIPAL OF CITY OF OTSEGC For the Period 01/01/97 to 05/31/97 BEGINNING TOTAL TOTAL ENDING NAME OF FUND BALANCE RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS BALANCE ROAD & BRIDGE FUND O.00 0.00., �- 0.00 O.G FIRE FUND FUND 54,885.94 3,215.08 670961.94 -9,860.5 PARK eE'v'EE6P?lENT- FUND INSURANCE RESERVE FUND 28,647.4-8 6,849.13 s 0.00 '0.00 6,849.1 SECURITY DEPOSITS FUND 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 29,869.1z 0.00 -.8G eAPITAE Et- UIPM NT ,, FUND DEBT SERVICE FUND 267,236.51 4,265.67 59,781.25 211,720.E PACKARD AVE<COINSTRUCTION -FUND 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.0 c MSA CONSTRUCTION FUND 131,090.23 3,189.30 0.00 134,279.5 WATERSHED PROJECT FUND FUND 7,989.61 0.00 0.00 7,989.E ISLAND VIEW PROJECT 95-01 FUND97,762.02 0.00 1,808.29 95,953.7 MISSISSIPPI SHORES FUND 0.00 0.00 00 0.00 0.Q0 O.0 MUNICIPAL WELL FUND 3,311.00 . 263.20 554.72 3,019.1- DEVELOPMENT ESCROW FUND -11,398.32 39,160.70 21,807.06 5,955.-` $1,021,676.2 406,011.74 $ 638,204.82 $1,253,869.28 $ TOTAL CITY OF OTSEGO INVESTMENT SCHEDULE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 Investment Type Purchase Date Maturity Date Balance 1997 12/31/96 Purchases 1997 Sales Balance 5/31/97 Lasalle CD 7/14/95 12/2/02 $ 22,176.00 $ 22,176.00 FHMA 7/14/95 12/10/98 98,750.56 98,750.56 MBNA -CD 7/18/95 5/10/99 51,274.17 51,274.17 FNMA 7/18/95 3/10/97 50,932.95 50,932.95 FNMA 7/19/95 4/13/98 78,572.81 78,572.81 CD 7/24/95 1/24/97 50,000.00 50,000.00 - FNMA 8/2/95 2/18/97 49,855.00 49,855.00 FNMA 12/27/95 8/12/98 51,171.88 51,171.88 FNMA 7/10/96 5/21/99 50,291.34 50,291.34 FHLM 7/19/96 7/9/98 25,080.21 25,080.21 FHLB 7/25/96 3/5/01 29,885.87 29,885.87 FHLB 10/8/96 3/6/01 59,641.99 59,641.99 CD -Bk of ER 12/31/96 12/31/97 100,000.00 100,000.00 - FNMA 3/25/97 11/10/05 65,330.59 65,330.59 CD -Bk of ER 12/31/96 12/31/97 100,000.00 100,000.00 - CD -Bk of ER 12/31/96 12/31/97 200,000.00 200,000.00 Totals $1,017,632.78 $ 65,330.59 $ 250,000.00 832,963.37 PLUS SMITH BARNEY FUNDS 7,119.77 TOTAL $ 840,083.14 B A,� �. o-� �1 /� t? 0 e n— IS/ 593-06 M, Page 1 /,o a/ G?G,;-o MUNICIPAL OF CITY OF OTSEGO INTERIM FINANCIAL REPORT AS OF 05/31/97 :.`2 GENERAL FUND i� Favorable s Budget Actual (Unfavorable) a _ �7 BLDG PERMIT SURCHG PAYABL 0.001. 1,090.50 1,090.50 1a SALES TAX PAYABLE 0.04 190.77 -. 190.77:. 9 3,GGG 00 i'° PROPERTY TAXES 722,758.00 35,945.85 ( 686,812.15) BUSINESS LICENSES/PERMITS 7,000.00 4,440.00 ( 2,560.00) 112 c c 13 i PERMITS 50,00.00BUILDING 25,608..87<) ,4 Ii t s EPTICSYSTEM PERMITS S 2,750.00 - 1,56 5.00 ( 1,18500 ) t6 _TIL WEIGHT PERMITS 50.00 90.00 40.00 t' STATE GRANTS & AIDS 0.00 10,988.82 10,988.82 s ,2 I19 HOMESTEAD CREDIT 140,276.00 73,427.00 ( 66,849.00) i2° DISASTER AID 6,896.00 0.00 ( 6,896.00:) I2t Y`.�f Tkff i mAklT /,1 T\ S ll l C L n f 4 F\L C .4 r% POLICE AID MSA MAINTENANCE 8,000.00 0.00 77,000.00 36,878.50 12s CONDITIONAL USE/VARIANCE ^FEES : 2,500..00. 1,400.00 (. i2P SUBDIVISION FEES 1,000.00 19.50 ASSESSMENT/SEPTIC SEARCHES 2,100.00 805.00 SNOW PLOWING 1,100.00 690.00 8,000.00) 40,12.1.50) 1,100.00) 980.50) 250 00 ) 1,295.00) 410.00) 13' TOPO:SA.LES- - - - — :.2 , 500 .00: 0.00 ('. 2 , 500.00) IX32 RECREATION FEES -.2,575.00 0.00 ( 2,575.00) 33 TAET C'C7GCT GnE7 RITAtC`C 1 n nnn nn'7f- Qui CA 1 4 Q'�!1 GA -' DONATIONS 0.00 3,258.33 3,258.33 OLD CITY HALL/PEAVEY HSE RENT 9,300.00 3,640.00 ( 5,660.00) 3' �OTHER/MISCELL ' 600.00 0.00 ( 600.00.) 3a ESCROW ACCOUNT 0.00' 300.00 300.00 I39 '2 nnnnn... '� CAG nn t - 'ic,� nnl. °O REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS0 .00 15 , 763 .25 15 , 763 .25 !4, ('--I F'( HALL RENT 5,000.00 3,360.00 1,640.00) MUNICIPAL OF CITY OF OTSEGO INTERIM FINANCIAL REPORT AS OF 05/31/97 2 FUND j PARKS' MA I NTENAN( PARK COMMISION OTHER FINANCING USES Total Disbursements Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) 723,410.00 15,493-94 o-603 5 A 5.9 9-- — 3,700.00 1,526.59 14,750.00 5,680.90 56,916.06 2,173.41 9,069.10 59,900.0,0 24,677.32 35,222.68 61,431.00 25,755.42 35,675.58 �c =nnn nn , ^ f •-,n r , �--, . r wry: 30,000.00 291193.30 806.70 14,790.00 67.21 14,722.79 —�79 1276 . Q 0 47 ' 13 6 16 32-r4: 29 .84 100,740 00 58,035.00 42,705.00 29,500.00 10,441.43 19,058.57,. 267,633.00 103,235.68 164,397.32 10,600.00 6,448.65 4,151.35 37,989.00 5,105.05 32,883.95 0.00536_46 536-46) 4,800.09 :,626.92`< 87,700.00 0.00 87,700.00 1,173,610.00 472,747.60 700,862.40 CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR UUU NC IL AU I IVA AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE 4. OPEN FORUM: (5 -MIN. LIMIT) Elaine Beatty, 6/30/97 - 6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB , CC 4.1. Special Presentation. , C. Barb Kolb - 15046 NE 92ND ST, Otsego, MN Appeal Violation of City Ordinance. BACKGROUND: Barb Kolb's house burned over a year ago. Jerry Olson has been working with Barb as far as her having the house rebuilt/repaired. After much correspondence and many visits to the site he has given Barb a letter which you should have received a copy of same, informing her that she is in violation of Otsego's Ordinance by living in her garage. Barb asked to be on the agenda to appeal this violation of City Ordinance. Attached you will find copies of faxed material from Barb. I am unsure of her position after all of this faxed correspondence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has had a hard time with this one. Jerry Olson will be at this meeting for any further explanation, as he has been dealing with this. Thanks Elaine CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE 4. OPEN FORUM: (5 -1 -IN. LIMIT) Elaine Beatty, 6/30/97 - 6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY : EB, CC 4.1. Special Presentation. D. Joan and Brian Lindquist, 8420 - Packard Ave NE,.Otsego, Mn. Appeal Violation of Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND: Jerry Olson has previously given the Council a copy of a letter written to Joan and Brian Lindquist of the above address. They wish to appeal the violation of the Zoning Ordinance. They have built a lean-to on the side of their pole building without a permit. Jerry Olson has asked them to remove the structure. RECOMMENDATION: Jerry Olson, Building Official will be at this Council Meeting and he will be available for explanation or questions. Staff recommends that the Council approve Jerry Olson's letter. Thanks le Elaine 9` < - 0 =t By order of Otsego Building Ins ector -` A You are hereby notified that no more_ work shall be done upon these premises. "J Contact Building Inspector for further information. Failure to stop work as ordered is a violation and subject to prosecution. Builder and/or occupant contact: Building Inspector, City of Otsego, Minnesota Telephone: 441-4414 Date +Budlng Inspector t M_ •• • •...'.: �(,6 � CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE 5.CONSENT AGENDA Elaine Beatty, 6/30/97 - 6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,CC 5.1. Approval of Juran and Moody (Tom Truszinski) as financial advisors for the City of Otsego BACKGROUND: Attached is information on Springsted and Juran and Moody for your review. Gary Groen will be present if you have any questions on financial information attached. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation is to approve Juran and Moody (Tom Truszinski) as Otsego's Financial Advisors for the City of Otsego. Thanks Elaine SEXr BY Crary Groen Finance Director City Hall 1899 Nashua Ave NH Otsego, Mn 5.5330 Dear Crary: 5-28-97 ;14:57AN ; JURAN & MOODY 612 441 4414* 1/ 1 .11:-� 3�#T 1 A division of b611cr, Johnson do Kuehn, Inc. t 100 Minnesota World Trade Cenkr 30 East Seventh Sttmet Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-4901 (612)224-1500 • (800) 950.4666 Fax(612)224-3124 Thank you for contacting me with respect to Juran 8t. Wxxly's consulting fee schedule as it relates in the City of Otsego's upcoming wastewater improvement pmjeet I this s provides you with the information desired. As I have shared with you and the Council in the past, I believe the most cost effective method of financing this type of project would be through the Public Facilities Authority (PFA) and their low interest loan program. From preliminary conversations with the City's engineer I believe that 10M of the City's costs associated with this project would be eligible for inclusion under this program and that a supplements! issue would not be necessary. Ptease be advised however that this position could change should the state or federal authorities alter the program's funding criteria. Assuming this assessment is accurate and that u bond issue in the public (x)mpetitive market is not needed, Juran & Mocxiy would consult to the City in all aspects related to the PFA loan process and City evaluation for an hourly fee not to exceed $120 per hour. Should the process become quite involved and a PFA Imn secured, Juran & Moody would have a minimum fee or $5,000. Should the City need or desire to issue bonds on the competitive public market, Juran & Mcxxly would complete all financial advisory aspects of this trutisactio n for a fee not to exceed those listed below. Par Amount of issue Maximum Financial Advisory Fee $0 to $5(X),(Xx) $6,000 $501,000 to $1,(XX),(XX) $7,500 Over $1,000,000 $9,5(X) I hope this information addresses the issues we discussed. We assure you that the City will be satisfied with our reasonable compensation schedule, as well as impresses with the quality of our service delivery and ccxst effective ideas. I l(x)k forward to providing you with any additional information you desire. Thank you for ycxlr time and consideration. Sincerly yours, Thomas P. Truszinski Vice Presidem Saint Paul. MN . Minneapolis. MN - Saint Louie Park, MN - 14 uatnn, TX - Clearwater rZ TENTH PLACE SUITE 100 AUL, MN 55101.2143 3000 FAX: 612.223-3002 0 DATE: July 29, 1996 TO: Ms. Phyllis Cokley, Finance Director City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue N.E. Otsego, MN 55330 SPRINGSTED Public Financc Advisors A .. For Services Preliminary to the Issuance of $655,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series1996A Basic Fee: $ 9,500.00 Advances: County Auditor Certificates $ 50.00 Official Statement Printing (see attached breakdown): $ 826.56 Miscellaneous: Travel $ 51.35 Copies, Special Delivery, and Telecopy 166.45 TOTALDUE: ..................................................................................... $10,594.36 I declare under penalty of law that this account is just and correct and that no part of it has been paid. RING BONNIE C. MATS This statement is due on the date that payment is received for the bonds relative to which this billing is made. Commencing 30 days thereafter interest will be charged at a rate of 1% per month. SAINT PAUL, MN • MINNEAPOLIS, MN • OVERLAND PARK, KS . BROOKFIELD, WI . WASHINGTON, DC • IOWA CM, 1A 85 E. SEVENTH PLACE, SUITE 100 SAINT PAUL, MN SSIOI.2143 612-223-3000 FAX; 612-223.3002 AGREEMENT FOR FINANCIAL ADVISOR SERVICES , SPRINGSTED Public Finance Advisors THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the day of , by and between the City of Otsego, Minnesota ("Client") and Springsted Incorporated ("Advisor"). WHEREAS, the Client wishes to retain the services of the Advisor on the terms and conditions set forth herein, and the Advisor wishes to provide such services; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Services. For each Debt Obligation issued by the Client during the term of this Agreement, the Advisor shall advise the Client as to the following matters related to the Debt Obligation, depending on the characteristics of the Debt Obligation and the needs of the Client; (a) the basis and procedure for authorization of the Debt Obligation; (b) the structure of the Debt Obligation; (c) the need for and type of collateral or other devices for securing repayment of the Debt Obligation or of any loan made by the Client with the proceeds of the Debt Obligation; (d) an estimate, based on data provided by the Client, as to the sufficiency of revenue to repay the Debt Obligation or any loan made by the Client with the proceeds of the Debt Obligation; (e) the ratability of the Debt Obligation; (f) the marketability of the Debt Obligation; and (g) the rate of interest at which the Debt Obligation should be issued. In addition, depending on the characteristics of the Debt Obligation and the needs of the Client, the Advisor may assist the Client in drafting the Official Statement related to the Debt Obligation, apply for a credit rating, print or arrange for printing of the Official Statement, the instruments evidencing the Debt Obligation, and any related documents. For the purposes of this Agreement the term "Debt Obligation" shall mean all indebtedness issued by the Client which is evidenced by a bond or similar instrument. 2. Compensation. For each Debt Obligation the Client shall compensate the Advisor at the rates set forth in Appendix A attached hereto. 3. Term and Termination. This Agreement shall commence as of the date hereof, and shall continue until terminated by either party by written notice given at least 60 days before the effective date of such termination, provided that no such termination shall affect or terminate the rights and obligations of each of the parties hereto with respect to any Debt Obligation, whether or not complete, for which the Advisor has provided services prior to the date that it received such notice. 4. Indemnification* Sole Remedy. The Client and the Advisor each hereby agree to indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against any and all losses, claims, SAINT PAUL, MN . MINNEAPOLIS, MN • BROOKRELD, WI • OVERLAND PARK, KS • WASHINGTON, DC • IOWA CM, IA 5. Q damages, expenses, including without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, liabilities, demands and cause of action (collectively referred to herein as "Damages") which the other may suffer or be subjected to as a consequence of any act, error or omission of the indemnifying party in connection with the performance or nonperformance of its obligations hereunder, less any payment for damages made to the indemnified party by a third party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no party hereto shall be liable to the other for Damages suffered by the other to the extent that those Damages are the consequence of: (a) events or conditions beyond the control of the indemnifying party, including without limitation changes in economic conditions; (b) actions of the indemnifying party which were reasonable based on facts and circumstances existing at the time and known to the indemnifying party at the time the service was provided; or (c) errors made by the indemnifying party due to its reliance on facts and materials provided to the indemnifying party by the indemnified party. Neither party shall be entitled to indemnification under this Agreement for Damages related to any Debt Obligation issued by the Client more than three years prior to the date on which a claim for indemnification is first asserted,in writing and delivered to the party from which indemnification is asked. Whenever the Client or the Advisor becomes aware of a claim with respect to which it may be entitled to indemnification hereunder, it shall promptly advise the other in writing of the nature of the claim. If the claim arises from a claim made against the indemnified party by a third party, the indemnifying party shall have the right, at its expense, to contest any such claim, to assume the defense thereof, to employ legal counsel in connection therewith, and to compromise or settle the same, provided that any compromise or settlement by the indemnifying party of such claim shall be deemed an admission of liability hereunder. The remedies set forth in this paragraph shall be the sole remedies available to either party against the other in connection with any Damages suffered by it. fidentiality: Disclosure of Inform—ationn. 5.1 Client Information. All information, files, records, memoranda and other data of the Client which the Client provides to the Advisor or which the Advisor becomes aware of in the performance of its duties hereunder ("Client Information") shall be deemed by the parties to be the property of the Client. The Advisor may disclose the Client Information to third parties in connection with the performance by it of its duties hereunder. 5.2 Advisor Information. The Client acknowledges that in connection with the performance by the Advisor of its duties hereunder, the Client may become aware of internal files, records, memoranda and other data, including without limitation computer programs of the Advisor ("Advisor Information"). The Client acknowledges that all Advisor Information, except reports prepared by the Advisor for the Client, is confidential and proprietary to the Advisor, and agrees that the Client will not, directly or indirectly, disclose the same or any part thereof to any person or entity except upon the express written consent of the Advisor. 6.1 No Underwriting Participation. The Advisor shall not during the term of this Agreement directly or indirectly engage in the underwriting of any Debt Obligation. 6.2 Delegation of Duties. The Advisor shall not delegate its duties hereunder to any third party without the express written consent of the Client. 6.3 No Third Party Beneficiary. No third party shall have any rights or remedies under this Agreement. -2- 6.4 Entire Contract: Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior written or oral negotiations, understandings or agreements with respect hereto. This Agreement may be amended in whole or in part by mutual consent of the parties, and this Agreement shall not preclude the Client and the Advisor from entering into separate agreements for other projects. 6.5 Govemina Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 6.6 Severability. To the extent any provision of this Agreement shall be determined invalid or unenforceable, the invalid or unenforceable portion shall be deleted from this Agreement, and the validity and enforceability of the remainder shall be unaffected. 6.7 Notice. All notices required hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given when delivered, transmitted by first class, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: If to the Client: If to the Advisor, to: Springsted Incorporated 85 East Seventh Place Suite 100 St. Paul, MN 55101-2143 Attention: Managing Principal The foregoing Agreement is hereby entered into on behalf of the respective parties by signature of the following persons each of whom is duly authorized to bind the parties indicated. FOR CLIENT SPRINGSTED Incorporated Qom-•-� Title Ronald W. Langness Principal -3- APPENDIX A OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN the City of Otsego, Minnesota AND Springsted Incorporated Effective as of SCHEDULE OF ADVISOR'S COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RELATING TO CLIENT'S DEBT OBLIGATIONS: Section 1. General obligation debt: _...___...__ tmtof_ ..ebt.0.. _ 81"0 .__....:::..... ,.;;;................. i .:::..... $ 0 - $ 500 $ 7,500 501 - 1,000 9,500 1,001 - 1,500 11,500 1,501 - 2,000 13,000 2,001 - 2,500 14,500 2,501 - 3,000 15,500 3,001 - 3,500 16,500 3,501 - 4,000 17,500 4,001 - 4,500 18,500 4,501 - 5,000 19,500 5,001 - and over 19,500 plus $500 per $.5 million or any part thereof in excess of $5 million The foregoing schedule shall include the Advisor's services through closing of a Debt Obligation. If the Advisor performs post -closing services relative to a Debt Obligation, it shall be compensated for such services at the hourly rates set out in Section 4 below. Section 2. Non -general obligation, refunding and tax increment debt. 1.5 times the fee set out in Section 1 above. Section 3. Expenses: Section 4 Section 5. The Client shall be responsible for issuance expenses including, without exclusion of other expenses: (i) printing and distributing the Official Statement, (ii) publication of notices, (iii) legal fees, (iv) printing, (v) delivery and settlement, (vi) travel, (vii) rating fees, (viii) out-of-pocket Debt Obligation related expenses, and (ix) governmental and governmental agency fees and charges. Schedule of hourly rates for non -Debt Obligation related services: Senior Officer $150 Other Professional Staff $90 Project Manager $125 Support Staff $40 Other Officers $115 In the event it is necessary for the Advisor to repeat Debt Obligation services because of events beyond the Advisor's control, the Advisor shall be compensated for such repetitive services at the hourly rates set out in the foregoing Section 4 of this Appendix. The Advisor shall not be entitled to compensation under this section for failed referenda unless otherwise provided by agreement between the Client and the Advisor. Section 6. Due Dates: 1. The Advisor's fees for a Debt Obligation shall be contingent upon closing of the Debt Obligation, except that if the Debt Obligation is awarded but cannot be closed by reason of an error or act of commission or omission by the Client, the Advisor shall be paid the amount which would have been due upon closing. If, however, the reason for non -closing is beyond the control of the Client and without fault of the Client, then the Advisor shall be compensated at one-half the amount which would have been due upon closing. 2. Amounts due the Advisor for expenses and services charged at hourly rates shall not be contingent. 3. All amounts due the Advisor shall be due upon the Client's receipt of. billing. Section 7. The fees set out herein shall be effective for 12 months from the effective date of the Agreement and shall extend to any Debt Obligation for which the Advisor has performed a service pursuant to the Agreement relative to the Debt Obligation within said 12 -month period. Thereafter, the Advisor's compensation shall be at the rates charged other similar clients as of the time a Debt Obligation is commenced. ABANDONMENT: If a Client Debt Obligation is abandoned for any reason and the Advisor is without fault for such abandonment, the Advisor shall be paid a fee in the amount that would have been due if the Advisor's services to the point of abandonment had been charged at the hourly rate set out in Section 4 herein. A Debt Obligation shall be deemed abandoned upon notice by the Client to the Advisor of abandonment or whenever the Client has taken no action with respect to the Debt Obligation within one year, whichever occurs first. Delay in the issuance of Debt Obligations resulting from failed authorization referenda shall not constitute abandonment unless otherwise provided by agreement between the Client and the Advisor. This Appendix is acknowledged to be a part of the Agreement, effective as of . between the Client and the Advisor. FOR CLIENT SPRINGSTED Incorporated Title Ronald W. Langness Principal A-2 CITY OF OTSEGO REVUES1' FUR CUUINCIL ACTIUIN ii AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE II I16. BOB KIRMIS, Asst City Planner 6/30/97 - 6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,CC 6.1. Consider Sprint Spectrum (Ron B. Gunderson) request Re: A. Conditional Use Permit to co -locate antenna for Sprint Spectrum L.P. on U.P.A. Tower located at 6155 Radler Ave NE, Otsego. BACKGROUND: The above item was on the Planning Commission Agenda for Hearing June 4, 1997 at 8PM. After reviewing the information at the Hearing the Planning Commission Recommended as follows: RICHARD NICHOLS MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO ITEMS ONE (1) THRU SEVEN ( 7) AND NINE (9) THRU TEN (10) IN STAFF REPORT. SECONDED BY ING ROSKAFT. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. See attached Findings of Fact and NAC's Report. RECOWENDATION : Recommendation is to approve The Planning Commission's Recommendation of Approval of the Conditional Use Permit to Co -locate an antenna for Sprint Spectrum L.P. on UPA Tower located at 6155 Kadler Ave NE, Albertville, MN. City of Otsego. Thanks 4Z Elaine N W.6#% ?0"114 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council ' Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis / David Licht DATE: 20 May 1997 RE: Otsego - Sprint Spectrum Conditional Use Permit FILE NO: 176.02 - 97.07 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Sprint Spectrum has requested a conditional use permit to allow the co -location of a personal wireless service antenna upon a "non-public" structure. Specifically, the applicants wish to co -locate a set of personal wireless service (cellular) antennas upon an existing 260 foot high United Power Association (UPA) tower located in the southwest corner of the City (6155 Kadler Avenue). The applicants intend to mount four antennas upon the structure, two at 223 feet in height, one at 213 feet in height, and one at 203 feet in height. The subject site measures 4.0 acres in size and is zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural Service. Attached for reference: Exhibit A: Site Location Exhibit B: Detailed Site Location Exhibit C: Site Survey Exhibit D: Tower Elevation/Compound Plan Exhibit E: UPA Co -Location Letter 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST, LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 k� W 7' Recommendation Based on the following review, our office recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicants demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the existing UPA tower can physically support the proposed cellular antenna installations. 2. The antennas be in compliance with all City building and electrical code requirements. 3. The structural design, mounting and installation of the antennas are in compliance with manufacturer's specifications and verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. 4. Written authorization is provided from the tower owner (UPA) to allow attachment of the proposed cellular antennas. This issue should be subject to comment by the City Attorney. 5. No advertising messages are affixed to the antennas or antenna support structure. 6. The antennas are not artificially illuminated unless required by law or by a governmental agency to protect the public's health and safety. 7. If applicable, any required federal or state licenses are acquired. 8. The applicant demonstrate (via a coverage/interference analysis prepared by a registered professional engineer) that the location of the antennas are necessary to provide adequate personal wireless system coverage. 9. Outdoor storage, excepting materials determined by the City to be customary and incidental to the use of the property, is prohibited. 10. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to property access easement issues. 11. Comments of other City staff. 2 ISSUES ANALYSIS Conditional Use Permit. Applicable A-1 Zoning District provisions list "personal wireless service towers and antennas not located on a public structure" as a conditional use. The ordinance defines a "public structure" as: An edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner which is owned or rented, and operated by a federal, state, or local government agency' Because the structure to which the proposed antennas are to be attached does not constitute a "public structure", the processing of a conditional use permit is necessary. In consideration of conditional use permit requests, Section 20-4-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the proposed _ conditional use. 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 by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. 7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. Co -Location. The area in which the antenna is to be located is characterized by a number of tower structures. Specifically, a 250 foot WDAY tower lies ± 400 feet to the northeast of the UPA tower in question, while a recently approved 100 foot U.S. West cellular lies + 600 feet to the northeast. RGI The City's antenna regulations have been specifically created to encourage co -location. Co -location is considered preferable to new tower construction for obvious compatibility reasons. Co -location also provides financial incentives to wireless service providers via reduced capital investment and greater antenna height allowances (than new tower construction). Generally speaking, the co -location of the Sprint Spectrum antenna upon the existing UPA tower and the grouping of antennas (and support structures) in a single location is considered positive. The proposed antenna will not increase the impacts of pre-existing antennas (and support structures) located in the area. U.S. West Tower. In the Summer of 1996, the City granted a conditional use permit to U.S. West to construct a 100 foot cellular antenna tower near the subject site. In its consideration of such request, the City required U.S. West to provide opportunity for future co -location and to demonstrate that a "good faith" effort was made to co -locate upon the proximate WDAY and UPA towers. In response to such stipulation, U.S. West provided a letter from the UPA which indicated that its tower could not support the proposed U.S. West antenna (see letter attached as Exhibit E). This previous disclosure by UPA raises question as to either the structural capabilities of the tower or accuracy of the statement. As a condition of CUP approval, the applicant should demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the UPA tower can physically support the proposed Sprint Spectrum antenna installations. Performance Standards. In February of this year, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance to establish specific standards for various antenna types including, but not limited to, personal wireless service types such as proposed. This ordinance amendment included numerous performance related requirements which are considered applicable to the Sprint Spectrum proposal. These requirements are listed below and must be satisfied as conditions of CUP approval: The antenna be in compliance with all City building and electrical code requirements and as applicable shall require related permits. 2. Structural design, mounting and installation of the antenna shall be in compliance with manufacturer's specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. 3. Written authorization for the antenna erection is provided (from UPA). 4. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna structure. CI 5. The antenna shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by a governmental agency to protect the public's health and safety. 6. If applicable, any required federal or state licenses are acquired. 7. The applicant demonstrate (via a coverage/interference analysis prepared by a registered professional engineer) that the location of the antenna is necessary to provide adequate personal wireless system coverage. Antenna Height. According to the ordinance, an antenna mounted upon an existing structure may not extend more than 15 feet above the structural height of the structure to which it is attached. According to the submitted antenna/UPA tower elevation, the antenna support structure measures 260 feet in height. In accordance with applicable height requirements, it is the intent of the applicants to mount antennas at heights of 223, 213 and 203 feet. Equipment. In conjunction with the proposed antenna installation/attachments, a tower "compound" measuring ± 260 square feet has been proposed. This "compound" is to house a generator and conduit panel and is to be enclosed and secured by a fence (similar to that which currently surrounds the tower base). According to the ordinance, new equipment buildings necessary for transmitting, receiving and switching equipment must be screened from view by landscaping where appropriate. Considering that the "compound" is surrounded on all sides by agricultural uses and screened from view of Kadler Avenue by the existing UPA tower base, landscaping for purposes of visual screening is not considered necessary. As a condition of CUP approval, however, outdoor storage within the compound is to be prohibited excepting materials determined by the City to be customary and incidental to the use of the property. Site Access. The subject site is to be accessed via an existing ten foot wide ingress and egress easement from Kadler Avenue. Issues relating to easement acceptability should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer and City Attorney. CONCLUSION In consideration of a previous wireless service antenna request, question was raised as to the ability of the UPA tower to physically support cellular antennas. Provided this concern is resolved and a determination is made that such tower can support the proposed co -location, our office would recommend approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. 61 pc: Elaine Beatty Andy MacArthur Lary Koshak Sprint Spectrum to li I ---II r. ..1— r -I Ll n - --- -1 - - ------ , aL -- I _ -_� - -1 : �_�—I �► � � fel �-r��l: , -SITE m = C= OF TSEGO D ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD m r- 0 O C) n U to I - •'�i:'- Rite LIM ,3 .w Ankerson Anderson Assoc.. Inc. I HE. 70th STREET - 27 26 - i W W Y ED "Q 2 I I yO BL •K ,wr a # 132 Nuc _ 2 1 t — . # 128 J G 'z j cy _ W 4 m 0 N.E. 60th -TREET -- CITY OF ST. MICHAEL EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCAT 1144 t is E tig'aYa32== PtF��'• i�i a�,� sii 3i4 IC �ia�app=` "J.11tis 1114 Val f iNT'll=ai;l P:11it! j i.I��: ice= l�I�Iii�i a sI` ij oat :i];1Ciig �'7lit"1jy 2I}� ]Ite'iltt�� xaS��a3312Ft�_Oi I O M Z I • � i I I w 78 � a opo wv gd I 5y o = rrao. I `\ i �Y--�`1�� \:i\\ \\ \ iii �,• ,o I / / / '�;�i. `� ♦ \ \ \ � %� \ \ ;\ ..\,.x.•11 i II 1 g � I I LA---------- °°°" EXHIBIT C - SITE SUR\r Y $ X� tib _114 L Y i - / = 5 y U —ILI a a[ —X — —fit d !O r EXHIBIT D - TOWER ELEVATION/ COMPOUND PL Jamas L. Goodin, Mana9ar Engineerin Volae Mall/ f face: 6 2.241.2369 rUPA Voice Mall � Omcs: 812.241.2389 Fax No: 812-241-2368 or 2470 United Power Association P.O. Box 800 . Elk River, MN 55330-0800 . (612) 441-3121 July 29, 1996 Kent Sticha UA West New Vector Group, Inc. 2510 Mendelssohn Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Collocation on tower near Albertville, Minnesota Dear Kent, This Is a confirmation that the tower owned by United Power Association near Albertville, Minnesota cannot support the additional antennas and coaxial cable for a cellular installation. Accordingly, United Power Association is not interested in locating the US West antennas on the tower. Sincerely, (/ James L. Goodin Manager Telecommunications Engineering JLG/pr MYGROURTELCO MU [ WENTSMOC Our File: JLGLIrBK EXHIBIT E - UPA CO -LOCATION LETTER f Sprint r 'y 91997 Sprint PCS` Minneapolis Teleplwr& 612 686 2600 2900 Lone oak Parkway. Suite 140 Fax 612 686 2700 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 June 5, 1997 Ms. Elaine Beatty Clerk/Zoning Administrator City of Otsego 8899 Nashua.Avenue N.E. Elk River, Minnesota 55330 REF: Sprint PCS Antenna Co -location with UPA RE: Planning Commission Approval and Conditions CP Dear Ms. Beatty: Thank you for your assistance in processing our CUP application for presentation before the Planning Commission last night. I would like to address each of the conditions to the approval as they appeared in the staff report. 1) We believe the report prepared by Tower Technology, Inc. presented to the Planning Commission last night should satisfy the city engineer as to the structural integrity of the UPA tower and it's ability to support Sprint's antennas. 2) The antennas must meet very strict manufacturing and FCC requirements to assure that they perform at the frequency assigned to Sprint in it's federal license granted by the FCC. I'm not sure the city building and electrical code requirements address PCS antennas specifically, but if your city engineer has specific concerns I'm sure we can provide additional information about our antenna equipment which will answer his questions. 3) The construction drawings submitted with our . application derail the mounting and installation requirements for our antenna equipment. These drawings have been approved and signed by Robert W. Wilson, a registered professional engineer in the state of Minnesota. His signature and stamp appear on the front page of the drawings. 4) As evidence of authorization to allow attachment to the UPA tower, we provided with our CUP application a copy of our fully executed lease agreement between Sprint and UPA. Specific covenants and warranties are detailed in Section 19, pages 14 and 15. 5) We do not attach any advertising or signage to our facilities, except any notices, warnings or operational information required by federal or local authority. 6) Our antennas are not illuminated. FAA rules and regulations govern when a tower must be painted and/or illuminated, but not the antennas specifically. Tower illumination would be an issue between the FAA and UPA. 7) Our operations are governed by our federal license granted by the FCC. 8) We do not store excess equipment or supplies on our sites. The best example of one of our typical sites close to Otsego would be the Rogers water tower just north of Highway 94 behind the Grayco building. There we have mounted antennas on top of the water tower and our base equipment is located within a fenced area adjacent to the water tower. We would invite you or your staff to stop by that facility and see what we typically have on the ground. Our concern in this requirement of the CUP is in having the city decide what is customary and incidental to our business operations. 9) Access and easement issues are also addressed in the lease between Sprint and UPA. Sections 8 and 9, page 6 of the lease agreement detail access and easement rights for utilities, construction, maintenance and repair of the facilities granted from UPA to Sprint. Please contact me if there is any additional specific information or documentation'you will require prior to the City Council meeting on June 3&. Thank you again for your time and assistance. Since7?underson, 01A- Ronald B. CPM Property Specialist NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS SNC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Kirmis DATE: 9 June 1997 RE: Otsego - Sprint Spectrum CUP FILE NO: 176.02 - 97.07 Attached are Findings of Fact applicable to the Sprint Spectrum conditional use permit application. Please note that the findings reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation on this request. This matter is scheduled for City Council consideration on 30 June. PC: Elaine Beatty Andy MacArthur Larry Koshak/Kevin Keilb 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 CITY OF OTSEGO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA IN RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Application of Sprint Spectrum to allow a personal wireless service antenna to be mounted upon a non-public structure within an A-1, Agricultural Rural Service Zoning District. On 30 June 1997, the Otsego City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application Sprint Spectrum for the aforementioned conditional use permit. Based on the application, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and evidence received, the City Council now makes the following findings of fact and decision. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a personal wireless service antenna to be mounted upon a non-public structure. 2. The subject property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, Rural Service. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: See Attached Exhibit A 4. It is the applicant's intent to mount personal wireless service antennas to an existing 260 foot high United Power Association (UPA) Tower which exists upon the aforementioned legally described property. 5. Section 20-51-5.G.12 of the City's Zoning Ordinance lists "personal wireless service towers and antennas not located upon a public structure" as a conditional use in the A-1 Zoning District. 6. The UPA tower to which the antennas are to be mounted is not considered a "public structure" as defined by the City's Zoning Ordinance. 7. The applicant intends to mount four antennas upon the UPA structure. Two at 223 feet in height, one at 213 feet in height and one at 203 feet in height. 8. The 1996 Telecommunication Act stipulates that antennas (and associated support structures), such as that proposed, must be "reasonably" accommodated within the City. 9. 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 will be compatible with adjacent properties. As such, the use is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the property's A-1 zoning designation. b. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. The proposed antenna and existing support structure will be compatible with present and future 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. According to Duane Swenson of the Wright County Assessors Office, similar situations in Maple Lake and Franklin Township have not resulted in any negative property value impacts. As such, similar situations in Wright County dictate that the proposed use will not negatively impact area property values. 2 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 Kadler Avenue 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 can be accommodated by existing public service facilities and will not over burden the community's service capacity. 10. The planning report dated 20 May 1997, prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein. 11. On 4 June 1997, 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 ordinances, the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow a personal wireless service antenna to be mounted upon a non-public structure within an A-1, Agricultural Rural Service Zoning District is approved in its present form and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the existing UPA tower can physically support the proposed cellular antenna installation. 2. The antennas be in compliance with all City building and electrical code requirements. 3. The structural design, mounting and installation of the antennas are in compliance with manufacturer's specifications and verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. 4. Written authorization is provided from the tower owner (UPA) to allow attachment of the proposed cellular antennas. This issue should be subject to comment by the City Attorney. 3 5. No advertising messages are affixed to the antennas or antenna support structure. 6. The antennas are not artificially illuminated unless required by law or by a governmental agency to protect the public's health and safety. 7. If applicable, any required federal or state licenses are acquired. 8. Outdoor storage, excepting materials determined by the City to be customary and incidental to the use of the property, is prohibited. 9. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to property access easement issues. ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this 30th day of June 1997. CITY OF OTSEGO In ATTEST: Larry Fournier, Mayor By:: Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator 11 J%Al. J. 177! I..? - IGrl'1 TO:OTSEGO Hakanson a-111 Anderson A_ssoc., tnc. Jtlne 3, 1997 Elaine Beatty, Clerk City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue Otsego, IVIN 55330 RE: Sprint Spectrum CUP Dear Elaine: ..v.. ..+v 1 . i• 1 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka Minnesota 55303 612/417.5860 Fax 612/427-3.40+ 052'0 Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. has reviewed submittal documents provided for the above referenced CUP application. We offer the following comments: 1. An existing 10' wide ingress and egress easement provides access to the UPA site. The site plan submittal indicates that this easement is dedicated to UPA. Documentation must be submitted to indicate that UPA has the authority to transfer or lease this easement. Otherwise, a separate easement must be obtained by Sprint. 2. A typical roadway section is shown on the Plans, Sections, and Details Sheet. The plan set does not indicate where this road is to be constructed. The section indicates that a 12' wide road will be constructed. This will not fit inside a 10' wide easement. Clarification is required on this issue. 3. Structural comments made by the Planner must be responded to by the applicant. These issues should be referred to our office for comment. i¢ you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. ej e - Kevin P. Kielb, PE jlg cc: Lawrence G, Koshak, PE Elaine Beatty, Clerk Sob Kirmis, NAC Andy MacArthur, Attorney ot21 a4.ab Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors CITY OF OTSEGO UEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE I 6. BOB KIRMIS, Asst City Planner 6/30/97 - 6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB , CC 6.2. Consider an Amendment to Otsego Zoning Ord Sec 22-122(b) Re: Driveway surfacing upgrade requirements (Applicable to R-3 Zone Platted prior to 1992) BACKGROUND: The above item was on the Planning Commission Agenda for Hearing June 4, 1997 at 8PM. After reviewing the information at the Hearing the Planning Commission Recommended as follows: ING ROSKAFT MOTIONED TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE (Omitting existing item b and adding proposed item b) RICHARD NICHOLS SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. See attached Information. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation is to approve The Planning Commission's Recommendation of Approval of the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Re: Driveway surfacing requirements. Thanks Elaine N JOE - MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: N jj NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONISUJULTAN S COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MArKET RESEARCH - I Elaine Beatty Bob Kirmis 9 June 1997 Otsego - Zoning Ordinance: Driveway Surfacing Requirements 176.08 - 97.06 Attached please find a "clean" copy of the driveway surfacing amendment considered by the Planning Commission on 4 June. Unless the City Council directs text changes, the attached amendment should be used for signatures. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 CITY OF OTSEGO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 97 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 22-12 OF THE OTSEGO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREA SURFACING REQUIREMENTS FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN R-3 ZONING DISTRICTS. THE CITY OF OTSEGO ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-22-4.H.12.b of the Otsego Zoning Ordinance (parking area surfacing requirements for single family uses) is hereby amended to read as follows: b. Detached single family residential uses in the R-3 Zoning District and in all residential plats of five lots or more: (1) In any plats approved after 1 January 1992, all detached single family residential uses shall have driveways and parking stalls surfaced with asphalt, concrete, cobblestone or paving brick. (2) In any plat approved prior to 1 January 1992, (a) Except as provided in Subsection 12.b.2.b below, any residential use shall at minimum have driveways and parking areas surfaced with material suitable to control dust and drainage. (b) Any residential use which undertakes an improvement which includes the physical expansion of an existing driveway or parking area, or the construction of a new driveway or parking area shall be required to upgrade all such areas in compliance with the surfacing requirements of Sub -section 12.b.(1) above'.. (3) Any detached single family residential use fronting on a public street which is gravel shall be exempt from Subsection 12.b.1. and Subsection 12.b.2.b. Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this 30th day of June 1997. CITY OF OTSEGO In ATTEST: Larry Fournier, Mayor Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator 2 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis / David Licht DATE: 27 May 1997 RE: Otsego - Zoning Ordinance - Driveway Surfacing Requirements FILE NO: 176.08 - 97.06 At the 12 May meeting of the City Council, staff was instructed to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would omit a driveway upgrade requirement currently applicable to detached residential uses in the R-3 Zoning Districts which lie within plats approved prior to 1 January 1992. According to Section 20-22-4.H.12 of the Zoning Ordinance, any residential use (within an R-3 District and in plats of five or more lots) which undertakes an improvement requiring a building permit and the value of such improvement exceeds two thousand five hundred ($2,500) dollars is required to upgrade the driveway and parking areas to meet surfacing standards for new construction. Specifically, existing graveled driveways must be upgraded to be surfaced in asphalt, concrete, cobblestone or paving brick. Uses which front upon graveled public streets are, however, exempt from this requirement. The intent of the existing surfacing requirement is to provide a mechanism to implement the eventual "upgrade" of properties to "nevi' subdivision standards. This requirement was specifically discussed and endorsed by the Town Board/City Council as part of the Zoning Ordinance's initial adoption and reflects the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Our office's professional opinion is that the current language should be retained as it is a means and mechanism to enhance the quality and value of residential properties in the City. As you are likely aware, numerous, and possibly the majority of single family residential subdivisions within the City (platted prior to 1 January 1992) currently have driveways surfaced in gravel and front upon hard surfaced (asphalt) streets. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9637 Technically speaking, any building permit issued to such properties in excess of $2,500 must include as a condition of permit issuance that driveway surfacing be upgraded to asphalt, concrete, cobblestone or paving brick. This requirement could thus potentially apply to applications for the following: - Home Additions - Accessory Buildings - Porches - Septic Systems - Fences - Interior Remodeling - Swimming Pools As a matter of standard City practice, this requirement has not been enforced. Staff has raised concern that the $2,500 permit requirement may be excessively low and may in fact discourage property improvements. According to a representative of Pioneer Blacktop of St. Michael, a two inch overlay of asphalt will cost between $1.20 to $2.00 a square foot depending on soil conditions. Thus, an overlay of a 1,000 square foot gravel driveway could be expected to cost between $1,200 and $2,000. As previously indicated, this matter was discussed informally at the 12 May City Council meeting. In considering this issue and the recommendation of the City Building Official, the Council has "suggested" that the existing driveway upgrade requirement be omitted from the Ordinance. The attached draft amendment reflects this Council directive. The amendment does, however, include a provision that if a property owner undertakes an improvement which includes the expansion of an existing driveway or construction of a new driveway, such driveway must be surfaced in asphalt, concrete, cobblestone, or paving brick. Please be advised that the Planning Commission certainly has the right to dispute the informal "suggestion" of the City Council in this matter and offer recommendation as to its preferred or alternative means of driveway surfacing regulation. This item is scheduled for public hearing on 4 June. PC: Elaine Beatty Andy MacArthur Larry Koshak Jerry Olson Otsego Mayor and City Council OA, DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT CITY OF OTSEGO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 97 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 22-12 OF THE OTSEGO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREA SURFACING REQUIREMENTS FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN R-3 ZONING DISTRICTS. THE CITY OF OTSEGO ORDAINS: Section 1l. Section 20-22-4.H.12.b of the Otsego Zoning Ordinance (parking area surfacing requirements for single family uses) is hereby amended to read as follows: b. Detached single family residential uses in the R-3 Zoning District and in all residential plats of five lots or more: (1) In any plats approved after 1 January 1992, all detached single family residential uses shall have driveways and parking stalls surfaced with asphalt, concrete, cobblestone or paving brick. (2) In any plat approved prior to 1 January 1992, (a) Except as provided in Subsection 12.b.2.b below, any residential use shall at minimum have driveways and parking areas surfaced with material suitable to control dust and drainage. (3) Any detached single family residential use fronting on a public street which is gravel shall be exempt from Subsection 12.b.1. and Subsection 12.b.2.b. Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this day of ATTEST: in CITY OF OTSEGO Larry Fournier, Mayor Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator 2 1897. CITY OF OTSEGO !T FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE 6. BOB KIRMIS, Asst City Planner 6/30/97 - 6:30PM I'T'EM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB, CC 6.3. Consider Kenneth and Janet Dewitt 8748 Palmgren Ave NE request: A. Conditional Use Permit to allow more than one detached garage/single family dwelling. BACKGROUND: The above item was on the Planning Commission Agenda for Hearing June 18, 1997 at 8PM. After reviewing the information at the Hearing the Planning Commission Recommended as follows: INION BY BILL JONES TO ADOPT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE DETACHED GARAGE/SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH THE NINE (9) CONDITIONS OF NAC'S REPORT. SEONDED BY BRUCE RASK. LOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. See attached Information and Findings of Fact. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation is to approve The Planning Commission's Recommendation of Approval of the Conditional Use Permit as noted above. Thanks Elaine N W^rm% NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Kirmis DATE: 19 June 1997 RE: Otsego - DeWitt Accessory Building CUP FILE NO: 176.02 - 97.08 Attached please find a findings of fact applicable to the DeWitt conditional use permit request to be considered by the City Council on 30 June. Please note that the findings are reflective of the Planning Commission's recommendation on the request. PC: Elaine Beatty Andy MacArthur Kevin Kielb 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL CITY OF OTSEGO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA IN RE: FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Application of Kenneth and Janet DeWitt for a conditional use permit to allow construction of more than one detached accessory building in association with a detached single family residential use. On 30 June 1997, the Otsego City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to_ consider the application of Kenneth and Janet DeWitt for the aforementioned 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 the construction of more than one detached accessory building in association with a detached single family residential use. 2. The subject property is zoned R-3, Residential -Immediate Urban Service Area. 3. The subject property lies within the City's Immediate Urban Service Area, as illustrated in Otsego's duly adopted Comprehensive Plan. 4. The legal description of the property is as follows: Lot 13, Block 4, Country Ridge, 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 and the property's R-3 zoning designation. b. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. The proposed accessory storage building (garage) will be compatible with present and future 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. While no detailed study has been conducted, similar situations dictate that 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 Palmgren Avenue 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 can be accommodated by existing public service facilities. The proposed use will not overburden the City's service capacity. 6. The planning report dated 28 May 1997, prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein. r^A 7. On 18 June 1997, 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 ordinances, the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow more than one detached accessory building in association with a detached single family residential use is approved in its present form and subject to the following stipulations: 1. The proposed accessory building is not used for home occupation/commercial related activities or the keeping of animals. 2. The proposed accessory building match the principal building in color. 3. The applicant pursue one of the following options to rectify the proposed non- conforming front yard setback: a. Shift the accessory building as currently designed five feet to the southeast. b. Redesign the accessory building such that the patio component does not lie within the subject property's front yard. C. Revise the design of the patio such that it may qualify as a setback exception (i.e., remove roof element). 4. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to the proposed driveway width expansion. 5. The site's driveway is surfaced in asphalt, cobblestone or paving brick in accordance with ordinance requirements. 6. A building elevation is submitted which demonstrates compliance with City building height requirements. 7. The applicant recognize that future sanitary sewer service to the property and implementation of the resubdivision plan could necessitate relocation or removal of the proposed detached accessory structure. 3 8. The applicant consider utilizing a roof design and pitch upon the proposed accessory building which is similar to that used upon the site's principal building. ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this 30th day of June 1997. ATTEST: as CITY OF OTSEGO By: Larry Fournier, Mayor Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator rd CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL CITY OF OTSEGO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA IN RE: FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Application of Kenneth and Janet DeWitt for a conditional use permit to allow construction of more than one detached accessory building in association with a detached single family residential use. On 30 June 1997, the Otsego City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to; consider the application of Kenneth and Janet DeWitt for the aforementioned 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 the construction of more than one detached accessory building in association with a detached single family residential use. 2. The subject property is zoned R-3, Residential -Immediate Urban Service Area. 3. The subject property lies within the City's Immediate Urban Service Area, as illustrated in Otsego's duly adopted Comprehensive Plan. 4. The legal description of the property is as follows: Lot 13, Block 4, Country Ridge, City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota 5. Section 20-4-2.17 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 and the property's R-3 zoning designation. b. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. The proposed accessory storage building (garage) will be compatible with present and future 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. While no detailed study has been conducted, similar situations dictate that 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 Palmgren Avenue 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 can be accommodated by existing public service facilities. The proposed use will not overburden the City's service capacity. 6. The planning report dated 28 May 1997, prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein. 2 7. On 18 June 1997, 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 ordinances, the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow more than one detached accessory building in association with a detached single family residential use is approved in its present form and subject to the following stipulations: 1. The proposed accessory building is not used for home occupation/commercial related activities or the keeping of animals. 2. The proposed accessory building match the principal building in color. 3. The applicant pursue one of the following options to rectify the proposed non- conforming front yard setback: a. Shift the accessory building as currently designed five feet to the southeast. b. Redesign the accessory building such that the patio component does not lie within the subject property's front yard. C. Revise the design of the patio such that it may qualify as a setback exception (i.e., remove roof element). 4. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to the proposed driveway width expansion. 5. The site's driveway is surfaced in asphalt, cobblestone or paving brick in accordance with ordinance requirements. 6. A building elevation is submitted which demonstrates compliance with City building height requirements. 7. The applicant recognize that future sanitary sewer service to the property and implementation of the resubdivision plan could necessitate relocation or removal of the proposed detached accessory structure. 3 8. The applicant consider utilizing a roof design and pitch upon the proposed accessory building which is similar to that used upon the site's principal building. ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this 30th day of June 1997. CITY OF OTSEGO IN ATTEST: Larry Fournier, Mayor By:: Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator 0 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS NINC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis DATE: 28 May 1997 RE: Otsego - DeWitt Accessory Building CUP FILE NO: 176.02 - 97.08 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Kenneth and Janet DeWitt have requested approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of more than one detached accessory structure upon their 1.0 acre property located east of Palmgren Avenue between 85th and 88th Streets. Specifically, the applicants wish to construct a 1,008 square foot (28 feet by 36 feet) detached accessory building approximately 20 feet to the west of their single family residence. The proposed accessory building is to include a 728 square foot two stall garage and 28 square foot "patio" area. Presently, a 160 square foot detached accessory storage building exists in the applicant's rear yard. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Site Plan 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 Recommendation Based upon City policy and regulations, our office recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow more than one detached accessory building associated with a single family residential use subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed accessory building is not used for home occupation/commercial related activities or the keeping of animals. 2. The proposed accessory building match the principal building in color. 3. The applicant pursue one of the following options to rectify the proposed non- conforming front yard setback: a. Shift the accessory building as currently designed five feet to the southeast. b. Redesign the accessory building such that the patio component does not lie within the subject property's front yard. C. Revise the design of the patio such that it may qualify as a setback exception (i.e., remove roof element). 4. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to the proposed driveway width expansion. 5. The site's driveway is surfaced in asphalt, cobblestone or paving brick in accordance with ordinance requirements. 6. A building elevation is submitted which demonstrates compliance with City building height requirements. 7. The applicant recognize that future sanitary sewer service to the property and implementation of the resubdivision plan could necessitate relocation or removal of the proposed detached accessory structure. 8. The applicant consider utilizing a roof design and pitch upon the proposed accessory building which is similar to that used upon the site's principal building. 9. Comments from other City staff. 2 ISSUES ANALYSIS CUP Review Criteria. As noted previously, the applicant has requested a conditional use permit to allow more than one detached (or second) accessory building upon his property. According to Section 20-16-4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, a conditional use permit for an accessory storage structure may only be granted, provided that: 1. There is a demonstrated need and potential for continued use of the structure and purpose stated. 2. In the case of residential uses, no commercial or home occupation activities are conducted on the property. This prohibition shall include the storage of materials and equipment which are unrelated to the on-site residential use and facility. 3. The building has an evident re -use or function related to the principal use. 4. The accessory building shall be maintained in a manner that is compatible with the adjacent uses and does not present a hazard to public health, safety, and general welfare. 5. The provisions of Section 20-4-2.F of the Ordinance shall be considered and a determination made that the proposed activity is in compliance with such criteria (listed below). a. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. C. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.) d. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. e. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. 3 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. Existing Accessory Storage Space. Currently approximately 748 square feet of accessory storage space exists upon the subject property as summarized below: Square Footage Existing Attached Garage 588 (28 feet by 21 feet) Detached Accessory Building 160 (16 feet by 10 feet) 748 Including the proposed 1,008 square foot accessory building, approximately 1,756 square feet of accessory storage space would exist upon the subject property. According to the Wright County Assessor, the subject site's principal residence includes 1,012 square feet of living space. It should be recognized that the amount of proposed accessory storage space will significantly exceed the size of the applicant's dwelling. Building Use. The CUP review criteria states that there should be a demonstrated need for the continued use of the structure for the stated purpose. The proposed garage is to be used for the storage of the applicant's personal equipment. As such, there appears to be a demonstrated need for the continued use of the structure. In accordance with ordinance requirements, the structure may not be used for home occupation and/or commercial related activities or the keeping of animals. Building Type. According to Section 20-16-4.g of the Zoning Ordinance, the same or suitable quality exterior building materials (as determined by the Building Inspector) shall be used in all accessory buildings over 150 square feet as the principal building. The applicant has not specified finish materials of the proposed detached accessory building. As a condition of CUP approval, a finding should be made by the City Building Inspector that exterior building materials comply with applicable ordinance requirements. To ensure structure compatibility, it is recommended that the proposed accessory building match the principal building in color. 51 Setbacks. Section 20-16-4.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states that no accessory building shall be allowed within a required front yard (35 feet from Street right-of-way). With the exception of aag rage, the Ordinance further states that no accessory building may be placed within a front yard (45 feet from street right-of-way). According to the submitted site plan, the proposed detached accessory building is to lie 40 feet from the Palmgren Avenue right-of-way. The acceptability of the proposed structure location is dependent upon whether the proposed patio is determined to be a structure in and of itself (other than a garage) or simply a sidewalk or stoop. Section 20-17-5.A of the ordinance establishes allowable encroachments on yard setback requirements. Specifically, the ordinance lists the following as an allowable encroachment: Walks or steps for negotiating ground slopes, retaining walls, uncovered porches, decks, stoops, hedges and natural growth, paved terraces; paved areas or similar features provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or not more than a distance of three (3) feet into any required yard except a rear yard. According to the applicant, the garage's roof is to extend over that portion of the structure identified as a "patio". Thus, it technically does not qualify as a setback exception. As a condition of CUP approval, one of the following options should be pursued to rectify this setback concern: 1. The accessory building as currently designed is shifted five feet to the southeast (such that patio does not lie in the front yard). 2. The accessory building is redesigned such that the patio component does not lie within the lots's front yard (45 feet from the Palmgren Avenue right-of-way). In this regard, the patio could be simply relocated from the front yard to the rear yard 3. The patio design is revised such that it qualifies as a setback exception. This would, however, require the omission of the patio's roof element. As shown on the submitted site plan, the proposed accessory building would overlay a future side lot line as illustrated upon the resubdivision plan. According to the City Building Official, it is acceptable to allow such building placements provided that the property owner/applicant understand the ramifications of such building placement. In this regard, the applicant should recognize that future sanitary sewer service to the property and implementation of the resubdivision plan could necessitate relocation or removal of the proposed detached accessory structure. R Access. According to the submitted site plan, the subject site is currently accessed via a single ± 13 foot wide curb cut from Palmgren Avenue. The site plan illustrates an expansion of the curb cut width to + 18 feet. Such expansion would provide more convenient vehicular access to the proposed accessory building. The acceptability of such curb cut expansion and impact onsite drainage (via culvert modification) should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Driveway Surfacing. As a condition of CUP approval, the subject property's driveway should be surfaced in asphalt, cobblestone or paving brick in accordance with ordinance requirements. Building Height. According to Section 20-16-4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance, an accessory building within an R-3 zoning district may not exceed 16 feet in height except via conditional use permit. As a condition of CUP approval, a building elevation should be submitted which demonstrates compliance with the maximum height standard. Compatibility. According to CUP evaluation criteria, the proposed use must be judged compatible with surrounding uses. As shown on the submitted site plan, the proposed accessory building is to lie + 65 feet from the subject site's southern property line. Considering that this setback is more than six times that required by ordinance (minimum 10 foot setback required), the proposed use is considered compatible with the area in which it is proposed. To ensure compatibility with the site's principal building, it has been previously recommended that the accessory building match the existing residence in color. Considering the visibility of the proposed accessory building, it is further recommended that the applicant consider a roof design (i.e., gable or hip) and pitch similar to that used upon the principal building. CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review and in consideration of City policy and regulations, our office recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the stipulations listed in the Executive Summary of this report. PC: Elaine Beatty Andy MacArthur Larry Koshak Jerry Olson Kenneth and Janet DeWitt 0 Q O a x H c� z O EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION �Z 10 p„o pon I� �j .are-oo /, t to + 11 � 7 R A 8 z 10 R 11 A 12 R13 14 � 20 �R N.E. 90th STREET 21 2 A 3� /AC A - 4 i r 1100 /7000 ��uoa^ P-0 00„_,0 4 a me-"jo 3 N+m '° 5 ",�° 13 10 ,oa»o polo 3 swv-ao 8 Pilo �t,to i ° na-,w 5 >o 11 Li 11 u�m 3 -41-0 sr.x 12 ■v -m j l=+a 17-Ja 9 z 1 0, loo � 8 jJ'7G d g § 13 x,01 67 ao bR R 2 A 3� /AC A - 4 6 _ r RES /7000 ��uoa^ P-0 /,oeo7 5 4 a me-"jo 3 /7°TO '° 5 ",�° 13 polo 3 swv-ao 8 7 �t,to i ° na-,w 5 l-- 2 11 Li 11 10 3 -41-0 sr.x 15 l=+a 17-Ja A 1 �! R 2 A 3� /AC A - 4 /'BART EL /+� RES l,aso R /,aro A R Hop a /,oeo7 5 R J J w 1- a CL w� z 2 OW I N.E. 89th STREET r ° 5 3 3 851 7°a 5 3A 2 1 Jima ow 4 /tao l,c2n 88th STREP 88th ST. Flom o A A l R 1� 2�3�.b 2 1 z 11770—W I 4 � uj 5 B A 5poe, 5 2 1 PGREN P� 1 �,,,_,Oq�'F. 0,.2-2 7 8 ia rA,0 arcs pI W t7nao .9`� rrt8725-30k-W Q 2 la= ms --30 e7,. x }` °-Z 8 • I 9" � 1 1-x 12 � 3 i 4 8jth S ui � 11 4 Z /w,o regio -a, � 1 ope6-A p0•-�7 622 �0 .��1 GAJ 5 .� 2 _ ..,� ,oma 9 \OGF' B 3 J' 7 �- 4 xn x, ecu -x I I N.E. 85th ST. 1 12 1 1 EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATIO! /„b N. E. 87th 19 0-00 0 J1 120 - R ad. 12 R R 17 sa 70 � '° 5 ",�° 13 - �t,to i ° na-,w 11 Li 11 10 3 -41-0 sr.x 15 4 9 t l,r,o 0, loo 8 P= 1200 Ctsao10 Flom o A A l R 1� 2�3�.b 2 1 z 11770—W I 4 � uj 5 B A 5poe, 5 2 1 PGREN P� 1 �,,,_,Oq�'F. 0,.2-2 7 8 ia rA,0 arcs pI W t7nao .9`� rrt8725-30k-W Q 2 la= ms --30 e7,. x }` °-Z 8 • I 9" � 1 1-x 12 � 3 i 4 8jth S ui � 11 4 Z /w,o regio -a, � 1 ope6-A p0•-�7 622 �0 .��1 GAJ 5 .� 2 _ ..,� ,oma 9 \OGF' B 3 J' 7 �- 4 xn x, ecu -x I I N.E. 85th ST. 1 12 1 1 EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATIO! R N. E. 87th STREET J1 120 - R 12 R R � 0 48 � '° 5 ",�° 13 - �t,to taw 11 2 11 10 3 -41-0 sr.x _,a � 9 t l,r,o 0, loo 8 P= 1200 Ctsao10 g § b x,01 67 ao Flom o A A l R 1� 2�3�.b 2 1 z 11770—W I 4 � uj 5 B A 5poe, 5 2 1 PGREN P� 1 �,,,_,Oq�'F. 0,.2-2 7 8 ia rA,0 arcs pI W t7nao .9`� rrt8725-30k-W Q 2 la= ms --30 e7,. x }` °-Z 8 • I 9" � 1 1-x 12 � 3 i 4 8jth S ui � 11 4 Z /w,o regio -a, � 1 ope6-A p0•-�7 622 �0 .��1 GAJ 5 .� 2 _ ..,� ,oma 9 \OGF' B 3 J' 7 �- 4 xn x, ecu -x I I N.E. 85th ST. 1 12 1 1 EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATIO! N. E. 87th STREET j1170 R R R R 13 - 12 11 10 9 H,20 l,r,o 0, loo P, /,ow l,o,o l,m l,av l,ow l,oea Ho.o 7 a 1 2 3 4 5 8 Ra o S 1 Flom o A A l R 1� 2�3�.b 2 1 z 11770—W I 4 � uj 5 B A 5poe, 5 2 1 PGREN P� 1 �,,,_,Oq�'F. 0,.2-2 7 8 ia rA,0 arcs pI W t7nao .9`� rrt8725-30k-W Q 2 la= ms --30 e7,. x }` °-Z 8 • I 9" � 1 1-x 12 � 3 i 4 8jth S ui � 11 4 Z /w,o regio -a, � 1 ope6-A p0•-�7 622 �0 .��1 GAJ 5 .� 2 _ ..,� ,oma 9 \OGF' B 3 J' 7 �- 4 xn x, ecu -x I I N.E. 85th ST. 1 12 1 1 EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATIO! s, B 3 7j. 9197 ��2•S 8 X �i•� L' a `U VN•� tY ?dAle ID Ira IlT c� a7 1-0m e2 -0 o p Jt T8>�%D A �9 0 \b O qO b�10 X34 5" Gd' Lot 13, Block 4, coLWRY RIDGE %Z EXHIBIT C - SITE PLAN City of Otsego Engineer's Agenda Items City Council Meeting June 30, 1996 8.1 CONSIDER SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM REPORT We have completed the Sanitary Sewer Collection System Study and Potable Water System Study for the eastern portion of the City. The studies are presented for Council review and comment. We recommend that the Council set a date for a workshop to review the studies with staff. 8.2 CONSIDERATION OF SEWER AND WATER INFORMATION We have reviewed the timeline presented by Bonestroo for implementation of Sewer and Water in the City. Please see attached comment letter related to this issue. Lawrence G. Koshak will be present at the council meeting to discuss this issue further. 8.3 ANY OTHER ENGINEERING BUSINESS A. Treatment Plant Site Selection Please Find enclosed a Treatment Plant Site Selection Report prepared by our office. Lawrence G. Koshak will be present to comment on the report at the council meeting. B. Draft FY2000 Area Transportation Improvement Program (ISTEA) Please find enclosed the Draft FY2000 Area Transportation Improvement Program (ISTEA) showing the Odeon Avenue Project being funded in year 2000. agenda6.30 I William S. Radzwill Andrew J. MacArthur Michael C. Court Megan M. McDonald June 26, 1997 t}diy$ RTS`-r� Ntl��1{es. �. RADZWILL & COURI 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 RE: Further Recommendation Regarding 62nd Street NE Dear Council Members: After the recent meeting the City had with the property owners along 62nd Street, I did some checking in our files regarding 96th Street near O'Brian Avenue in Hylo Acres. An issue similar to the one presented in this case was presented to the District Court in the context of an action for an Application To Register Title. in that case, the Court decided that an unrecorded right of way existed in favor of the Township of Otsego due to more that six years of maintenance, through application of statute. This case was decided prior to recording of the Otsego Town Road map. It also appears that it was common practice for Wright County to accept dedication of half roads. The current Otsego Subdivision Ordinance, 21-7-7,J, states as follows: "Half Streets: Half streets shall be prohibited except where it will be practical to require the dedication of the other half when the adjoining property is subdivided, in which case the dedication of a half street may be permitted. The probable length of time elapsing before dedication of the remainder shall be considered in this decision. No permanent street improvement shall be permitted within a half street right-of- way. All lots having frontage or access solely from a half Based upon the testimony of the property owners and others at the public meeting, it was represented to the City that the property owners could provide not only dedication of their current easements of one rod, but also an additional 14 feet from Willie Lindenfelser to the south. With that combination it would appear that th y -would have enough property to dedicate a 30 foot right-of-way to the City. It would be my recommendation that any half street include dedication of a temporary cul-de-sac for turn -around purposes. Recommendation for the particulars of the cul-de-sac should come from the City Engineer and Planner. Based upon the above, I would recommend that the Council consider acceptance of the dedication of a half street in this instance, with the understanding that, as per the ordinance, no building permits would be allowed on land having frontage on or obtaining access solely from the half street. The dedication should include a temporary cul-de-sac. The form of the dedication can be worked out later, if it is decided that a half street will be accepted. I will be available to answer questions regarding this matter at the City Council meeting on Monday. Ver},--tt-lrly yours/, ;�rew J. MacArthu_r_ Lrx COURI Encl. cc: Kevin Kielb, Hakanson Anderson Bob Kirmis, NAC ..rr�l .��#I'I ! l yjli�l 11 �1 11'.Ct5 WSJ, .J Letter to Otsego City Council June 26, 1997 .1„ Page 2 street are prohibited from being eligible for building permits." Based upon the testimony of the property owners and others at the public meeting, it was represented to the City that the property owners could provide not only dedication of their current easements of one rod, but also an additional 14 feet from Willie Lindenfelser to the south. With that combination it would appear that th y -would have enough property to dedicate a 30 foot right-of-way to the City. It would be my recommendation that any half street include dedication of a temporary cul-de-sac for turn -around purposes. Recommendation for the particulars of the cul-de-sac should come from the City Engineer and Planner. Based upon the above, I would recommend that the Council consider acceptance of the dedication of a half street in this instance, with the understanding that, as per the ordinance, no building permits would be allowed on land having frontage on or obtaining access solely from the half street. The dedication should include a temporary cul-de-sac. The form of the dedication can be worked out later, if it is decided that a half street will be accepted. I will be available to answer questions regarding this matter at the City Council meeting on Monday. Ver},--tt-lrly yours/, ;�rew J. MacArthu_r_ Lrx COURI Encl. cc: Kevin Kielb, Hakanson Anderson Bob Kirmis, NAC 45 VV7r L •,l�y a `.,. referred .loca on, becomes = possible'� "at' a pp �� ' ' void �`•.. at " the temporary entrance permits all' '. become ,, discretion of the City.J. Half Streets: Half streets shall be prohibited except be to require the dedication of where it will practical the other half when the adjoining property is subdivided, in which case the dedication of a half The length of time street may be permitted. probable elapsing before dedication of the remainder shall be considered in this decision. No permanencestreet be within a half street improvement shall permitted right-of-way. All lots having frontage or access solely from a half street are prohibited from being eligible for building permits. K. Dedication: A proposed streets shown on the plat State plans shall be in conformity to City, County and be offered for dedication as public and standards and streets unless otherwise determined by the City Council. L. Where a subdivision abuts or contains an existing sufficient additional width street of inadequate width,. shall be provided to meet the standards of this Chapter. M. Additional right-of-way and roadway widths may be safety and required by the Council to promote public it. convenience when special conditions require N. Restriction of Access: Access of local streets onto be discouraged at arterial and collector streets shall intervals of less than five hundred (500) feet. O. Corner Radii: Roadways of street intersections shall twenty (20) be rounded by a radius of not less than to the turn -around portions feet. Corners at entrances be rounded by a radius of not less of cul-de-sacs shall than twenty (20) feet. Corner radius to arterial and collector streets shall be no less than fifty (50) feet. P. Curb and Gutter: All urban streets, and all streets in have curb and commercial and industrial areas, shall in compliance with established City standard gutter design detail plates. Q. Street Designation: Streets shall be designated County standards in pursuant to established City and compliance with these standards and as approved by the City Council. The following policies may be generally street and avenue applied when designating awkward configurations. 45 • • • CITY OF OTSEGO SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM STUDY SUMMARY OF REPORT 1 REC = 250 GPD - 100 GPCD x 2.5 persons per household Total Phase I REC's = 1,351 Number of REC'S Residential 700 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 651 1,352 Total Projected 20 year flow = 0.338 MGD Percentage of Total 51.8 48.2 100.0 Total Phase I area trunk facility costs = 3,558,900 Cost per Residential Equivalent Unit (REC) = $3,000 • • CITY OF OTSEGO POTABLE WATER SYSTEM STUDY SUMMARY OF REPORT Residential Equivalent Unit (REC) = 300 GPD (120 gpcd x 2.5 persons per household) System Cost Table 1998 250,000 gallons storage Existing Commercial 65 tower 15 Projected Residential • One well $2,315,000 572 • Two pumphouses 1,352 • Portion of distribution system 2003 One well • One pumphouse $1,374,000 • Portion of distribution system 2008 Portion of distribution $574,000 system 2013 Portion of distribution $486,000 system 2018 500,000 gallon storage tower $1,621,400 • Portion of distribution system TWENTY YEAR SYSTEM TOTAL $6,320,400 Phase I REC's = 1,352 Number of • Connection Charge = $3,875 per REC Percentaae of Total 4.8 1.1 51.8 42.3 100.0 REC'S Existing Commercial 65 Existing Institutional 15 Projected Residential 700 Projected Commercial/Industrial 572 1,352 • Connection Charge = $3,875 per REC Percentaae of Total 4.8 1.1 51.8 42.3 100.0 d Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. June 25, 1997 Mayor and City Council City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue N Ostego, MN 55330 RE: Wastewater Treatment Schedule Dear Mayor and Council Members: Item 8.2 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 Fax 612/427-34 - 0520 We have reviewed the draft memo from Ted Field of Bonestroo dated 6-18-97. We are generally in agreement with Mr. Field's report, however, we feel it is necessary to comment on several of the tasks in the draft memo to provide additional information. We recommend that the City Council direct Bonestroo to complete the facilities plan with a mechanical treatment plant and capacity total of 400,000 Gallon per day (G.P.D.) capacity. This assumes that Otsego will be responsible for 300,000 Gallon capacity and Dayton for 100,000 Gallon capacity as originally intended. This also assumes that the portion associated with former Township of Frankfort in the original Bonestroo report be assumed by Otsego. We agree with Bonestroo that 100,000 G.P.D. is not capacity enough for the current development position the City of Otsego finds itself. The other significant decision to be made is the type of unit of government the Cities wish to place the Treatment Facilities under. Typical entities would be Joint Power, Municipal, or Sewer District. The following are a list of options and combination of the capacity. A. ♦ Plant Capacity - 400,000 G.P.D. with a split of 100,000 G.P.D. for Dayton and 300,000 G.P.D. for Otsego. ♦ Joint Power Agreement. B. ♦ Plant Capacity - 400,000 G.P.D. with a split of 100,000 G.P.D. for Dayton and 300,000 G.P.D. for Otsego. ♦ Otsego/Dayton Sanitary Sewer District. Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors June 25, 1997 Mayor and City Council City of Otsego Page 2 C. ♦ Plant Capacity - 400,000 G.P.D. with Dayton agreeing to purchase 100,000 G.P.D. ♦ City of Otsego, Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities D. ♦ Plant Capacity - 200,000 G.P.D. with a split of 100,000 G.P.D. for Dayton and 100,000 G.P.D. for Otsego. ♦ Joint Power Agreement E. ♦ Plant Capacity - 200,000 G.P.D. with a split of 100,000 G.P.D. for Dayton and 100,000 G.P.D. for Otsego. ♦ Otsego/Dayton Sanitary Sewer District. F. ♦ Plant Capacity - 200,000 G.P.D. with Dayton agreeing to purchase 100,000 G.P.D. ♦ City of Otsego Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities. G. ♦ Plant Capacity - 300,000 G.P.D. for City of Otsego only. ♦ City of Otsego Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities. H. ♦ Plant Capacity - 100,000 G.P.D. for City of Otsego only. ♦ City of Otsego Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities. In the options above, the capacity and commitments could change, however, these same capacities have been discussed and studied previously. We recommend that the treatment facilities consist of a mechanical activated sludge plant. Any other option would create additional costs at the time of expansion due to conversation of treatment processes. On the matter of the needs report, Otsego has statistical data to support needs, however, the data may be insufficient to make an impact. It would be more positive June 25, 1997 Mayor and City Council City of Otsego Page 3 to focus on the needs of Dayton. Otsego conceivably would not be ready to service, in the first 10 years, the current residential property. With the studies completed for the collection of sanitary sewer and water service, the connection schedule needs to be coordinated between Otsego and Dayton. The question is how many connections will be utilized in the span of time proposed in the financial report. We believe this data can be determined for the study within the time frame proposed by Bonestroo. The public meeting should be held sooner, if possible, than September 15, 1997 as has been suggested. It would be my recommendation to hold it as soon as the reports and Need Assessment can be completed. A follow-up Public Hearing needs to be planned for as the Bonestroo letter reports. Once the City (s) complete the hearings and Environmental Work Sheet and decide to proceed with the Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Cities have the option to request proposals for the Design and Construction Services for the Treatment Facilities. This process could take a month to six weeks to complete. The advantage would be to review what other firms have to offer in the design of the facilities, however, time may be an important factor in being on line by 1999. I will be available at the Council Meeting on June 30, 1997 to answer questions. Yours truly, HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. awdence,G. "shak, PE cc: Elaine Beatty, Clerk Andy MacArthur, Attorney Bob Kirmis, NAC Ted Field, Bonestroo jmh OT607-wwt.2 7, 2 William S. Radzwill indrew J. MacAithur Michael C. Couri Megan M. McDonald June 25, 1997 RADZWILL & COURI Attorneys at Law 705 Central Avenue East PO Bax 369 St. Michael, MN 55376 (612) 497-1930 (612) 497-2599 (FAX) City Council Members City of Otsego c/o Elaine Beatty, City Clerk 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Elk River, MN 55330 RE: Bonestroo and Hakanson Anderson Reports On Delivery Of Sewer And Water Service Dear Council Members: I have reviewed a draft memorandum prepared by Ted Field of Bonestroo relative to delivery of sewer service to the City and sizing of any potential plant to be constructed. It is my understanding that Hakanson Anderson will also be presenting on Monday their report on trunk lines and possibly a report on site review. The Bonestroo report sets forth a projected time line for submittal of an approved facility plan to the MPCA for review prior to October 1, 1997. This date is crucial if the City wishes to get on the next funding cycle for State money. It will require the Council to make some hard decisions in a short period of time in order to meet the time line set forth in the Bonestroo report. The procedures as set forth in the Minnesota Rules need to be closely followed. I have enclosed a copy of the applicable portion of those rules for your review. If the City Council decides to go ahead and pursue the time line as set forth by Bonestroo in their report, I would ask that this office be given authorization to report back to the City Council with information pertaining to establishment of a sewer district or joint powers entity, so that the Council will have information available to it to determine under what ownership and control the facility will operate. As you will note, the Bonestroo memo indicates that an indication of what entity will operate the plant Letter to Otsego City Council June 25, 1997 Page 2 must be included within the facility plan submitted to MPCA. Bonestroo has set a target date of September 1 for this decision to be made. I would also request authorization to bring back to the Council recommendations for amendments to the currently existing utility and assessment ordinances, as well as a report on needed changes to existing subdivision and zoning ordinances which may be necessary to facilitate proper use of the treatment plant and water system. This would be done in conjunction with the planner and Engineer, and is also referenced in the Bonestroo memo.. Finally, since land will have to be acquired for the site, hopefully by negotiation, the potential exists that the City may have to proceed to acquire land through eminent domain (condemnation). In order to give the Council some idea what is involved in this process, I have enclosed a brief outline of proceedings related to condemnation for your information. I think that the number of tasks set forth in the Bonestroo memo that must be concluded prior to October 1 in order to stay on track with this project underscores the importance of making decisions on this matter as soon as possible. I will be available for any questions you may have at the Council meeting on Monday. ry y r M c r COURI Encls. cc: Ted Field, Bonestroo Larry Koshak- Kevin Kielb, Hakanson Anderson Bob Kirmis- Dave Licht, NAC CITY OF OTSEGO CONDEMNATION PROCESS: GENERAL OUTLINE 1. Pick facility site through engineering evaluation. 2. Preliminary check of ownership and title. 3. Order appraisal of property. 4. Determine what entity will acquire property. Will the property be owned singly, jointly, or by a separate entity? What will be the formula for share of costs related to land acquisition? 5. City evaluates appraisal and Council action is taken to make offer to purchase property. Authority to enter into purchase agreement authorized. 6. Negotiate for acquisition of property by purchase. 7. Either close on purchase or consider authorization to go forward with condemnation of proposed site. 8. Preparation of documents necessary to support Condemnation. Proposed site plan for facility, proper legal descriptions of all areas that will be subject to Condemnation, etc. 9. Serve and file Condemnation action on proper parties. 10. Schedule and hold hearing on Public Purpose and Appointment of Commissioners at the District Court. Agree on Commissioners to review valuation of property. 11. Swear in Commissioners and schedule Commissioners viewing of property. 12. Commissioners view property and set up hearing for award on Condemnation. 13. Commissioners hold hearing on award. Both sides present appraisals and other evidence. 14. Commissioners make award, money paid or deposited in Court, time period for appeal of award to District Court commences. 15. If appealed, matter is heard at trial in District Court. 16. District Court judge rules on Commissioner's award. 17. If early possession of the property is a necessity, the City can proceed under 90 day "quick take" provision of Minnesota Statute 117. 3 y 077 0278 TREAT117 Wr A$SISTANCTN 7 TANCE 1027 WASTEWATER The project must be constructed accordtng to the approved pians and specif[ca- -- emativesonallexistingwaik ^ �' 7077.0272. .. ..,_. ,. pons and change orders. .. set of plans and specifications must address the follow- omental impacts. _ Subp. 2. Contents. A complete ing items in the amount of detail that is appropriate to describe a project accurately. native and the complete was A. plans and specifications signed by: Minnesota in the case of wastewater individual treatment units (1) a professional engineer registered in --i•at treatment systems; or & individual (2) a professional engineer or an ev�a�llons lesseof wastewater err peen day; ation and maintenance, and' treatment systems designed to treat 5,000 g or r-,t ;es; �! sewage B. a summary of design parameters for the treatment units; flow conditions for average dry weather, average wet weather, -„�` ent of any industrial wastes is C, a summary of hourly wet weather, and peak instantaneous wet weather on a form provided by the as average design flow or if the proposed system; ' -;1:,, peak and, for individual sewage treatment systems, reponed :orseptageresulting fromihe agency maximum design flow; D. hydraulic profile of the flow through the treatment system; --. rod elevations in relarior tb the a E. a plan for interim treatment to meet permit requirements during construction; and specifications submitted: 3e operable during a 25—year F. the latest detailed cost estimate based on the plans ent will be accomplished' d, and G. administrative, bidding, and contract documents according to the applicable re- bond from the - .,1, quirements under Minnesota Statutes, including a 100 percent performance ing items must be submitted -"" contractors. - Subp. 3. Additional submittals. The following items must be submitted to the com- :servemorethanonestructure' sting that all property -owners missionerwith the plans and specifications: A. a schedule on a form provided by the agency; inspec- if the system, to participate"' project B. a certification from the municipality that states that full—time resident inspection reports, describing the intenance, and replacementof don shall be provided during construction and that written the amount of inspection time required, once purposes and listedori 8 construction inspected, construction problems, and shall be submitted to the commissioner on a monthly basis; and necessary for the successful ' - `0 C. finalized and executed intermunicipal agreements td public comments receiv4 implementation and administration of the project. taken to address those co f' Statutory Authority: MS s 116.07; 116.182 eming body adopting the History: 15 SR 288: 17 SR 3097 i nems necessary for the su w � ' 7077.0276 ESSENTIAL PROJECT COMPONENTS. components. "Essential project components," according industrial user, and, ,° Subpart 1. Essential project to Minnesota Statutes, section (16.182, subdivision 1, paragraph (e), means those compo- to convey or treat a municipality's :ificant et. :. �. ”' nems of a wastewater disposal system that are necessary existing wastewater flows and loadings and future wastewater flows and loadings hazed on for 20—year The essential proj- ;s plan, the municipality must -. The facilities plan must be the projected residential growth of the municipality a period. be used to calculate the percentage under subpart 2. of the hearing. At the public . it alternatives considered, die ect components shall project components Subp. 2. Essential project components percentage. as essential project of a project qualifies the proposed project site; and percentage" means the percentage mire under part hiesplan Based on information contained in [he approved facilities plan submitted under part 100 times the sum of the total 7077.0272. this percentage shall be calculated by On biochemical oxygen demand(CBOD)massloadingandtheres- The selected treatment at existing daily carbonaceous idential growth daily CBOD mass loading, then dividing this product by the proposed total ons 2050), waterqualiry 303(e), water quality 20—vest growth daily CBOD mass loading. to authority. The essential project components percentage cal- it; it; programs of the attt � Subp. 3. Certification culated under subpart shall be included on the commissioner's certification to the authority prepared according to part 7077.028 1, subpart 3. Statutory Authority: MS s 116.132 History: 17 SR 3097 ins and specifications 1280, itemA-Tbe 7077.0278 INTENDED USE PLAN. Subpart 1. Adoption of intended use plan. The agency shall annually adopt an in- ?. subpart4, tpproved facilities plan under tended use plan based upon the requests received under subpart Ankerson Anderson Assoc., Inc. June 25, 1997 Mayor and City Council City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 RE: Wastewater Treatment Site Selection Dear Mayor & Council, Iten 8.3A 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 Fax 612/427-34at- 0520 As per your direction, we have reviewed the matter of selecting and recommending a site for the wastewater treatment facilities. Three sites were selected to be reviewed, each in the general area that was designated for locating a facility. The sites are near the Crow River, the Crow River being the principal discharge point. Each of the parcels are relatively isolated to provide the buffer against, residential development. We reviewed 40 acre parcels only and then estimated how much of the parcel was developable for the Plant Site. Accompanying this summary are Site Narratives for each parcel. The issues that we reviewed were environmental, physical, and site development condition, which include such items as wetland, access, distance from discharge points and drainage. We are recommending that Site I be selected for the Wasterwater Treatment Site. Site I is owned by Fae Jacobs and is described as SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 35, T121 , R23. The site is 40 acres of relatively gently rolling land. The area of proposed development is being cropped. The soils on Site 1 are Hayden 82, which are clay loams. These soils are fair to good for site development. The soils also have good drainage qualities. Site 1 does not appear to have wetlands, although a field investigation is necessary to determine the presence, if any, of wetlands. This site is also closest to the Crow River of the three sites reviewed. As is the case in all three sites, the access to the site is not in place. Site I needs to be accessed from 65th Street by a road. The R.O.W. will need to be purchased and a 9 Ton equivalent road built to the site. Engneers Landscape Architects Surveyors Mayor and City Council City of Otsego June 25, 1997 Page 2 Accompanying this recommendation is an exhibit showing the sites. We reviewed the other sites and eliminated many due to the isolation issue, distance from residences, and close proximity to the Crow River. Site I and the other two reviewed appeared not to be contiguous with a farm operation. They appear to have only portions of the 40 acres being used for crop, part for pasture, and the rest is open area. The Site I elevation is about 60' above the river; we found little land along the river that would provide the expandability and be isolated. We feel this selection will best serve the community for the wastewater treatment site. We will be available to discuss our recommendation with you at the June 30, 1997 Council Meeting. Please contact me if you have questions. Yours truly, HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. djw�'07a Law ence . l6shak, PE cc: Elaine Beatty, Clerk Andy MacArthur, Attorney Bob Kirmis, Planner jmh OT609-- Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Site Selection Narrative SITE 1 A. Parcel Data: ♦ Description: SE Y4 of SE Y4 of Section 35, Township 121, Range 23 ♦ Owners per County Records: Fae Jacobs, Loretta Moos, Dorothy Kirkpatrick ♦ Area: 40 acres plus right-of-way for access Right-of-way for access = 2.5 acres Total Acquisition: approximately 42.5 acres B. Environmental ♦ Wetlands - None identified from aerial photos. ♦ Distance from center of site to nearest residential development 1700' N.W. and S.W. - Greater than a quarter mile ♦ Drainage: Ninety percent of 40 acres drain to the northeast to a ditch. The drainage pattern is developed with the ditch being the outflow conveyance. The pattern of drainage is functional. Availability for storage pond of runoff appears to be good in N.E. corner of 40 acres. ♦ Public Access: Remote 40 acres with no public access. Road would need to be built at least a '/< mile to reach the boundary. The 40 acres are not adjacent to TH101 or CSAH36 by at least '/I mile. C. Physical Issues: ♦ Topography - Rolling with some sharp changes in grade. The topo is diverse in that the westerly 2/3 (generally about 5-12% slope) is currently being farmed as cropland. About 7-8 acres is 5-7% slope and the rest is either flat or very steep. ♦ Soils - Hayden (HI) & Glencoe (Majority of site area is Hayden) ♦ Ground Cover 25-30 acres appear from aerial photo have been grain crop fields. Other area could be pasture land. D. Site Development Condition ♦ Access: A road would need to be built either from 65th Street south to the site and/or from the Southwest 59th Street and Quenroe Avenue. A street from the south may be closer, however, that would access through residential property. Access from the north would make for a long dead road from CSAH 42 to 65th Street to the site approximately 3/4 mile. 65th Street is dead -ended at TH101. R.O.W. to the site would need to be acquired. ♦ Area Available It appears that about 8-10 acres is a developable site for a Wastewater Treatment Plant. The rest could be used as a buffer and expansion of the facilities. ♦ Elevation It appears that the average/mean elevation on the site area for the plant site is 915.0 with a 920.0 on the south end and a 905.0 on the north end which is about 1.5% slope north to south. ♦ Distance to Discharge Point in Crow River About 2500 LF from the center of site to river. Easement to place the discharge pipe will be required. SITE 2 A. Parcel Data: ♦ Description: SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 35 T1 21 R23 ♦ Owner per County Records: Nellie C. Bobendrier ♦ Area: 40 acres plus right-of-way for access Right of Way for Access = 2.0 Acres Total Acquisition: Approximately 42 acres. B. Environmental: ♦ Wetlands - There appears to be about 10 acres of wetland from the aerial photo. This size of wetland area could increase upon a site evaluation. ♦ Distance from center of site to residential Development: 1000' to the SW (Wokson Hills) and about 1800' northerly to residential property along 65th Street. ♦ Drainage: Approximately 30 or more acres drain to the north by way of the wetlands. The Wetlands overflow to a swale taking the water into a neighbor's property north of the site. From that wetland the overflow goes into a ditch that ultimately drains in the Mississippi River. The remaining 10 acres or so drains easterly on to Site I and then off site to the same ditch to the north. ♦ Public Access Remote 40 acres with no public access. A road would need to be built for at least 1000 feet from Queen Avenue easterly to the site. If access was allowed on residential streets then 59th Street could be extended to the site about 400 feet. We would not recommend use of residential streets for access to a Wastewater Treatment Plant due to heavy construction vehicles and the export of sludge and other waste to be landfilled. C. Physical Issues: ♦ Topography - The land is rolling with wetlands and cropland. The cropland slopes vary from 5-20% and the rest of the land has steep slopes that approach the wetlands. About 10 acres of this site have slopes 1 %-12% which can be utilized for plant site. ♦ Soils ♦ Soils Hayden, Glencoe and peat soils are existing on site. The Hayden soil underlie the proposed plant site. ♦ Ground Cover The 10 acres proposed plant site area has been crop farmed with about a 1 /2 acre wooded depressed on the high point of this 10 acres. The rest of the site is wooded or wetlands. D. Site Development Condition: Access: A road would need to be built from Queen Avenue to the site with a 80' easement a distance of 1000'. Access road from the north would need to traverse through land owned by the site/location. Since there is a farm with a number of buildings and wetlands, getting an access would be difficult. The only alternative appears to be access by way of Queen Avenue. Area Available It appears that about 10 acres is developable on the site with minor re- shaping of the proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant site. The remainder of the site would be a natural buffer on the west side. Elevation: This site is the highest in the area. The elevation on the south end of the parcel is the higher end of the site, and is about 938.0 and slopes to the north to about 925.0 over a distance of about 1000'. The highest water level shown on the properties in the 1994 aerial photo is 915.0 to 917.0. The north to south slope is 1.3% which is acceptable for construction. Distance to Discharge Point in the Crow River: It appears that the distance from the center of the site to the Crow River is 3500 linear feet. Easements to place the discharge pipes will be required. SITE 3 A. Parcel Data: ♦ Description: SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Section 36 R23 T121N ♦ Owner per County Records: Anna M. Croteau. ♦ Area: 40 acres plus right-of-way for access Right of Way for Access = 2.5 acre Total Acquisition: Approximately 42.5 acres. B. Environmental ♦ Wetlands: There appear to be several wetlands on site, the larger of these is approximately 1.0 acre. The others perhaps total 1/2 acre. The wetlands are generally in the west and south portion of the parcel. ♦ Distance from center of site to residential Development: The closest residence is about 1500' from the site. The location is a farmstead northeast of the site. East of the site approximately 2200' is another farmstead. In the other direction no residences appear closer than 2000'. ♦ Drainage: The site that is the NW half drains to the 1 acre wetland and then to the north via a ditch. The southeast half drains to the southeast. The ditch that drains north is less defined than the ditch draining Site I. There is no other drainage from the site with respect to defined drainage ways. The wetlands appear to be not significant in runoff retention. ♦ Public Access Remote 40 acres with no public access. A road would need to be built for at least 1350' from 65th Street north of the site. Access from the south from CSAH 36 would be approximately 2200'. C. Physical Issues ♦ Topography The land is rolling with fewer wetlands than Site 2. There appears to be fewer steep slopes (greater than 12%). Although there is a limited area with slopes of 5-12%, most land has slopes ranging from 12-20%. The east side is a ridge line, then begins to drop sharply to the flatter land in the parcels to the east. Perhaps the most acceptable site for the proposed plant would be the center area of this forty where about 6-8 acres is available. ♦ Soils Hayden & Glencoe are the soil classes with marshland soils in the wetlands. The Hayden C2 & D2 predominate on this site. ♦ Ground Cover - The north 2/3 of the 40 acres appear to have been cropped per the aerial photos except for the 1 acre wetland. The lower 1/3 of the 40 acres appears to have been pasture. Only about 5-6% of site is wooded. D. Site Development Condition ♦ Access: A road would need to be built from 65th Street to the site with an 80' easement a distance of 1350'. An access road from the south would be possible if also used to serve as an easement for the discharge pipe to the Crow River. The southerly route would remove trees and have steep grades associated with that route. The only viable route appears to be from 65th Street. ♦ Area Available: It appears that about 15-20 acres is developable with reshaping the topography for the proposed plant site. The wetlands and the south 1/3 of the parcel would serve as buffers for the site. ♦ Elevations: This site averages about elevation 930.0 on the ridge line to about 900.0 in the lower area which is about a 7% slope. The ridge line runs SW to NE splitting the 40 acres. Distance to Discharge Point in the Crow River. The distance to the discharge point in the Crow River is about 3000'. Easement to place the discharge pipe will be required. a Tuesday, June 17, 1997 DRAFT FY 1998-2000 AREA TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAI Page 5 Requested Year 19_ Item 8.3P D uested Year ATP Priority Agency Route System Project Number Description STIP Year Work Type Descnpton Current Estimate Fed Slate $ Local 3A 1999 97-31" WADENA COUNTY CSAH 21 80-621-08 REPLACE BRIDGE OVER SHELL RIVER Bridge Replacement $245,000.00 $196,000.00 $49,000.00 3B1999 �126 7 COUNTY CSAH 3 33-603-20 FROM CSAH 5 TO E. COUNTY LINE 7PYea Grade and Surface $1,130,000.0,000.00 $226,00000 3B 1999 99-28 SHERBURNE COLIN TH 12 71-602-02 FROM CSAH 19 TO E. COUNTY LINE 1999 Grade and Surface $255,000.00 $204,000.00 $1,380,000 00 $51,00000 38 1999 99-28 1 MN/DOT TWN 1821200TH ST 7 - INSTALL SIGNALS AND GATES AT RR Ing Improvements $120,000.00 $96,000.00 $24.00000 3B 2000 99-17 MN/DOT TH 10 7102-92 ROSSING IN BIG LAKE TOWNSHIP (USDOT 3 1999 Concrete Pavement Rehab. $2,000,000.00 $2,000.000-00 3B 1999 99-282 MN/DOT TWN 651137TH ST 71-00117 0 INSTALL ND GATES 1999 RR Crossing Improvements $120,000.00 $96,000.00 $24.00000 3B 2000 99-31" MN/DOT TH 25 8605-41 CROSSING IN BEC IP 2000 Grade and Surface $800,000.00 $640,000.00 $160.00000 3B 1999 99-29 STEARNS COUNTY CR 134 73-596-03 FROM CSA 120 1999 Grade and Surface $600,000.00 $480,000.00 $120.00000 3A 1999 99-30 MORRISON COUNT 9TH AVE. 49-600-0 .13 MI. FROM CSAH 52 TO CR 213 1999 Ir�Surfacng $600,000.00 $480,000.00 $269,000.00 $120.00000 3B 1999 99-30.1 ISANTI COUNTY CSAH 6 30-606-22 FROM TH 65 TO E. COUNTY LINE 1999 Grad$802,000.00 $642,000.00 $160.00000 3B 1999 99-32'- BENTON CSAH 33 XXX REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE OVER 2000 Design Engineering $2,300,000.00 $000 $280,00000 $000 MISSISSIPPI RIVER (DEMO) - DESIGN 3 2000 00-001 MN/DOT DIST. WIDE 8803-165 ENGINEERING 2000 Turn Lanes $250,000.00 $250,000.00 3A 1999 -25 MN/DOT TH 238 4913-17 UPSALA TO JCT TH 27 2000 Mill and Overlay $2,760,000.00 $ Sum(Current Estimate) $57,391,000.00 Sum(Fed $) : $28,965,600.00 Sum(Slate $) : $26,435,000.00 Sum(Local $) : $1,990,400.00 Requested Year 2000 District Requested Year ATP Priority Agency Route System Project Number Description STIP Year Work Type Description Current Estimate Fed lata S Local 3A 2000 97-31" WADENA COUNTY CSAH 23 80-623-08 RECONSTRUCTION FiRM S. CTY 1-1-077-1997 Grade and Surface 440,00.05 0.$88,000,00 78FT S. OF 5TH AVE. IN VERNDALE 38 2000 99-13 MN/DOT TH 12 8601418 W. LIMITS OF HOWARD LAKE TO 0.1 MI. W. OF 1999 Grade and Surface $7,000,000.00 $5,520,000.00 $1,380,000 00 $100,000 00 CR 110 W. OF MONTROSE 3B 2000 99-17 MN/DOT TH 10 7102-92 CONCRETE SECTIONS FROM BIG LAKE TO 1999 Concrete Pavement Rehab. $2,000,000.00 $2,000.000-00 ELK RIVER 3B 2000 99-31" MN/DOT TH 25 8605-41 CONSTRUCT LOOP AND PARK 8 RIDE LOT AT 2000 Grade and Surface $800,000.00 $640,000.00 $160.00000 1-94 IN MONTICELLO 3A 2000 99-33" MN/DOT TH 371 1116-21 PINE RIVER TO BACKUS INCL SIGNAL, 2000 Bituminous Overlay $1,345,000.00 $1,076,000.00 $269,000.00 CHANNELIZATION, AND LIGHTING 3B 2000 99A4 CITY OF BUFFALO MSA 103 213-103-02 FROM MSA 103 TO MSA 105, INCL. TH 55/CP 1999 Overpass Construction $2,300,000.00 $980,000.00 $280,00000 $1,040,000 00 RAIL OVERPASS 3 2000 00-001 MN/DOT DIST. WIDE 8803-165 DISTRICTWIDE TURN LANE PROJECT - FY 00 2000 Turn Lanes $250,000.00 $250,000.00 3 2000 00-001 MN/DOT DIST. WIDE 8803 -RB -00 LANDSCAPING PARTNERSHIP - FY 00 2000 Landscaping $45,000.00 $45.00000 3 2000 00-001 MN/DOT DIST.WIDE 8803 -AM -00 MN/DOT PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL 2000 Cooperative Const. Agreemen $1,300,000.00 $1,300,000.00 PROJECTS - FY 00 3 2000 00-001 MN/DOT DIST.WIDE 8803 -RW -00 STATE R/W - FY 00 2000 Right of Way $4,300,000.00 $4,300,000.00 3 2000 00-001 MN/DOT DIST.WIDE 8803 -RX -00 ROAD REPAIR - FY 00 2000 Road Repair $2,100,000.00 $2,100,000.00 i Tuesday. June 17, 1 DRAFT FY 1998-2000 AREA TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROG Page 6 Requested Year: . D stnct Requested Year ATP Priority Agency Route System Project Number Description STIP Year Work Type Description Current slimate FedF State Local 3 2000 00-001 MN/DOT DIST.WIDE 8803 -SA -00 MN/DOT SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS 8 2000 upp. Agree. Cos Overruns 4,100,00 .00 4,100,000 00 COST OVERRUNS - FY 00 3A 2000 00-01 MN/DOT TH 200 0105-10 FROM E. JCT TH 6 TO JCT TH 169 (ATP 3 1999 Bituminous Overlay $963,000.00 $963.00000 PORTION) 3B 2000 00-02 MN/DOT TH 10 0502-88 UPGRADE SIGNAL AND FRONTAGE ROAD 1999 Signal Revision/Turn Lanes $700,000.00 $630.00000 $70.0000 REVISION INCL TURN LANES ON ST. GERMAIN ST. IN ST. CLOUD 3B 2000 00-03 MN/DOT BB TRF- PURCHASE ONE CLASS 500 MEDIUM BUS - 2000 Purchase Bus $93,000.00 $74,40000 $18,600 0 ISANTI COUNTY 36 2000 00-04 CITY OF BRAHAM MUN 1914TH STREE 30-00111 INSTALL SIGNALS AND GATES AT RR 2000 RR Crossing Improvements $125,000.00 $100,000.00 $25,000 0 CROSSING IN GRAHAM 3A 2000 00-05 MN/DOT BB TRF- PURCHASE ONE CLASS 500 MEDIUM BUS - 2000 Purchase Bus $93,000.00 $74.40000 $18.6000 MILLE LACS COUNTY 3B 2000 00-06 MN/DOT BB TRF- PURCHASE TWO CLASS 500 MEDIUM BUSES 2000 Purchase Buses $186,000.00 $148.80000 $37.2000 (SHERBURNE & WRIGHT COUNTIES) - RIVER RIDER TRANSIT 3B 2000 00-07 STEARNS COUNTY CSAH 55 689312P INSTALL SIGNAL AND GATES AT RR 2000 RR Crossing Improvements $125,000.00 $100,000.00 $25.0000 CROSSING AT CSAH 55 IN BELGRADE 3B 2000 00-08 CITY OF RICE MUN 9/SOUTH STR 05.00120 INSTALL SIGNAL AND GATES AT RR 2000 RR Crossing Improvements $125,000.00 $100.00000 $25.0000 CROSSING AT MUN 9 IN RICE 3B 2000 00-09 CITY OF ELK RIVER EN 204 -090 -XX BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS OVER TH 2000 Bike/Ped Improvements $492,000.00 $393.60000 $98.4000 169 IN ELK RIVER 3A 2000 00-10 WADENA COUNTY CSAH 23 80-623-09 GRADE AND SURFACE FROM CSAH 6 TO TH 2000 Grade and Surface $1,445,000.00 $1,156,000 00 $289.0000 227, 4 Mi. E. OF SEBEKA 3A 2000 00-11 MN/DOT TH 6 1802414 MISSISSIPPI RIVER BRIDGE TO 10.2 MI. N. OF 1999 Grade and Surface $3,000,000.00 $3,000,000 00 CROSBY 3B 2000 00-12 MN/DOT 1-94 7380-200 WBL FROM DOUGLAS7TODD CO. LINE TO 2000 Unbonded Overlay $6,300,000.00 $5,040,000 00 $1,260,000.00 SAUK CENTRE 3B 2000 00-13 MN/DOT 1-94 7380-205 1.5 MI. W TH 23 TO ST. AUGUSTA — EBL & 2000 Mill and overlay $3,900,000.00 $3,120,000 00 $780,000.00 WBL 3B 2000 00-14 CITY OF WAITE PA 10TH AVE SOUTH 06185OG INSTALL CANTILEVER SIGNALS AND GATES 2000 RR Crossing Improvements $125,000.00 $100,00000 $25.0000 AT EXISTING RR CROSSING 3B 2000 00-15 CITY OF ST. CLOUD COOPER AVE. SOU 162-141-03 RECONSTRUCT AND WIDEN ROADWAY 2000 Grade and Surface $2,010,000.00 $1,440,000 00 $570.0000 FROM TRAVERSE ROAD TO 33RD STREET SOUTH 3A 2000 00-16 MORRISON COUNT CR 231 097644W INSTALL RR SIGNALS AND GATES AND 2000 RR Crossing Improvements $150,000.00 $120,00000 $30.0000 CLOSE ADJACENT CROSSING ON TWN 316 3A 2000 00-17 MORRISON COUNT CR 209 49-00112 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT RR CROSSING 2000 RR Crossing Improvements $125.000.00 $100.000.00 $25.000 C AT CR 209 IN MORRISON 3A 2000 00-18 MN/DOT TR TRF PURCHASE ONE CLASS 400 BUS - CITY OF 2000 Purchase Bus $78,000.00 $62.40000 $15.600C _ BRAINERD 3B 2000 00-19 MN/DOT TH 10 8809-131 REPLACE SIGNS AT TH 10/23 INTERCHANGE 2000 Spot Improvements $160,000.00 $160,000.00 3B 2000 00-20 MN/DOT 1-94 7380-204 INSTALL MESSAGE BOARDS FOR 1-94 2000 Spot Improvements $100,000.00 $100,000.00 CLOSURE AT WB TH 71 EXIT IN SAUK CENTRE AND AT WB CSAH 75 IN ST. AUGUSTA 38 2000 00-21 MN/DOT TH 15 7321-41 GEOMETRIC AND TURN LANE 2000 Turn Lanes $150,000.00 $150.00000 IMPROVEMENTS AT CSAH 1, 8TH STREET, AND 12TH STREET IN ST. CLOUD 3 2000 00-22 MN/DOT DIST. WIDE 8803- GUARDRAIL TREATMENTS AT BRIDGE NOS. 2000 Spot Improvements $40,000.00 $40,000.00 8532, 5640, 6672, 8767, 4101, AND 8764 3B 2000 00-23 MN/DOT TH 10 7102-94 INTALL FLASHING BEACON NEAR JCT. CR 73 2000 Warning Flashers $15,000.00 $15,00000 IN BIG LAKE 38 2000 00-24 MN/DOT TH 23 7305-84 FROM 1-94 TO W. OF ROCKVILLE 2000 Grade and Surface $5,700,000.00 $4,560,000 001$1.140,000 00 ruesday. June 17, 19! DRAFT FY 1998-2000 AREA TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGR, Page 7 Requested Year 2. i District Requested Year ATP Triority Agency Route System Number Description STIP Year Work Type Description Current Estimate Fed $ Stale $ Local S 38 2000 00-26 CITY OF OTSEGO MSA 105 217 -105 -XX RECONSTRUCT ROADWAY FROM CSAH 37 2000 Grade and Surface $1,541,320.00 $1,233,056.00 as er/ eo. mprovements S308,26400 0 30 2001 00-33 TO CSAH 39 IN OTSEGO TH 12 860210 FROM BRIDGE AVE. TO 1.2 MI. E. IN DELANO. 2000 3B 2000 00-27 CITY OF ANNANDA MUN 19/OAK STREE 86-00121 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT RR CROSSING 2000 RR Crossing Improvements $125,000.00 $100,000.00 $25,00000 INCL. REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 3622 AT MUN 19 IN ANNANDALE 38 2001 00-34 MN/DOT B 2000 00-28 STEARNS COUNTY CSAH 69 689303P INSTALL SIGNAL AND GATES AT RR 2000 RR Crossing Improvements $125,000.00 $100.00000 3B $25.00000 00-35 BENTON COUNTY CSAH 3 05 -603 -XX - D SURFACE FROM NORTH LIMI CROSSING AT CSAH 69 IN STEARNS COUNTY $891,000.00 $712,800.00 $178,2000( 3B 2000 00-29 CITY OF MONTICEL EN 222 -090 -XX BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS OVER 1-94 2000 Bike/Ped Improvements $486,280.00 $389,024.00 $97.25600 3B 2001 00-36 CITY OF WAITE PA AND VARIOUS PATHWAY IMPROVEMENTS IN 221 -103 -XX WIDEN TO FOUR ST. 2000 Grade and Surface 38 2000 00-30 STEARNS COUNTY CSAH 18/CENTRAL 689326W MONTICELLO UPGRADE CIRCUITRY AND MODERNIZE 2000 RR Crossing Improvements $50,000.00 $40,000.00 $10,00000 SIGNALS AT CSAH 18 IN BROOTEN 3A 2000 00-31 MN/DOT TH 2 1102- EAST OF CASS LAKE TO 7.15 MI. EAST 2000 Mill and Overlay $900,00000 $900.00000 00-37 3B 2000 00-32 MN/DOT TH 22 7326-11 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 8992 2000 Bridge Replacement $100,000.00 $100.00000 3B 2000 00-39 STEARNS COUNTY CSAH 33 XXX REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE OVER 2000 Bridge Replacement $0.00 $0001 $000 3A 2001 00-38 MILLE LAC S Ali 27 MISSISSIPPI (DEMO) - CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS GRADE AND SURFACE FROM TH 47 TO CR 17 2000 Grade and Surface00 Sum(Cunent Estimate) : $55,507,600.00 Sum(Fed $) : $27,119,680.00 Sum(State $) : $25,422,000.00 Sum(Local $) : $2,965,920.00 1iequested Year 2001 Cis n sled Year ATP Priority Agency Route System Project umber Description STIP Year Work Type Description Current Estimate a tate 3A 2001 MN/DOT TH 84 1111-10 GEOMETRI IMPROVEMENT AT CT 200 199 as er/ eo. mprovements 2 0, 00.00 0 30 2001 00-33 MN/DOT TH 12 860210 FROM BRIDGE AVE. TO 1.2 MI. E. IN DELANO. 2000 Grade, Surface, and Bridge $4 9 $3,920,000 00 $880,00000 $100,000 0( INCL. REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 3622 38 2001 00-34 MN/DOT TH23 5-98 LANDSCAPING FROM WAITE PARK TO 1-94 2000 Landsca i $100,000.00 $100,000.00 3B 2001 00-35 BENTON COUNTY CSAH 3 05 -603 -XX - D SURFACE FROM NORTH LIMI Grade and Surface $891,000.00 $712,800.00 $178,2000( OF GILMA 12 3B 2001 00-36 CITY OF WAITE PA 10TH AVE. S. 221 -103 -XX WIDEN TO FOUR ST. 2000 Grade and Surface $770,000.00 $616,000.00 $154.000 (N SOUT T. SOUTH (INCL. C ER, SIDEWALKS, 8 STORM SEWER) 3A 2001 00-37 CROW WING COLIN CR 117 18- WIDEN SHOULDERS AND RESURFACE FROM 2000 idening $335.000.00 $268,000.00 $67,000 D TH 371 TO TH 25, INCL. SAFETY 3A 2001 00-38 MILLE LAC S Ali 27 48-627-06 IMPROVEMENTS GRADE AND SURFACE FROM TH 47 TO CR 17 2000 Grade and Surface00 $560,000.00 $140,0000, 3A 2001 MN/DOT TH 64 1109-19 JCT TH 210 IN MOTLEY TO JCT TH 87 2000 Mill and Overlay $3,900,000.00 $3,120,000. 00.00 k1- Sum(CurrenlEstimate) $11,796.00000 Sum(Fed$): $9,196,800.00 Sum(Slale 5) : $1,960,000.00 Sum(Local 5) : $639,200.00 C�MOVE Q �. JUN 2 3 1997 !; > i 1 �i Memo To: Elaine Beatty, City of Otsego Draf+ Cop -- cc".) P cm 1 d P I &AS(- rwi e,�,,, a•►d " rw►s ro,ns , a -,%d l II ?r"T aA- a grill vC/y-S1ff'V-% Atli+ vveZ'k From:ed Reid, nestroo CC: �� McArthur, Larry Koshak, David Licht, Bob Kirmis Date: 06/18/97 Re; Wastewater Treatment Implementation Steps This memo contains our recommendations for how to proceed with the wastewater treatment planning study. Several individual tasks are proposed to develop information necessary to complete the Facilities Plan, which is the document that will summarize the study and contain a description of the type, capacity, location, and cost of the proposed treatment plant. Further, we have established a wtimeline it n sfthe deadlinr these e for thesuch that report if Facilities 8 construction loan lan can be brris to be securedto MPCA yOctober 1, 1997, thhro through the Stat which Revolving Fund (SRF). For each task, a deadline date for resolving the task is presented in parentheses. The dates are based on meeting the following schedule: Finalize capacity, process, costs, and connection fees by August 1 Conduct public information meeting by August 15 Revise recommended plan, and costs, and connection fees (if necessary) by August 30 Conduct public hearing (if plan has been revised after August 15) by September 15 Complete Facilities Plan and submit to MPCA by September 30 Task 1: Determination of Treatment Capacity (by July 15) The 1996 treatment plant study was based on providing capacity for 400,000 gallons per day, including 100,000 gpd capacity for Dayton. This capacity was based on the expected 10 -year development in a defined service area. The current study is proposing a 200,000 gpd capacity based on an arbitrary 50/50 capacity split with Dayton, and Dayton still seeking 100,000 gpd of capacity. A final determination of capacity needs to be made. The selection of capacity -400,000 or 200,000 gpd, or some other capacfty—depends on a prioritization of issues. The issue of providing the most economical treatment in terms of $ per gallon of capacity is met with the option of the larger capacity 0 Page 1 Dayton/Otsego WWTP Draf+ Cop -- cc".) P cm 1 d P I &AS(- rwi e,�,,, a•►d " rw►s ro,ns , a -,%d l II ?r"T aA- a grill vC/y-S1ff'V-% Atli+ vveZ'k From:ed Reid, nestroo CC: �� McArthur, Larry Koshak, David Licht, Bob Kirmis Date: 06/18/97 Re; Wastewater Treatment Implementation Steps This memo contains our recommendations for how to proceed with the wastewater treatment planning study. Several individual tasks are proposed to develop information necessary to complete the Facilities Plan, which is the document that will summarize the study and contain a description of the type, capacity, location, and cost of the proposed treatment plant. Further, we have established a wtimeline it n sfthe deadlinr these e for thesuch that report if Facilities 8 construction loan lan can be brris to be securedto MPCA yOctober 1, 1997, thhro through the Stat which Revolving Fund (SRF). For each task, a deadline date for resolving the task is presented in parentheses. The dates are based on meeting the following schedule: Finalize capacity, process, costs, and connection fees by August 1 Conduct public information meeting by August 15 Revise recommended plan, and costs, and connection fees (if necessary) by August 30 Conduct public hearing (if plan has been revised after August 15) by September 15 Complete Facilities Plan and submit to MPCA by September 30 Task 1: Determination of Treatment Capacity (by July 15) The 1996 treatment plant study was based on providing capacity for 400,000 gallons per day, including 100,000 gpd capacity for Dayton. This capacity was based on the expected 10 -year development in a defined service area. The current study is proposing a 200,000 gpd capacity based on an arbitrary 50/50 capacity split with Dayton, and Dayton still seeking 100,000 gpd of capacity. A final determination of capacity needs to be made. The selection of capacity -400,000 or 200,000 gpd, or some other capacfty—depends on a prioritization of issues. The issue of providing the most economical treatment in terms of $ per gallon of capacity is met with the option of the larger capacity 0 Page 1 because this option provides economy of scale. On the other hand, the option of the smaller capacity may result in lower initial connection fees because its reserve capacity at start-up is small, with a correspondingly small cost for reserve capacity. In all likelihood, the reserve capacity in the second option will be used up, creating the need to construct additional capacity beyond 200,000 gpd, soon after start-up. The capital costs associated with the two capacity options for the mechanical plant aftemative are: 200,000 gpd plant $2.1 million 400,000 gpd plant $3.9 million In addition, the estimated capital cost to expand the 200,000 gpd plant to 400,000 gpd is $1.9 million in 1997 dollars. The estimate of connection fees for the two options depends on assumptions regarding the number connections at start-up, expected growth in the number of connections, and other factors. The 1996 report—evaluating the 400,000 gpd plant for $3.9 million ---estimated a connection fee of $2,100 based on: 1. 792 users at start-up, but only 1/5, or 183, connecting in each of the 1" five (5) years. 2. An additional 60 connections each year from new development, even though the plant capacity can accommodate 81 new connections per year for 10 years. Until an analysis similar to the 1996 study is done, the connection fee associated with the_ 200,000 gpd option cannot be calculated. On one hand, the cost per gallon of capacity is greater. But on the other, greater use of the capacity at start-up may reduce the necessary connection fee. Which of these factors has the greater influence on the fee is difficult to determine. The best guess is that the fee will not change significantly. In either case, the more influential factor is the assumed rate at which connections to the system are made. After the connection plan is established, the fee can be finalized. Another factor to consider in the capacity decision is the loan interest rate. If the rate is favorable compared to past years, it may be advisable to select the greater capacity under the assumption that the interest rate will increase in the future. The 400,000 gpd capacity may be advantageous with respect to effluent standards in that it secures a higher capacity at known standards which are achievable without advanced treatment. The effluent standards MPCA has indicated for the 400,000 gpd plant are the same as for a 200,000 gpd plant, and are met economically by normal conventional treatment processes. MPCA policy is to re-examine effluent standards when capacity increases are sought in the future. The possibility exists that a future expansion from 200,000 to 400,000 gpd might trigger more stringent effluent limits. Task 2: Develop Connection Schedule (by July 15) This task is critical in estimating connection fees. Specifically, the task involves determining the following: 1. The expected number of connections to the system at start-up 2. The expected number of new connections per year 3. Determination of the year in which additional capacity is needed, based on items 1 & 2 above) 0 Page 2 Task 3: Estimate Connection Fee (by July 30) This task is to be performed by Bonestroo based on data provided from Tasks 1 and 2 above, however some additional data is required, as follows: 1. The rate at which the connection fee is increased (1996 study assumed 3.5% per year, or, inflation rate) 2. Additional source of cash reserves to create positive cash flow in early years of the plant 3. The connection fees associated with the collection system. Task 4: Needs Assessment (by September 1) This task is required by the revolving loan program. MPCA requires that the Facilities Plan include a demonstration of the need for the project. For the Dayton/Otsego plant, it must be demonstrated that the plant is necessary to solve existing environmental or public health problems posed by the use of septic systems. For example, the use of septic systems on the small lots in the older section of Dayton is evidence of need for the treatment plant. Other items that prove need are evidence of well contamination with nitrates or coliform bacteria, and documentation of on-site systems that had to be replaced recently due to disclosure at sale requirements or system failure. Task 5: Conduct Public Hearing (by September 15) As required by MPCA for the loan program, a public hearing must be held prior to October 1. At the hearing, the final recommended plan and costs must be presented. Thus, if, in order to gain public acceptance of the plan, a public informational meeting is to be held, the public informational meeting can serve as the public hearing if no changes in the plan are made afterwards. I have established the schedule for completion of the study assuming that separate meetings will be necessary. Task 6: Establish Owner/Operator Entity (by September 1) The Facilities Plan must include identification of the owner/operator of the plant, whether it be one of the two cities or a separate organization such as a sanitary sewer district. If a sewer district, steps to create the organization are not required, only that the decision to organize has been made. Task 7: Project Site (by Aug 1) 0 Page 3 Task 8: Other Information Required by the Loan Program (by September 30) The tasks below are described as they appear in the published MPCA Facilities Plan requirements: 1. A summary of the information presented and public comments received at the public hearing. 2. Formal resolution of the municipaliity's governing body adopting the facilities plan 3. List of ordinances or intermunicipal agreements necessary for the successful implementation of the project. 4. List of addresses used for public notice purposes and listed on a form provided by MPCA. 0 Page 4 JUN -30-199? 10:28 NAC 612 595 983? P.02iO3 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM - Via Fax Transmission TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council FROM: David Licht DATE. 30 June 1997 RE: Otsego - Administration: Personnel - City Administrator FILE NO: 176.08 - 97.08 Background Over the last several weeks, the Administrative Committee (Mayor Fournier; Council member Heidner; City Clerk Beatty) along with the City Attorney and me have met to review the City Administrator recruitment and hiring matter. Based upon the discussions which were held, a recommendation has been formulated on how this matter should be approached. Recommendation Given a number of considerations, the Committee has concluded that for an initial period (six to nine months), an interim City Administrator should be recruited and hired. The individual would be expected to be retained on a consulting basis. Qualification would include substantial experience in all aspects of public administration and management. The individual's primary objective would be the total organization of the City's administrative structure. At the end of the contract period, the Interim Administrator would not be able to pursue the full time position. The individual would, however, be expected to assist with the hiring of an individual to fill the anticipated full time, long term position. On an initial basis, the Interim Administrator would be expected to work full time and gradually phase out as the contract termination period draws to a close. Until a more specific work program and job description is formulated, the cost of this approach is uncertain. We would expect, however, that a minimum of $30,000 should be budgeted for the "project". To be noted, however, the City would not be responsible for benefits and other such costs. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 e PHONE 6 1 2-595-9635 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 JUN-30-1997 10:28 NAC Explanation 612 595 9837 P.03iO3 The suggested approach is seen as offering the City a highly qualified and experienced individual who would be able to objectively evaluate and Implement an organization structure which will be tailored to Otsego and effectively deal with the needs of the community. The City Attorney and our office have seen this system utilized by the City of North Branch and also Rice County. City officials from North Branch view their experience with this organizational technique as a positive experience in structuring their administration when North Branch and Branch were combined per Municipal Board order. It is also anticipated that the Interim Administrator arrangement will provide opportunity for the City to conclude its decision on public sewer. The decision on sewer is a critical factor in the determination of the administrative structure, as well as the qualifications of the person hired as the full time Administrator. Subsequent Actions Should the full City Council agree with this approach, an Interim Administrator position job description and recruitment will need to be pursued. To keep this effort to a minimum, the City of North Branch and Rice Council would be contacted for the information which they used in their hiring process. PC: Elaine Beatty Andrew MacArthur Kevin Kielb 2 TOTAL P.03 O6-30-1997 11:17AM FROM Radzwill & Court Law Offi TO COU rcdrew J. MaaAJrthar : anarn r pr'zaw' , 70 Caidrd Avenue, Emt 111 khael C: C4iui PO Bax 369 Mogan M. McDonald Sr MU*ael. My 55376 E; (612) 497-1930 j (612) 497-2599:iMM OF: FACSIMILE COVER WAGE SUBJECT; : / FAX I ER= . TIME. PM ;. DATE i TOTAI. PAGES ('INCLUDING COVER SHEET) ADDITIQNI�L ��'~ THI AND THE 4418823 P.01 �( J �3TS FACSIMITM TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL• ITiMAY BE PRIVILEGED I5 Ii'rEr€DiED FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE 0�7L3 YF YOU ARE NOT ON R AbDRES.SEE (OR A PERS FORdbDELIVERINGyOSE THIS SMTSSIONTO THE ADDRESSEE) DO'NOT READ, UAI:�r THE SE BY SMZ.SSION : IN ANY FOR THE BARN OFF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT TO US . A 06-30-199? 11:1?AM FROM Radzwill & Couri Law Offi TO 441ee23 P.02 CITY{TH9"401 faX*dtrar�""- �x�wtr : �^r5,. S IT CF 'gW _ Co. Newt � naldr tri 4�limt� lt, Brat+ch fa �PPlO7° 'redly t cam► C ' .•,135G.Man f Naflh Beam by j4*T! W.4. RTAT6 ar �,itty,t7f A ) f N• !)OUWV cWc"J"W 1 WolodUly SWOn.CMoathlays thtat •'rwyts L. Ring midstRPloyW of the p&WISW iis ttre PtipHstter or �iUl�tw � TFiAL NIIN ESrOrfA � -vfsN t£W. ss 'CMiE aaJ45T sated trNa+� of the nsytSPaPa mot ttaa, toot --which to eor►etitutlrrp acid his !tilt ra+a+e[+d4a loch ____yyLL .aq W the »4�rftnan 1%9f+r� OOr++P ""i`. by mWo"so<a Stat+tte �111A2. (A) gyt}pt;catfa,n tas s Ms0a1 ds apCr. as a . ed tD itiMs, as >!a . 331lt Gi, tnO glher DcP?licab Wt1" IS �� wit C11i {tD1A � aoiuRir+si said news and was P^' • su ,I� weektir W�4S�t'ir6t each w and ptrbtiahed onceW",41 lot �! � }�' und c1 a, a+y of pUGHet+sd On ZlwrY• trio _ 1't+ars<daY t tt lnC}tsd+t�0 7f1tlr5 t was triter P KlNj pubIB PM1 61[aprY Qf n/^ �r\daY of dv, the ( �INNAT R" c ng dMVIM & six t4d I I 9 •s D"tev sltksrr ta�% rektted �ieleis. wn, �trb ,e�,s �d e�ps,c• 4,4 X994: - ' : - • ' - - r,ubSofibed and 3*0m 10 tore Jms Cil ,o this �-- t7>rY Ct Notary PUbu� Mh%ARY ftvjc i. M Wowmso"COW" A'F+Rtt. I�. lobs i�%7k 1NFQflMA7tOtt 5.50 411t-avrRet ,ysilied rate (said by t:omrnerci3t (Par Cot. t� uses foccorr►parable sPact 1-25 Sid (MMA91freutri rate Suawed by law kyr (Per Col. i Iris aboVs iflatier s� (3)F{4te "ally phvgpo IQr me > wyo utter (Per Col, i �- {par 4a)1e pctusiiy Cnerpesi for addelton�t in�e+ts CW. 06-30-1997 11:18AM FROM Radzwill & Couri Law Offi TO 4418823 P.03 :i th day of d entered iD to is made an a TRIS i atween t31e City of Korth araxYch, 994, by s ofe. State of e�'. � under the laVt .. c�.pa corporation �,�anired un � and TM!;14elena II called the -city , nc. r t "Independgxit C �sultasits, � hereinafter called ;the cipa� o l: rector f Bxanch WHEIt g� ne to its recent merger with the City o e$ rea to en qa a consultant to help cilit8te a city d icipality. and th trar�;ition into one mtuY Cully and W1ig"1 the Indepsnrier�t Contractor �gco u]itant; and i�queY gl:,fied to assist t3Ye City as q�, f 'the city jutends to contract with . n91taaksnd nd tractor for the perfarmauca of Certdin c rine 1pa� Place of Lndep+2ndent Contractor's P �4 foliage addre5.s = �.�' iness is located at the 4owd entre' Apps a V�alloyr � R the Ix4dependent Contractor declares that he is IGZhas com�sled: with all e ire independent busine and !permits and • jvg business, P :�deral, state and 10cal laws b�grsquired to cagy aut said l ceases a any kind that I"y der tliiIS agreement; and erformed un � iness avis{ the tasks to � P tractor ddglaras that he . q FygEAS, the Independent Coni n 8 ed in the.eme or simiJ.aF i or re�nainS aval Zable to Vie. egg ' is not the activities::for other clients and that the City client or custoa T .ionpssdent contractor's only . 06-30-1997 11:19AM FROM Radzwill & Couri Law Offi TO 1.1IC Uh m -Kin cmil.+ .....,�. _--- jp�L the 4418823 P.05 The In Contractor Shah Tnstt�entalities: exYtt tools, 3.; and ably necessary equip vehicle, lies, for de fox his own exalt tvr ncminai offl.ee .Supp e ials and':suPPl-ias, aifled.herelri. The City rYprraane of the obligat�.Ons ape Xridependeat Contractor with a work area in the City 1 provide' off i ces.: endent Contractor sha. � Fxn$Ils�B.: The indep will 4,• �- except that the City real oEisi,ble folc his own expe>ases� - and meal- or nscess$ry priotoCopies, mileage rei urse him fox any approved by the City. The expenseB l ing .-expenses as usuai3 y app and. Sha.11 be based shall be paid rwathlY' rei u,rsed by .the City _ on a submission of. an expanse re -imbursement debt City pursuant :1n F' endent antxactor. Any expenses P to his paragraph shall be considered as nopartevenof �shall' the total; descr bed in paragraph 2 above' ent Gontzactor receive payment fox -thg vices described zr� ep~rrld 0100 , in paragr�ph'1 and/or expenses which exceeds $30!r 5.. Control • The V dependent Contractor retains the sole n rxcluai�te. right to control or direct the marker or weans by a The Ci.tY wh ch the work described herein is to be Perfaxm�d• reI aims only the right to Control the ends to insure its cafiYortllitY w th that specified her'ei 10 rib a= to nt Taxes - 1 2�o payroll or em�p y withheld or paid withs:respect to t es of any Kind. shall. be ,�� paY. or endent Contractor. P y. Pa encs to,the 1ndep ParagraphInclude, loyipent taxes that are the subject of thisonal -ncome tax, FICA, 1:UTA� federal pe but are not limited to, insurance tax, and $ ate persohal income tax, state disability s ate unemployment insurance tax. e6-30-1997 11:20AM FROM Radzwill 8 Couri Law Offi TO 1.1 I.r Lr CQ -^M tfir*,u I • -- - 4418823 P.06 No vaorkers, campwsation �; 9Porfcerrs` C aatioz�' they City !�► account of or viii be obtained hY i»s ease has;be�e independent Contzactor`s th+� Irde endent contractor or ayiee nt 61ha11 end dn':. �y ,31 t 1393 . TeriYka iQn: This agXeems ut thirty for cat:se? wl3,tha a,d maty .not terminate ,earlier (excepone party to . t1he other. (30 days prior written notice from reetaent Of the tioA to Extend: [Spon written �� I 1395. it this agreement maY be extended throUgh I Y 3x. pax ies such extension w.t} be 030.00 per ie .gxead that the value of anF I se reimbursement. hojr includiOg exon IN figXTN$S �Ox'► the Parties hereunto have executed th s Ag e�ment as: of the day and year first above written. I r-1 Ty OF NOELS g -By rt Its T{ i MELENA CONSULTANTSr TNC. w 06-30-1997 11:21AM FROM Radzwill & Couri Law Offi TO . _.1--- CONSOLIDATION Q lm-ANpg T NORM BRAN 10096 � 100% , C=pkted 10156 tYsOkud ; 11M � 100% . pleted � 1 I 1 1 co upbcte (Ma 1 } Complete Comp%tcd On-Coistg C?rt-Goin$ i� Completed � Cv�rtpi ib Complete (Ap6124) 56 �plcte on Bold W*rk Session? In Process working 55ia CnmpletC Watkin$ 0% Cornplztc (Aptil 20 ) 0% Complete Working; (Aptlt 24) 4418823 P.07 Gurceot States APO xy,1995 1.} Review OPeM60"'s ;z.) ors=ym onst Plast 3) Vying (City &,EDA) 4.) Coal Setung.(CitY � EUA} 5) Computer operatloush 6.) Badged )=nL% -7.) VebtM=agcn ent Plan; g) City l�ovelt�ffiee�l�te�t g,) �inat�ciavr�icwfCa�t flau analysis 10.) Cornp We lb I I.) Salary Plan 12.) EDA(M Pr*cts pound 13.) Economic DevelOFMn' Gcnezal'Back Is'.) C.I.P. (EquiP=nt/faq`2 ) I5.) Hiring Prt3cessiC ity Adtninis"tos 16.) Euilding Official & IjAblic Works Employ" 17,) Adopt UBCI ire Code lg,) An Consultwu ReYavrllnf anon 19.) Review LiquCr OPer2ti"'s 20.) Review Police 4Pt►oas 21.) Special Census 22) Code Consolidation; 23.j Persosmel Ordinanctr 24.) p -e, Acsc Lot Size D�vClag t 25.) Sale of Old City Hall ; 25.) pedevclopment of bid PubiiC Works Site 27.) Compute Electlan fquipaxnt TOTAL P.07 MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF SMALL 21950 715T" AVENUE �.SSEL, MINNESOTA 55325 FI CE/FAX 320-275-3130 STAFF June 20, 1997 NANCY LARSON The Minnesota Association of Small Cities (MAOSC) is pleased to announce Executive Director our Associate Cities Program.�� For the first time ever, cities over 5,000 In 320-275-3130 Norman Freske, Mayor ELIZABETH BLAKESLEY Elaine Beatty, Clerk Associate Director City of Otsego 612-224-7274 8899 Nashua Avenue NE PAT BONNIWELL Otsego, MN 55330 Admin. Advisor advantages of also belonging to our Association are.... 320-275-2707 Dear Mayor Freske and Clerk Beatty: 2. 1 IUV �! ' 'T�� ' 3 1997 1 BOARD The Minnesota Association of Small Cities (MAOSC) is pleased to announce Gail Lippert our Associate Cities Program.�� For the first time ever, cities over 5,000 In President population are being given the opportunity to join MAOSC and receive all the Greenfield benefits available to our members. Duane Hebert ❖ Financial Management & Planning Vice -President MAOSC works closely with all the local government lobbying groups, including Renville the League of Minnesota Cities, so you may be wondering what the Dave Miller advantages of also belonging to our Association are.... Sec'y-Treasurer Crosby The major advantage to the City of Otsego is the ability to fully participate in Ray Battaglia MAOSC's Certified Services Program. Currently, MAOSC members are Buhl utilizing this program to receive excellent, professional public finance advisory Ralph Possehl services from David Drown Associates, at a fee that is as much as 50 percent Pam Bergeson Lake Park below standard fees. These services include (but are not limited to): Arvid Clementson ••• Tax Increment Finance Planning Fosscon o. gond Issuance Bob Fragnito :• Developer Negotiations Nashwauk •:• General Economic Development Support & Analysis Greg Isaackson ❖ Financial Management & Planning Cottonwood Debt capacity analysis Capital improvement planning Paul Iverson Two Harbors Mr. Drown has over a decade of experience providing public finance services Kal Michels to cities throughout Minnesota including: Albany, Belle Plaine, Buhl, Dodge Breckenridge Center, Fosston, Greenfield, Harmony, Preston, Renville, Roseau, Sauk Ralph Possehl Center, Spring Valley, St. James, Stewartville and Zumbrota. Breckenridge Nelda Remus As a part of our Certified Services Program, MAOSC and David Drown Zimmerman Associates co-sponsor two to three seminars throughout the year on a variety Vince Schaefer of topics pertinent to the financial and economic development of cities Rockville throughout Minnesota. Included are topics such as: Tax Increment Finance, Jim Toye Working with Local Banks, and Housing Finance. All MAOSC members are Mendota able to attend such seminars and conferences at a reduced fee. Joel Young Chatfield MN Assoc. of Small Cities Page -2- June 20, 1997 Other benefits you will receive as a member of MAOSC include: ❖ Small Cities Update - A monthly newsletter geared towards non-political information designed to assist you in helping your community grow and thrive ❖ Representation on a wide variety of state agency committees and task forces ❖ Regular updates regarding political events ❖ Representation at the State Capitol throughout the year on many issues, with expertise in Tax Increment Finance/Economic Development and Environmental issues The only benefits not available to Associate City Members at this time are: ❖ A seat on the MAOSC Board of Directors ❖ A vote on MAOSC By -Law Changes MAOSC lobbyists, Nancy Larson and Elizabeth Blakesley, are known for their ability to build coalitions, for their perseverance and most importantly for achieving their goals. I have attached a summary of MAOSC's 1997 legislative accomplishments for you to review. Also enclosed is a copy of MAOSC's dues statement showing membership fees for the City of Otsego. We look forward to working with you. If you have any questions about membership or benefits, please feel free to contact me at (612) 477-6464 or Nancy Larson, our Executive Director, at (320) 275-3130. If you have questions about our Certified Services Program, please contact Elizabeth Blakesley, our Associate Director, at (612) 224-7274 or David Drown, David Drown Associates, at (612) 920-3320. Sincerely, Gail Lippert, President MAOSC Board of Directors GL:jeb Enclosures MNAssociation of Small Cities 1997 -1998 Membership Dues The Minnesota Association of Small Cities looks forward to working with and for your city during 1997 and 1998. The following is information relating to the dues structure of MAOSC and the cost of membership for the City of Otsego. Dues remitted by August 1, 1997 will include a 5% discount (indicated below). If you have any questions about this information or if any information is inaccurate, please contact Elizabeth Blakesley, MAOSC Associate Director, at 612-224-7274. Thank you in advance for your membership in the Minnesota Association of Small Cities. Dues Structure Population Base Per Capita 0-1000 $ 95.00 $ .18 1001 -2000 $120.00 $ .18 2001 -5000 $170.00 $ .18 Over 5000 $170.00 -$.18 1997 - 1998 Annual Dues for the City of Otsego Membership Base $170.00 Population of 6283 times $ .18 +$1,130.94 TOTAL (after August 1) $1,300.94 Less 5% (before August 1) -105.05 TOTAL DUES $1,235.89 City Clerk/Administrator Signature Dues may be remitted to: Minnesota Association of Small Cities 21950715 th Avenue Dassel, MN 55325 (320) 275-3130 Payment from public funds authorized by Minnesota Statutes governing city operation and functions MNAssociation of Smaff Cities 1997 Legislative Accomplishments Property taxes - Reform bills came and went during the session, calling for repeated meetings with groups of legislators to warn them of the potential dangers lurking in many of these bills. In the end, the reform package was minimal, however, LGA and HACA remained intact and our efforts to exempt cities under 2,500 from levy limits won out - despite objections of some key legislators. Tax Increment Finance - MAOSC took the lead in negotiating with House members intent on placing restrictions on the use of TIF. This effort was rewarded in legislation that expands the use of TIF for some cities AND ensured that changes to TIF statutes are workable for cities of all sizes. Local Performance Aid - We're stilled not thrilled with the LPA program, but we are working with the bill's author, Rep. Andy Dawkins, to make the program user-friendly for cities. We were also successful in stopping the Governor's attempt to eliminate many cities, and their funding, from the program. Wastewater Infrastructure Funds - Last year's success in attaining $17.5 million in Wastewater Infrastructure Funds (WIF) was followed by a gain of $7 million this session. Since wastewater is not glamorous, funding was not supported by the Governor, and assistance is directed at the smallest, poorest cities in the State, the odds against us passing this legislation were high -- all the more reason to be pleased with the legislation. We were also able to change language in the bill that would have restricted economic development in cities receiving WIF money. Individual Sewage Treatment Systems - Another non -glamorous subject, but one that's the source of many problems, particularly for the 200 unsewered communities in the State. This session's legislation provides for $1 million in grant money and $4 million in loans to upgrade deteriorating systems. Wastewater Fees - Despite a request from the MN Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) for a 52 percent increase in permit fees, we were able to convince the legislature to hold the line. There will be no increases in permit fees this year. Annexation/Land Use - After years of squabbling, cities and townships were finally able to agree to changes in the annexation procedure -- and to start to mend the rift between the two units of government. We also worked closely with legislators and with representatives of townships and counties to develop a land use bill that begins to resolve some of the problems regarding unrestricted growth, particularly in un- incorporated areas, while providing flexibility for local units of government. w lu Claims List for APProval For the Period 06/16/97 to 06/23/97 06/23/97 I< 10 WHOM PAID FOR WHAT PURPOSE DATE NUMBER CLAIM ,_ NUMBER AMOUNT f 6i1UERLY BROS SAND & GRAVEL INV. 385-97 06/16/97 2615 1,667.79 101-43100-370 1,667.79 s 5 NORTHERN AIRGAS OXYGEN,ACETYLENE 06/16/97 2617 11.23 101-43100-220 11.23 WRIGHT COUNTY RECORDER RECORDING FEES 06/16/97 2618 63.50 101-41400-340 63.50 141" 1 +ten I COUN I Y AUD I I UN- I RF-AbURER GARY r GROEN, CPA MAY ACCOUNTING SERVICES 06/16/97 2620 1,000.00 101-41600-390 1,000.00 MIDWEST ANALYTICAL SERVICES SERVICES INV. 100606 06/16/97 2621 415.00 101-41560-302 415.00 45 BERKLEY RISK SERVICES WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION PREMIUM 06/16/97 2623 4,075.00 101-41100-204 - 135.00 101-41400-204 204 874.00 00 !0t -4t100 101-45100-204 • 13.00 AT & T SERVICES 06/16/97 2624 16.14 101-45250-320 ' 5.48t2o 5.5 101-43100-320 5.33 H G WEBER OIL COMPANY 6/2/97 DELIVERY 06/16/97 2625 411.72 -75L 101-43100-202 411.72 101-43100-203 33.75 101-41940-203 15.70 BANK OF ELK RIVER SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX ANNUAL RENTAL 06/16/97 2628 44.00 101-41400-310 44.00 AFFORDABLE SANITATION JUNE RENTAL 06/16/97 2629 106.50 101-45200-410 106.50 PITNEY BOWES RENTALS - POSTAGE METER & SCALE 06/16/97 2631 203.68 101-41400-410 203.68 CORROW LAWN & IRRIGATION SPRINKLER SERVICE CALL 06/16/97 2632 47.00 101-41940-402 47.00 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS JVNL HtUYI-LINU MAY SERVICES 0b/16/97 06/16/97 2633 2634 7e.75 4,394.89 101-41570-303 2,486.98 �• e 3 701-41570-303 1,907.91 THE HARDWARE STORE SUPPLIES 06/16/97 2636 44.71 101-43100-203 44.71 HEINEN MERCANTILE COMPANY INC PARTS 06/16/97 2637 33.94 101-43100-220 202 42200 590 33.94 3,577.50 ' 1 I T UF MUNI JI-LLLU r-jKr- �-UM-KRCI & ANIMAL AU1'q1tWL 06/ t6197 26158 :5,4(57.50 101-42710-390 90.00 ° BROASTER CATERING HWY 101 GRAND OPENING-2/3BILLED 06/16/97 2639 275.00 101-41400-310 275.00 0 ECM PUBLISHERS INC z 6/4/97 INVOICES 06/16/97 2641 82.51 101-41400-350 82.51 18,659.16 18,659.16 TOTAL FOR MONTH e 6 7 8 � ° SaQ G/�Y197 937/.35 , l4 13 ,6 i]