The URL can be used to link to this page

1986-05-19 CC Agenda/PacketCITY OF ALBERTVILLE ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: 497-3384 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MAY 19, 1986 I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II• APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA III• APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES IV. DEPARTMENT BUSINESS a. Administration - Paying agency agreements for: --G/O Revenue Clinic Bond --$90,000.00 G/O Improvement Bond • - League of Minnesota Cities Conference in Duluth June 17-20 + - Dog Control - Agreement with Wright County to do the 1987 Assessment work a $4.75 per parcel (same figure as last year) - Bingo permit for St. Albert's--City's Acknowledgment of Notice b. Maintenance - Pbssiblity of selling some equipment Street Sweeper Riding Mower Pull Behind Mower • - Hazard Elimination Safety Program (need to pass a resolution for the County Engineer - Job Duty List (tentative) - Sewer Cleaning c. Legal - Additonal Annexation Materials - Legal Reponsibility of getting Minnegasco into the Beaudry 2nd Addition. Make our City........ Your City We invite Home, Industry, Business r,— AGENDA PAGE 2 � 0 10 d. Planning - Public Hearings: • Haller/Moses-Request to subdivide lot into three parcels * Barthel Construciton-Request for Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Approval for the following lots: Lot 1, Block 1--From Industrial to Residential Lot , Block --From Multiple to Residential Lot Block --From Multiple to Residential - MATT Properties(carry over from April 21st meeting) - Approval of Building Permits Dynamic Designers --House 585.00 (pd.) Roger Walsh --Fireplace 16.50 (pd.) Barthel Construction --House 624.30 Barthel Construction --House Jim Merges --Garage e. Engineering - Bid Review for Construction Project in Beaudry 2nd Addition, Barthel Residential -Phase II and 52nd Street - Need to set Public Hearing Date for Construction - Doug Psyk--Opening a new area for development • - 2nd Draft of letter to the Army Corp of Engineers • - Letter to Bill Neil regarding liner warrenty V. OTHER BUSINESS a. Renting of City Hall b. Income Recieved/Bills to be Paid VI. Call for Adjornment COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 19, 1986 The regular meeting of the Albertville City Council was called to order by Acting -Mayor Gary Schwenzfeier. Members present include Bob Braun and Donatus Vetsch, with Mayor Walsh and Council Member Don Cornelius coming late. Others present included Maureen Andrews, Don Berning, Barry Johnson, Gary Meyer and Ken Lindsay. There was a motion to approve the May 5, 1986 Council Minutes. The motion was made by Donatus V. and seconded by Bob B. All were in favor. Pete Merges, St. Albert's representative was present to request that the City sign the Church's application to renew the Bingo permit with the State. The City is required to acknowledge that they are aware that said application is being submitted to the State for renewal. There was a motion made by Bob B. and seconded by Donatus V. to approval the permit. All were in favor. Randy Lebsock was present to request a public hearing to subdivide his property located at 11718 50th Street. The proposal allows for 2 lots which would measure 100 X 125 feet and will face 51st Street. (See attachment.) There was some discussionregarding the street easement on 51st Street. It is not exactly clear who owns the front 11 feet of property and the mad does not resolve the issue. Barry was asked to look into the problem to see if it is just a error on the map or in fact someone else owning the land. GAry S. made a motion to set the Public Hearing date for June 16, 1986 at 8:00 p.m. provided that the information needed to resolve the owner- ship problem is resolved. Donatus V. made the second on the motion and all were in favor. There was a motion to allow Maureen Andrews to attend the League of Minnesota Cities Conference in Duluth on June 17-20, 1986. The motion was made by Donatus V. and seconded by Don C. All were in favor. Maureen updated the Council on the possibility of the four communities (Albertville, St. Michael, Hanover and Frankfort Township) contracting for dog catching services with the Axelson's of Elk River. Maureen was asked to meet again with the other communities to discuss the issue in more detail. COUNCIL MINUTES PAGE 2 Rodney Barthel of the Albertville Jaycees was present to request a Limited Liquor License to sell beer in the City Park during Tuesday and Thursday night league games during the months of May through August. In addition, the license is to include the weekend of June 20-22, 1986. There was a motion to approve the Limited Liquor License based on the confirmation of dates and a certificate of insurance. There was a motion made by Don C. and a second by Gary S. to approve the license with a $75.00 fee. All were in favor. Maureen was asked to follow up on the sewer line cleaning by sending out letters to possible bidders to get a final quote on the cleaning. Maureen read a resolution that the County Engineer had prepared for the cities to adopt regarding the Hazard Elimination Safety Program. Gary S. made the motion to approve the resolution as read, Donatus V. made the second, all members were in favor of the approval. Ken Lindsay was present to discuss selling the used equipment. After a lenghty discussion it was decided to keep the equipment and use it until it wears out. It was agreed upon that no major repairs would be done on any equipment in question (2 mowers, sweeper, bush cutter). It was also decided that the City will budget to have the City streets sweep once a year between tW dates of May lst and May 15th. Quotes will have to be recieved by the last Council meeting in April so that the Council can approve the work. There was a motion tee approve the hiring of a contractor to do the street sweeping made by Don C. and seconded by Bob B. All were in favor. In addition Ken was asked to contact the sweeper for the County and ask him to come in for a few hours within the next couple weeks. A Public Hearing on the Haller/Moses application was called to order by Mayor Walsh. There was no one present objecting to the proposal. The notice of hearing was read along -with the Planning Commission recommendation, which is as follows: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the request of lot subdivision and the variance to allow for 2 80' front widths instead of 90' as called for in the Ordinance. The Council approved the same motion fending the payment of $100.00 for fee charges. This motion was made by Don C. and seconded by Gary S. with all members in favor. COUNCIL MINUTES PAGE 3 Maureen was asked to write a letter to the Councty Auditor's Assessment Clerk and request that the pending assessments for the 32 feet that the Hallers will retain ownership of for a driveway be moved over to parcel B. Gary S. made a motion to this regard and Donatus V. seconded the motion. All members were in favor. A representative of the Sheriff's Department was here to bring the Council up to date on what has been happening in Albertville. The Council was informed that there was a break in out at the City Park, where someone kicked the door into one of the bathrooms. There was also a:possible attempt to break in to the shop at City Hall. No charges have been made in either cases. There was also some discussion about setting the speed limit for Barthel Industrial Drive. The Deputy recommended that we contact MN/DOT to have a Traffice Engineering Investigation done to set the speed limit zone. Maureen was asked to contact MN/DOT. The Public Hearing for Barthel Construction was called to order by Mayor Walsh. The Council was read the Notice of Hearing and the Planning Commission's recommendation.' There was some discussion regarding the Planning Commission's request that trees and fences to located along Barthel Industrial Drive. It was finally decided that the plans go back to the Planning Commission to work out the details of fencing and trees but the Council would go ahead and approve the rezoning and preliminary plats. The following motions were made: To approve the Rezoning of: LOT AND BLOCK FIRST SECOND LOT 1, BLOCK 1 BOB B. DONATUS V. LOT 10, BLOCK 5 DON C. DONATUS V. LOT 1, BLOCK 6 DON C. GARY S. pending the payment of $300.00 for hearing fees. All were in favor. To approve the Preliminary Plats of: LOT AND BLOCK FIRST SECOND LOT 1, BLOCK 1 BOB B. GARY S. LOT 10, BLOCK 5 DON C. BOB B. LOT 1, BLOCK 6 GARY S. DON C. Lot 1, Block 1 shall be called Barthel Manor while Lot 10, Block 5 and Lot 1, Block 6 shall be referred to as Maple Hill. All were in favor of the motions. COUNCIL MINUIES PAGE 4 ` F Maureen was asked to write Peter Stalland a letter regarding the agreement that he will be responsible for picking up all the cost incurred during the annexation hearings. There was discussion regarding the Planning Commissions upcoming meeting at which time the Public Hearing for the Shoreland Management Plan is scheduled (June 22, 1986 @ 8:00 p.m.). It was decided that Mayor Walsh will chair the meeting and that Gary Meyer will also attend the meeting. The Council was informed that there is a problem in the Beaudry 2nd Addition regarding Minnegasco. Maureen was asked to contact PUC to see if there could be a waiver of the deposit needed for development. In additon, the Council has requested that Minnegasco be at the next Council meeting to discuss the problem. Barry informed the Council that he had sent a letter to S & L regarding the strum sewer line on 55th Street which had broken up. He will follow up with the Council once he knows something. Barry also informed the Council on the Bid Opening for streeti{nprove- entss There ere two bids--Buffa18,Bitumious @1 4aa5and toll , f5 4- (0 f a (here was a motion to set a Public Hearing for June 9, 1986 at 8:00 p.m. to consider the making of' improvements for the Beaudry 2nd Additiuii and Barthel Residential Phase 11 addition. At the same hearing the contact for doing the street improvements will be awarded. This motion was made by Bob B. and seconded by Gary S. All were in favor. There was a request to have Loren Kohen look into the possiblity that materials are being buried out at the MATT Properties siteand if so take the necessary steps to have it corrected. There were the following motion to approve the following Buildign Permits: Dynamic Designs --new home Roger Walsh --Fireplace Barthel Construciton--new home Barthel Construction --new home Jim Merges --new garage Donatus, Bob Bob, Don Bob, Don Gary, Don (pending approval of Buildign Insp.) Bob, Don the discussion of renting City Hall came up. It was decided that the City would agree to rent out City Hall to residents at a fee of $10.00 provided that the party renting the building cleaned up afterwards and that no liquor is served. The City will request that a waiver of injury or harm be signed before the building is rented in order to release the City from any possible claims brought forth. There was a motion to pay the bills made by Donatus and seconded by Don C. All were in favor. There was a motion to adjourn made by Don C. and seconded by Bob B. All were in favor. 17� i i G i-ko"rL-;n N-\26 11 1pQ- ►- ald ovnrAxrj& 1�L+ ' m oY) 13 k +ram Os i&-c kme I Ckix- b C�►n��Nr u�-r� yr 2Q z.on u'1 aid Pr��rn duoCr ro laZasZed In +vim &O traW4 eta L Pair k. Lo+ I (Noc k, I am Tr-dwartai Lc+ 10) a loc k- o 0-r-6 L-O+ 1 +o (� i �t �� tom. 1�-� �csL. + ►�� ,. b (i c cow cam- 8 30 m . cry-)1 q iS �bc, �a-� �1�1� C�►� cam- ��QQ Zcv) +-i d Pro f og- ioA- O-f pr o� + lc,, �L Lo+ l dlcxk , I rc Zr u 'icy -fo L-C+ 10 ) Q lcc a2 0 O-C6 Lot 1 MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn.55313 Phone 612- 682-1781 May 19, 1986 S & L Excavating 800 South Highway 10 St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301 Attn: Mr. Randy Larson, V.P. Re: 1985 Albertville Job Drain Tile Dear Randy: This letter is in regards to the 200 l.f. of pipe S & L installed last ear. As of our previous telephone conversation of May 14, 19W you are aware that Minnegasco had cut the line approximately 180, west of the catch basin. Upon fixing the line it was evident the line was not functioning properly. Minnegasco then proceeded to check the line (with the city & Meyer-Rohlin present). It was discovered that the 4" pipe was cracked/broken at the point of inspection. The gas company then proceeded to "snake" the line to produce a flow -through condition in order to drain the excessive water. This did not produce an adequate solution since it appeared that the line was broken in other places (the pipe was full of material thus restricting the "snake" to produce a flow -through condition). Because the ground above the line has not been disturbed since construction, and since Minnegasco did not create the other cracks/breaks, repair 'of this line is covered under the warranty provisions of your contract. (see attached copy of the performance bond). Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Registered Land Surveyor Before any work is to be done, please contact me. Also, please contact me within 5 working days concerning repair of the line. Sincerely yours, MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. D . Barry DJ John n Project Engineer BDJ:kp cc:City of Albertville cc:E-8501-A MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. Zo LJ QENGINEERS-LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn.55313 Phone 612-682-1781/-___7 May 19, 1986 Mr. Ron Gibbons Pro ressive Contractors, Inc. 8739 Zachary Lane Osseo, Minnesota 55369 RE: Wastewater Project; City of Albertville Dear Mr. Gibbons: I am in receipt of your May 16, 1986 letter concerning the Albertville Wastewater Project. It appears that you misunder- stood the intent of my May 15, 1986 letter to you. It is our intent to complete the job in the spirit of mutual cooperation, and that is what prompted my correspondence. If it is still your intent to file a claim on this project, the claim must be detailed and itemized showing what you will be doing in excess of the requirements identified in the plans and specifications. I would like to further state our position concerning the water balance so there is no misunderstanding. As you are aware, the specifications require that the water balance testing be performed by an independent testing lab and that this lab perform the test in accordance with approved MPCA guidelines. Our firm has been involved in many water balance tests through the MPCA. From this experience, we realize that the test must be conducted in strict accordance with their requirements or they will not be accepted. If the agency does not accept the tests, then they must be redone. This situation would not be desireable for the contractor, engineer, or City of Albertville. Therefore, it was our desire to ensure that the water balance test for the City of Albertville be conducted properly from the outset to preclude the possibility of non -acceptance of the test data. As a result of my May 15 meeting with Minnesota Valley Testing, it was apparent that the possibility of nonconformance with the strict MPCA water balance criteria existed. For example, they informed me that the barrels they proposed to use were "experimental" and that they hoped they would work. It makes no sense to initiate a water balance test with barrels that are not adequate or that may not meet MPCA requirements. Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Registered Land Surveyor We simply want to inform you that the specifications mandate that the water balance be performed in accordance with MPCA requirements. My discussion with the people who will perform the water balance revealed that meeting these MPCA requirements may be questionable. We wanted to bring this to your attention at the present time so there is no finger pointing thirty days from now if the MPCA does not accept the water balance data. It is your prerogative to use whomever you desire for this test, however, you must be aware of the fact that if the subcontractor does not perform in accordance with the contract documents, it must be redone. The water balance is one aspect of the contract the MPCA does not take lightly. They will scrutinize the data as well as the methods used in acquiring the data. As expressed in my previous letter, it is uncommon for a test to be conducted in exactly the alloted time. Shifting of barrels due to wind action, overtopping of barrels due to wind action, faulty readings, excessive rainfall, and other intangibles generally require the extension of the test period by a week or so. This is not to say that the test cannot be performed in 30 days, but experience has shown that a somewhat longer period probably will be needed. At the present time, Cell #3 must be lowered prior to initiating the water balance test. On May 16, 1986, I spoke with Chris Kelly.by telephone and informed him that the prefill operations should be terminated. At 4:00 P.M. the same day the generator was still on and water was still being pumped into .� Cell #3. At this time no one was on -site. I then telephoned you to remind PCI that the generator should be shut -down and you informed me that this would be taken care of. I have been informed that the generator was not shut-off on May 16, 1986 but was allowed to run and pump water until the morning of May 19, 1986. This resulted in an excess of water in Cell #3 that must be removed prior to initiating the water balance. I hope this satisfactorily explains our intention and previous correspondence concerning the water balance testing. It is our desire to expedite the project and that is why we are so concerned that the water balance testing be done correctly and initiated properly. We realize from past experience that if it is not done as per MPCA requirements they will mandate that it be redone. Again, this would be a cost to you as well as delay finaling the project. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all to insure that the test is done correctly and that all data will be accepted by the MPCA. Please contact me if you have any additional questions. Sincerely yours, ME R-ROHLIN, INC Barry D Johnso BDJ:kp cc:City of Albertville cc:E-8401-E .. _ you.. ,m Y,.,1�..:...: ,. •.. •'.'•Z:-:'�'-:�wa3'"'•'.`' rJ,�^�=`.'�a'"J;:w6r'k`=isa�Cliw..34',1t4`?s:�•`tirs :�:,.�.`i s..s-.:a%'3: aiw.:aiwi+ikswC,:3:.c..:ir� �v.,'M r..- . ,..-a . _ _....m,.rlt� 71 TO FROM PROGRESSIVE CONTRACTORS, INC. 8736 Zachary Lane z2 AV, Osseo, MN 55368 Y,,J�kah 7. S^ -3/(1-612) 425-4515 SUBJECT DATE MESSAGE /G REDIFDRM . 4S 468 ► xv rK 00 SETS) 4p"a F-1 NO REPLY NECESSARY SIGNED�� / \ F-1 REPLY REQUESTED - USE REVERSE SIDE MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. 0 ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo. Minn.55313 Phone 612-682-1781 o I-'—� May 15, 1986 Progressive Contractors, Inc. 8736 Zachary Lane Osseo, Minnesota 55369 Attn: Mr. Ron Gibbons, P.E. Re: 1984-1 Improvement Project Albertville, Minnesota Dear Ron: This letter is in regards to. the water balance testing of the ponds on the above referenced project. Minnesota Valley Testing was on site today (May 15, 1986) to begin the water balance on Cell #2. It is my conclusion (after observing various things) that Minnesota Valley Testing will not do an adequate job for the Albertville project unless a few things are changed. The following is a list of my obser- vations. 1. The barrels they brought to do the tests were not of adequate design and they informed me they were "experi- mental" and they hoped they worked. 2. Since the barrels were not adequate the test on Cell #2 could not be started. I was informed that the earliest they could come back was May 20, 1986 to start Cell #1 and Cell #2*(since Cell #3 has 52 feet of water in it at this time and the desired water depth is 2-3 feet of water it would be almost impossible to begin Cell #3 test on May 20, 1986. However, it could be started later in the week. Minnesota Valley however, wants to begin Cell #3 on May 27, 1986 which would leave six days to spare. From my past involvement with water balances, it is a rule that the test will run much longer (4-7 days minimum) than the 30 days anticipated. This overrun is due to tipped over barrels, faulty readings, excessive rainfall, MPCA involvement, etc. I would suggest that the latest date for Cell #3 testing to begin would be May 22, 1986.) Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Registered Land Surveyor 3. Minnesota Valley Testing also indicated to me they would need more money to make the necessary changes. This is not of my concern but I feel they should have contacted me with their proposed barrel design before today! If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely yours, ME R-ROHLIN, C.; BarrD.EJohnson cProjnginee BDJ:kpp cc:E1 401-E '�- h F LEAGUE OF WIR14CSOTA CITIES 1996 ARRUAL COVIFER&KCE 9UR8 I T- 20 DULUT14 NOTE: All conference programs will take place at the .s Duluth Arena Auditorium. DON'T MISS ... THESE OUTSTANDING PROGRAMS Kick-off program: Tuesday, June 17 This program will help you better understand how to make the difficult choices that local leaders face. Jane Holcomb, management consultant to business and government, will help you become a positive power person and manage stress in tough times. Keynote address: Wednesday, June 18 Ted Gaebler, a past city manager in California and Ohio, will talk on running local government from the vantage point of an entrepreneur. CHOOSE FROM ... A VARIETY OF EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS _ This year the conference planning committee has organized the workshops in a series of skill sessions and issue institutes so you can improve your leader- ship skills or find out the latest about important issues facing cities, or some of both. Your choices are: Skill sessions Wednesday • The policy role of the council • Going to court and winning • strengthening your leadership team L Thursday • Strategic planning ° o Negotiation skills Friday • Enhancing your image on cable TV • Organizational excellence Issue institutes Wednesday • implications of state fiscal policies • The volunteer fire department • Privatization: Pros and cons • Innovations in employee benefits Thursday • Tmplementii►g comp worth • Legislation of importance to small cities • Primer on insurance • Forum on risk management • Tmplementing FLSA regulations • Contracting for services Friday • Economic development • Managing diversity: The changing workforce Timely topics/Special workshops Wednesday • How to run your city for fun and profit Thursday • Federal tax reform • City celebrations • Stress management for officials and staff • Nuts and bolts discussions TAKE NOTE. ... OF THESE. EXCTTTNG FAMILY PROGRAMS Fishing trips Tours of Fitgers' on the Lake (brewery renovation) Complimentary admissions to the Duluth zoo Tours of Glensheen Mansion Boat rides on the Vista King Please register for tours and fishing trips before May 26. Call 218-723-3295 for reservations. SEE. TTTF LATEST... IN PRODUCTS AND SERVICES FOR CITIES Businesses that provide products and services to cities will again have exhibits at the conference. Be sure to take time to walk through the exhibit area to see what's new for cities. SIGN TIP TO WIN... FABULOUS DOOR PRT7.F.S The Municipal Hosts are providing door prizes as part of this year's exhibit program. Visit exhibit booths, have your exhibit card stamped at each to qualify to win... A week's vacation in Florida (with all the amenities) A compact video camera/recorder 1986 LMC ANNUAL CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FORM __ General Delegate Registration June 17-20, 1986 number total Advance registration (before June 6) ............................ $120.00 Registration at Conference .................................... $135.00 Registration fee includes badge, admission to all general sessions/workshops, and tickets for meal functions on the general program: Wed. and Thurs. coffee, Wed. lunch, Thurs. banquet, and Fri. breakfast. This registration DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MAYORS/MINI CONFERENCE LUNCHEON on Thursday. If you wish to purchase a ticket for this luncheon, you may do so in the EXTRA CONFERENCE MEAL TICKETS section below. If you are planning on having your spouse attend, that registration is complimentary, but you must purchase meal tickets for your spouse. You may do so in the EXTRA CONFERENCE MEAL TICKETS section -below. If you pre -register you'll receive a postcard acknowledgement to be presented at the advance registration desk to facilitate speedy registration. City P L E A S E P R 1 N T Full Name (e.g wwlam) Contact Person: Nickname (e.g. Bill) Title Telephone #: Mini -Conference Registration Thursday, June 19 number Advance registration (before June 6) ............................. $55.00 Registration at Conference ..................................... $65.00 A.C. Spouse total Mini -Conference registration fee includes badge, registration, coffee, and luncheon. If you pre -register, you will receive a postcard acknowledgement to be presented at the prepaid registration desk to facilitate speedy registration. Mini -Conference delegates who plan to attend the Thursday banquet should purchase tickets below. Registered delegates to the General Conference are welcome to attend Mini -Conference sessions and do not need to purchase special registrations. City P L E A S E P R I N T Full Name (e.g. WiWam) Contact Person: Nickname (e.g. Bgl) Taue Telephone #: A.C. Spouse EXTRA CONFERENCE MEAL TICKETS Order extra meal tickets below. Be sure to indicate the name of the person(s) for whom you order the tickets, or the name of the delegate who should receive the extra tickets. Spouses' complimentary registration does not include meal tickets. Order below. Mini -Conference registration does not include any meals except the Thursday luncheon. Number Total Luncheon Wednesday............................................................ $6.50 for whom Mayors' Luncheon/Mini-Conference Luncheon Thursday ................................ $ 9.00 for whom Banquet Thursday...............................................................$18.50 for whom — Breakfast Friday................................................................ $8.50 for whom TOTAL ADVANCE REGISTRATION ............. $ Send registration and payment to Gayle Brodt, league of Minnesota Cities, 183 University Ave. East, St. Paul, MN 55101 Make checks payable to: League of Minnesota Cities May 1986 29 1986 LMC ANNUAL CONFERENCE HOUSING Housing Information SiNGLE DOUBLE Radisson Hotel Duluth,505 West Superior Street .............................. $48.00 $58.00 Holiday Inn Duluth, 207 West Superior Street .................................. $50.00 $56.00 Duluth Harbor Inn, 250 South First Avenue East ................................ $40.00 $45.00 $5/ea adds] Edgewater Motels,2211 London Road ........................................ $50.00 $63.00 Fitger's Inn, 600 East Superior Street ......................................... $64.00 $74.00 + $5/lakeside Downtown Best Western, 131 West 2nd Street ................................ $28.00 $34.00 $4/ea addd Travel Host, interstate 35 & 27th Avenue West ................................. $25.00 $35.00 $5/ea addtl Voyageur Motel,333 East Superior Street ..................................... $28.00 $40.00 $4/ea addtl Note: The Radisson Duluth is the Headquarters Hotel. EARLY BIRD SPECIAL For member city officials only. The Radisson Duluth, Holiday Inn, and Edgewater Motel will each provide one complimentary weekend for two at their facilities, excluding meals, as an early bird special prize. Only delegates sending in their housing registration form by May 1, 1986 will be eligible. The winner must pay the room tax and all incidental charges. IlVIPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS Rooms will be reserved on a first -come, first -served basis. The earlier you make your reservations, the better the chance you will have of getting your first choice hotel. The hotels will hold room blocks only until June 3, 1986, after which regular room rates will be in effect on an as available basis. A deposit equal to one night's lodging per room must accompany this housing form. Credit card preferred. Checks must be payable to LMC Housing. You will receive an acknowledgement of your reservation from the assigned hotel. All changes in reservations or cancellations must be made through the Housing Bureau in writing. Except for guaranteed pay for late arrival, room deposits will be refunded if reservations are cancelled. No reservations will be accepted by phone. City or Organization: Address: City: Arrival Date: Arrival Time Hotel Preference First: Special Requirements: Names of All Occupants: HOUSING RESERVATION State: Second: (please print or type) Title: Zip: Departure Date: Third: Do you wish to guarantee pay for arrival after 6:00 p.m.? Yes_ No Fndosed is a deposit equal to one night's lodging per room. (Credit Card Preferred) League of Minnesota Cities Housing Bureau Radisson Duluth Hotel 505 West Superior St. Duluth, Minnesota 55802 Attn: Front Office Manager Credit Card Preferred Credit Card Company Card Number Expiration Date The LMC Housing Bureau is authorized to use the above card to guarantee my hotel reservations reserved by me. I understand that one night's room will be billed through this card if I fail to show up f6r my assigned housing on the confirmed date unless I have cancelled my reservations with the hotel at least 24 hours in advance. IF PAYING BY CHECK MAKE PAYABLE TO: LMC HOUSING Cardholder signature Date 28 Minnesota Cities CITY OF HANOVER 11250 - 5th STREET N.E. HANOVER, MINNESOTA 55341 (612)497-3777 NOTES FROM GAIL LIPPERT - CLEWTREASQRER May 14, 1986 TO: Maureen - Albertville Jean - Frankfort Don - St. Michael I understand Axelsons did not get back to you all. Attached is a copy of the letter I sent them following our meeting. Also attached is a rough draft of a contract. Our attorney is re -writing the contract and the Council will be reviewing it at our May 20th meeting. Axelsons agreed, by phone, to the amounts listed in the contract. The $13.00 fee for disposal or placement is the amount Wright County Humane Society will charge to pick up the animal at the Axelson pound and either dispose of, up for adoption. CITY OF HANOVER 11250 - 5TH STREET N.E. HANOVER, MINNESOTA 55341 (612)497-3777 MAYOR CLERK -TREASURER Gail Lippert COUNCIL MEMBERS Robert Dixon, Jr. Dennis Filip" Barbers Irvine Tim Zwnnwman TOs Charles & Audrey Axelson - `,-11511-61Z3- 9020 Nashua Avenue NE Elk River, MK 55330 FROM; Gail Lippert, Clerk City of Hanover RE: Dog Control April 25, 19M Staff members from Albertville, Hanover, St. Michael and Frankfort Township have not and discussed our needs relating to dog control. In response to those needs, we have prepared the following list for your considerations e Twice a week routine patrol through the four communities, totaling two hours time @ $10.00 per hour. This will be an average cost of $20.00 a month per community. • Response to individual request for additional patrol time at $10.00 per hour. • Individual call outs will be charged to the community at $10.00 per hour (or per hour plus _ a mile.) • Respective communities will pay impound fee plus for disposal. e Residents who pick up a dog from your pound will be charged directly for the full cost resulting from that pick up and im- pound. e Each community will furnish a copy of thier animal ordinance. • Each community will be billed separately at the end of the month. • An open house so that communities may inspect your facilities. Based on this information, would you please submit a proposal to the following: City of Albertville, Box 131, Albertville 55301 City of Hanover, Box 406, Hanover 55341 City of St. Michael, 216 South Main, St. Michael 55376 Frankfort Township, 2775 Lander Ave. NE, St. Michael 55376 ROUGH DRAFT ANIMAL WARDEN CONTRACT CN V This agreement is made and entered into this day of 19_, between the City of Hanover and Charles Axelson, Animal Warden. Whereas, the City Council of the City of Hanover wishes to enter into a contract on behalf of the City of Hanover to ensure the enforcement of its animal ordinance; Whereas, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Warden agrees to furnish a suitable fehicle to transport animals. 2. Warden agrees to provide pick-up services for special pick-ups or to assist with animal control problems when requested by the Sheriff's Department, and, or the City of Hanover. 3. Warden agrees to pick-up dogs and other animals which are dangerous to, or creating a nuisance to, residents of the City. Q. Warden agrees to enforce the City's animal control ordinance, with regard to impoundment, appropriate warnings, citations, and Warden agrees to record all incidents and maintain records of same. 5. Warden shall assume liability for any and all damages due to his negli- gence, or that of his agents, and shall hold the City of Hanover harmless from any and all claims for the same. 6. Warden agrees to keep detailed records of call outs, impounds, complaints, lost and found, on which records will state names, time, locations, description of impound, reason for impound; report of occurance shall be sent to the City. 7. The agreed contract price to be paid by the City of Hanover to the Animal Warden for carrying out his obligations and responsibilities herein shall be arrived at as follows: a) The City agrees to pay the Animal Warden the sum of twenty (20.00) per month for routine patrol of 1/2 hour per week. b) The City agrees to pay ten (10.00) per hour for additional patrol time as requested by the City. c) The City agrees to pay ten (10.00) per hour for individual call outs. d) The City agrees to pay five (5.00) per day impound fee, not to exceed five days, and thirteen (13.00) for disposal/placement fee. 8. Warden agrees to send detailed animal reports monthly along with monthly statement. 9. It is understood that dog owners who pick-up a dog from the pound will be charged directly for the full cost resulting from that pick-up and impound. 10. It is mutually understood and agreed by the parties hereto, that this agreement shall continue in effect from year to year. However, it is fully agreed that after the initial contract period, this contract may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other of intention to terminate this agreement or enter into a new agreement. ATTEST: Gail Lippert, Clerk Maxine Ladde, Mayor of the City of Hanover Charles Axelson, Animal Warden Approved by Council Resolution # on the day of , Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 00, OF 612.2%-3000 office of Commissioner April 15, 1986 To S Township Chairmen, Mayors, County & City Engineers s Richard P. Braun,, From Commissioner 1 Re a Hazard Elimination safety Programi For the correction of regulatory & warning sign deficiencies on non -Federal Aid local roads. Gr�Ptian and �1tEs_tied 40 t yduF 1f1�df IH&�16(1 �• �h® Praj�F P•t Application Form for the Hazard Elimination Safety Program. I am pleased to announce this 90% federally -funded program, which is directed toward township roads and local streets, as a continuing effort by the Minnesota Department of Transportation in the area of traffic safety. Nationally, the upgrading of traffic signs has been the ident single mosd�ris essesethe ctraffic tive caccident/tort mlih abilityissue. program a As presented at the Township Officers Short Course, (March 17-April 4, 1986) key components of the program area 1. Inventory to determine traffic signs/devices needs. 2. Purchase of traffic signs/devices. 3. Installation of traffic signs/devices. The first step is application (using the golden rod colored form at the back of the Project Description). As noted on the application, the inventory will not begin until authorization from MnDOT is given to proceed. Instructions for the inventory phase will accompany the zation to proceed. Funds are limited and available on a "First Come, First Served" basis. For the sake of consistency and cost -efficiency, MnDOT recommends that townships and small cities ewithin ither uthe ersame county band together as a single project, administration of the county engineer or through an engineering consultant. PROJECT MANAGERS Nancy Mahle, 612-296-4838, (7SOu AM-3130 PM) MnDOT, Room 309 Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN, 55153 An Equal Opportunity Employer �,.NNESOT4 n a Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 F OF Tfke 612.296.3000 Office of Commissioner April 15, 1986 To a Township Chairmen, Mayors, County & City Engineers Richard P. Braun,, From s Commissioner Re s Hazard Elimination Safety Programs For the correction of regulatory & warning sign deficiencies on non -Federal Aid local roads. Attached for your information is the Project Description and Application Form for the Hazard Elimination Safety I am pleased to announce this 90% federally -funded program, which is directed toward township roads and local streets, as a continuing effort by the Minnesota Department of Transportation in the area of traffic safety. Nationally, the upgrading of traffic signs has been the single most cost-effective accident countermeasure. This program addresses the traffic accident/tort liability issue. As presented at the Township Officers Short Course, (March 17-April 4, 1986) key components of the program area 1. Inventory to determine traffic signs/devices needs. 2. Purchase of traffic signs/devices. 3. Installation of traffic signs/devices. The first step is application (using the golden rod colored form at the back of the Project Description). As noted on the application, the inventory will not begin until authorization from MnDOT is given to proceed. Instructions for the inventory phase will accompany the authorization to proceed. Funds are limited and available on a "First Come, First Served" basis. For the sake of consistency and cost -efficiency, MnDOT recommends that townships and small cities within the same county band together as a single project, either under the administration of the county engineer or through an engineering consultant. PROJECT MANAGERa Nancy Mahle, 612-296-48389 (7s00 AM-3830 PM) MnDOT, Room 309 Transportation Building, St. Paul, , An Equal Opportunity Employer STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR HAZARD ELIMINATION SAFETY PROGRAM: For the correction of regulatory and warning sign deficiencies on non -Federal Aid local roads. APP -------------Date_= State Traffic Engineer APPROV -- -- Date__ r------------ ___ St ineer APPROVQ,A ---- �� t�---- -----------------Date-------- Assistant iner. Technical s Division AF'F' V ------ ------------------Date__ Z _� 3 _�---- istant Co missioner. APR 4 1986 Operations Division A PROVED /f IITE FOR DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR INTRODUCTION The purpose of this traffic safety program is to make federal highway safety funds (Hazard Elimination Safety, HES) available to local road authorities, so as to bring regulatory and warning signs/devices (on non -Federal Aid local roads) into compliance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MMUTCD). Three items comprise this 90 federal (10 local) cost - sharing traffic safety program: 1. Inventory to determine traffic signs/devices needs 2. Purchase of traffic control signs/devices 3. Installation of traffic signs/devices Reimbursement of eligible expenses, at the 90% level, will be authorized after MnDOT approves: the final field inspection of installed signs/devices, the materials•certification, and the claims documents. Federal Aid roads and streets within the local road authority's geographical limits shall be brought into compliance with the MMUTCD, as part of its' contribution to the program. Costs incurred shall be borne by the local road authority. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have concurred in designating $2.1 million (HES funds) to address the regulatory and warning sign deficiencies on non -Federal Aid roads. Funds will be available on a "First Come, First Served" basis. Additional funding will depend primarily on the U.S. Congress renewing the Hazard Elimination Safety Program for federal fiscal year 1987 (which begins October 1, 1986) and beyond. MnDOT estimates the needs on the non -Federal Aid system to be in excess of $17. million. Historically, the upgrading of traffic signs/devices has been reported nationally as the single most cost-effective accident countermeasure. Current highway funding bills in Congress having HES provisions are actively supported by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and many traffic safety organizations. Page 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction ..................................... 1 Eligibility...................................... 2 Sequence of Events ............................... MnDOT and Local Government Procedures ............ 4-5 Eligible Items for Reimbursement .................. 6-7 Material Certification ........................... 8 Nondiscrimination Regulations & .................. 9 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Policy Intent to Participate Form ....................... 1c7 Application Form ................................. 11 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this traffic safety program is to mab:e federal highway safety funds (Hazard Elimination Safety, HES) available to local road authorities, so as to bring regulatory and warning signs/devices (on non -Federal Aid local roads) into compliance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways --------------------- (MMUTCD). Three items comprise this 90 federal (10 local) cost - sharing traffic safety program: 1. Inventory to determine traffic signs/devices needs . Purchase of traffic control signs/devices 3. Installation of traffic signs/devices Reimbursement of eligible expenses, at the 90 level, will be authorized after MnDOT approves: the final field inspection of installed signs/devices, the materials certification, and the claims documents. Federal Aid roads and streets within the local road authority's geographical limits shall be brought into compliance with the MMUTCD, as part of its' contribution to the program. Costs incurred shall be borne by the local road authority. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have concurred in designating $2.1 million (HES funds) to address the regulatory and warning sign deficiencies on non -Federal Aid roads. Funds will be available on a "First Come, First Served" basis. Additional funding will depend primarily on the U.S. Congress renewing the Hazard Elimination Safety Program for federal fiscal year 1987 (which begins October 1, 1986) and beyond. MnDOT estimates the needs on the non -Federal Aid system to be in excess of $13 million. Historically, the upgrading of traffic signs/devices has been reported nationally as the single most cost-effective accident countermeasure. Current highway funding bills in Congress having HES provisions are actively supported by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and many traffic safety organizations. Page 1 ELIGIBILITY This program is open to counties, cities and townships that have not previously received Federal Aid (Safer Roads Demonstration or Safer -Off -System funds) for sign inventories and materials/installation expenses on local roads. Counties and cities that have received reimbursement for sign inventories are eligible for materials/installation reimbursement, provided a current inventory is approved by MnDOT and the procedures of the Project Description are followed. For the sake of consistency and cost -efficiency, MnDOT recommends that townships and small cities within the same County band together as a single project, either under the administration of the county engineer or through an engineering consultant. The following components of the Project Description provide details on the program. The Intent to Participate Form and the Aeplication Form are located at the end of the report. Page SEQUENCE OF EVENTS The following outline provides an overview of program activities at the federal, state and local levels. For ease Of understanding, the flow diagram on the next two pages illustrates steps required to bring a project to a successful conclusion. 1. MnDOT's Office of Traffic Engineering announces the program statewide by sending the Project Description to county and city engineers, and township officials. 2. Applicants submit an e;;ecuted Intent to Participate and an Application to Traffic Engineering. Traffic Engineering consolidates submittals and sends to District State Aid and Traffic Engineers for review and feedback::. MnDOT requests FHWA authorization to proceed with the Inventory and Construction phases of the project. 4. Traffic Engineering authorizes an inventory of traffic control signs/devices. If an engineering consultant is employed, MnDOT must approve the Consultant Contract before work: can begin. 5. The inventory, consisting of a Summary of Material Needs and a Cost Estimate, should be sent to Traffic Engineering, the District State Aid Engineer and the District Traffic Engineer for review and approval. 6. Traffic Engineering authorizes project implementation pending the execution of the MnDOT Agreement and a signed resolution from the local road authority. 7. In accordance with MnDOT Secondary Road Plan, the project participant purchases and installs the materials or advertises, lets and awards a contract for the purchase and installation of materials. B. After the project is completed and inspected by the District State Aid Engineer, the project participant submits appropriate claims (along with invoices or final caritract vouchers) to the District State Aid Engineer for review and approval, who in turn forwards documents to Traffic Engineering for processing. 9. On approval of the final field inspection of installed signs/devices, and the materials certification, and satisfactory review of claims documents, 90 of the eligible total costs will be reimbursed by MnDOT. Page _ MnDOT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROCEDURES --------------- ----- -------- Traffic Engineering ----- : Announces HES Program '----------------------------' ------------------- ------------------- Counties 84 Cities ;:District State Aid : Townships ::a< Traffic Engineers: ^75 ------------------- ------------------- DAYS ---------------------------- :Applicants submit: : : :Intent to Participate and : : :the Application to Traffic : ---------------------------- : --------------- ----- -------- Traffic Engineering ----- :records,organizes submittals: : :and prepares for review : ---------------------------- : ------------ --- : Traffic Engineering : ' `15 :consolidates submittals and : DAYS :sends to District State Aid :8< District Traffic Engineer :for review and feedback; ---------------------------- -- -- ---------------------------- MnDOT requests FHWA : ----- : authorization to proceed : : : ---------------------------- "'1U ---------------------------- DAYS MnDOT receives FHWA : authorization to proceed '----------------------------' --'-- ---------------------------- : Traffic Engineering ----- : authorizes Participant to : : : conduct inventory ' `45 ----- ----------------------- DAYS : Participant submits the : : Summary of Material Needs : and the Cost Estimate '----------------------------' -' --------------------------------------- --- ;Traffic Engineering;;District State Aid : : ;reviews submittals :;& Traffic Engineer ; "15 : ::review submittals : DAYS ' - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - ' -- - Page 4 CONTINUED: --------------- ----- -------- Traffic Engineering ----- ; authorizes Participant to implement project by :Force Account or Contract, MnDOT Agreement attached : for signatures '----------------------------' ---------------------------- :Participant submits: ' : :Signed MnDOT Agreement 'Resolution :to Dist.State Aid Engineer `15 '----------------------------; DAYS : Dist. State Aid reviews &< :forwards MnDOT Agreement &< ; ; ; Resolution to Traffic ---------------------------- :Materials Engineering sends :MnDOT Schedule for Materials; : : Control and the Materials Certification Form '----------------------------' ; ----------------------------- ;Participant calls District --'-- ----- :State Aid Engineer when :materials arrive so that :material testing can occur :prior to installation ' 1 , ---------------------------- `45 ----------------------------- DAYS :On approval of materials, :Participant (or contractor) ;installs signs ---------------------------- ; ---------------------------- : Participant requests final ----- : Dist State Aid inspection.. '----------------------------' ; : ----------------------------- ;Participant sends: ' ; :Materials Certification Form; ; !Invoices &< Vouchers ; 5 :to Dist. State Aid Engineer : ----------------------------- DAYS ------------------------- :DSAE sends: Materials Cert. ' :Form, Form PR-1446C,Invoices; ; 1 &< Vouchers to Traffic for :processing ---------------------------- Page 5 ELIGIBLE ITEMS FOR REIMBURSEMENT 1. In_v_entory may be accomplished by: Agreed Unit Price: Using the project participant's forces, or agent, inventory reimbursement will be at a lump sum rate (ma.; i mum) of $29/mile (urban areas), *15/mile (rural areas). Contract Using an engineering consultant, inventory reimbursement will be at a lump sum rate (maximum) of $29/mile (urban areas) $15/mile (rural areas). 2. A. Materials: Regulatory (*including No Parking signs), Warning signs, Delineators (as well as Deer Warning Devices) and Object Markers, as identified in an approved traffic sign inventory. All devices shall be in conformance with the MMUTCD and with MnDOT Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (198' Edition), including supplements. Specific standards on design, size, color, shape and reflectivity, positioning, mounting and lateral clearance shall be adhered to. MnDOT's Summary of _Standard Signs Manual will be made available on request. (*Only those signs which prohibit parking at all times and facilitate safe traffic operations and have red letters/borders on a white background, are eligible.) Mounting supports shall be breakaway -type posts currently used by local units of government and shall conform to MnDOT standards for flanged channel sign posts, square tube steel sign posts, and wood posts. Approved plastic posts may be used as an alternative for delineator support. Other post standards are available on request. B. Materials Procurement: --------- ----------- a. Furnish_ & Install: The project participant will develop a 'proposal' -type plan and specifications, advertise for contract letting which includes both furnishing materials and installation. MnDOT will review and approve the contract before it is advertised and will concur in the award. The project participant would administer the contract. b. Install Government Supplied Materials: The project participant will submit a 'proposal' -type plan and specifications (materials and installation). The materials to be used will be furnished from either existing inventory or a new procurement action. Page 6 The project participant may 'piggyback:' on an approved, existing contract (state or county) for the purchase of materials. MnDOT will review and approve the plan before installation begins. The project participant will be responsible for certifying compliance with appropriate procurement procedures and laws and documenting all materials used. The reasonableness of the procurement action will be subject to MnDOT review. C. Materials Reimbursement Material costs will be reimbursed at 9C-)% of the unit bid price times the number of eligible units installed. Enid items for signs shall be paid by the square foot of sign placed. Delineators (and Deer Warning Devices) and Object Markers shall be bid as a unit of one. Installation/Removal may be accomplished by: Agreed Unit Price: Using the project participant's forces, or agent, installation reimbursement will be at a lump sum rate (ma>cimum) of $16/sign and $11/delineator or marker. Contract Using an engineering contractor, installation reimbursement will be based on unit bid prices. In no case shall convict labor be used in the installation, unless it is labor performed by convicts who are on parole or probation. Labor costs incurred for raising any signs/devices to the proper height, per MMUTCD, shall be borne by the project participant. Non-standard signs are not to be relocated or reinstalled on any roadway. The project participant shall deliver all non- standard signs to the nearest MnDOT Area Maintenance Office. Page 7 MATERIAL CERTIFICATION The Participant shall submit an executed Materials Certification Form with all claims. The form will certify that traffic signs, delineators and object markers installed throughout this project are fabricated of materials meeting the provisions of MnDOT Standard Specification 3352, with the sheeting material meeting the requirements of MnDOT 3352.2A2a (Standard No. 1 Reflective Sheeting). As an option, MnDOT 3352.2A2b (Standard No. 2 Reflective Sheeting) may be used for the following: 1. Red_ series regulatory _signs STOP R1-1 ALL -WAY R1-4 YIELD R1-2 DO NOT ENTER R5-1 4-WAY R1-3 WRONG WAY R5-1a 2. All object markers 3. All delineators with reflectorized sheeting If the Participant exercises the above option, all replacements shall be of the same material. The Participant shall obtain a written statement from the - sign fabricator attesting that the reflective sheeting meets the above mentioned specification. Mounting supports shall be breakaway -type posts and shall conform to one of the following: 1. Flanged channel sign posts shall meet the current requirements of MnDOT Standard Specification 3401. 2. Square tube steel sign posts shall meet the following: Materials: Tubing with plain finish is roll formed from 10 gage (.135) and 12 gage (.105 U.S.S. Gauge) hot rolled steel, ASTM Des. A-570 Grade 33 pickled and oiled. Galvanized finish, roll formed from 10 gage (.1.35) and 12 gage (.105 U.S.S. Gage) cold rolled steel, galvanized material ASTM Des. A-446 Grade A. 3. Wood posts shall meet the current requirements of MnDOT Standard Specifications 2403.3 and 3491. For bidding purposes, see Special Provisions. 4. Approved plastic posts may be used as an alternative for delineator supports. Page 8 APPENDIX A NONDISCRIMINATION REGULATIONS During the performance of this Agreement, the (County), (Municipality), (Township), for itself, its assignees in interest (hereinafter referred to as the "Participant") shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Accordingly, 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 21 through Appendix C and 21 CFR 710.405(b) are made a part hereof by reference with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE POLICY It is the policy of the Federal Department of Transportation and the State that disadvantaged business enterprises as defined in 49 CFR, Fart 21, shall have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of agreements or contracts financed in whole or in part with Federal funds under this Agreement. Consequently, the DBE requirements of 49 CFR, Part 2=, apply to this Agreement. The Participant shall insure that disadvantaged business enterprises as defined in 49 CFR, Part 20, have the maximum ^ opportunity to participate in the performance of agreements and contracts financed in whole or in part with Federal +ands. In this regard, the Participant shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 21, to insure that disadvantaged business enterprises have the maximum opportunity to compete for and perform such agreements and contracts. The Participant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of this Agreement. Failure to carry out the above requirements shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and may result in termination of the Agreement by the State, and possible debarment from performing other contractual services with the Federal Department of Transportation. Page 9 INTENT TO PARTICIPATE WHEREAS, under the Federal Highway Safety Act of 1973, one of the objectives set forth by the Department of Transportation is the conformance of all traffic control devices to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MMUTCD); and WHEREAS, funds are available through the Federal Highway Administration for the installation of regulatory and warning signs/devices; and WHEREAS, ---------------------------------------------------- (County, Municipality or Township) ----------------------------------------------------- in the County of is desirous of bringing the traffic control devices on streets and roads located within its geographical limits into conformance with Minnesota standards; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED THAT: 1. The Participant will comply with the conditions set forth in the Project Description. The Participant will remove, replace or install all regulatory and warning signs, delineators and object markers necessary to comply with Minnesota standards (MMUTCD) as determined through an approved inventory of inplace non -electrical traffic control devices. 2. The State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation (MnDOT), will administer the program, and will be responsible for documentation requirements as specified by the Federal Highway Administration. Reimbursement (90 of the eligible total costs) will be based on approval of the field inspection, and the materials certification, and satisfactory review of claims documents. The Participant will be responsible for the remaining 10 of the eligible total costs. 1. The Participant agrees to maintain all such material installations in satisfactory condition. 4. The U.S. Department of Transportation Regulations on Non - Discrimination are to be complied with by the Participant. Refer to Appendix; A, "Nondiscrimination Regulations" and "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Policy". ........................ >Apglication: Page 11 Page 10 . r ♦. APPLICATION We have reviewed the Project Description and the Intent to Participate. We intend to participate in the Hazard Elimination Safety Program for local roads. It is understood that reimbursement will be 90 of the total eligible costs attributed to a comprehensive sign/device inventory*, materials and installation. Although no submittal deadline is indicated, we understand that the funds are limited and available on a "First Come, First Served" basis. (* Those counties and cities who previously received Federal Aid for sign inventories are not eligible for re -inventory reimbursement under this program.) Sign/device inventory will be conducted by: Circle response COUNTY ENGINEER or CONTRACT Furnish/install phase will be conducted by: Circle response COUNTY ENGINEER or CONTRACT or OTHER ............. specify We understand that the sign/device inventory will not begin until we receive authorization from MnDOT to proceed. Instructions for the inventory phase will accompany the authorization to proceed. Upon approval of the inventory, the project manager may proceed with the project. We understand that reimbursement is contingent on approval of the field inspection, the materials certification and satisfactory review of claims documents. Estimated mileage to be inventoried; ------------------------ Estimated inventory start date ----------------- ------ ------------------------------------------------------------ Name of County, Municipality or Township ------------------------------------------------------------ Official signature Date signed - Mail the In_ten_t to Par_ticieate and the AQelication to: Nancy Mahle, Manager 7-109 Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 Page 11 MONTICELLO OFFICE 207 SOUTH WALNUT STREET P.O. BOX 668 MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA 55362-0668 OFFICE PHONE 4612) 295-2107 METRO LINE (612) 421-7630 May 13, 1986 Ms. Maurine Andrews City Administrator City of Albertville Albertville, MN 55301 RE: Annexation Dear Ms. Andrews: SMITH, PRINGLE & HAYES ATTORNEYS AT LAW GREGORY V. SMITH. J.D. GARY L. PRINGLE. J.D. THOMAS D. HAYES. J.D. Enclosed herewith for your files please copies of the following: ELK RIVER OFFICE OLD COURTHOUSE BUILDING 326 LOWELL AVENUE ELK RIVER. MINNESOTA 55330 OFFICE PHONE (612) 441-3990 1) Letter dated 5/7/86 to Minnesota Municipal Board from William S. Radzwill 2) Request for Additional Hearing 3) Town of Otsego's Brief Opposing Annexation 4) Responsive Written Argument 5) Petitioner's Written Argument 6) Wright County Comprehensive Plan - Otsego Township Land Use Plan Update If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Yours truly, Thomas D. Hayes TDH/as File No. 85-14637 Encl. MONTICELLO OFFICE 207 SOUTH WALNUT STREET P.O. BOX 668 MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA 55362-0668 OFFICE PHONE (612) 295-2107 METRO LINE (61 2) 421 7630 May 15, 1986 Ms. Maurine Andrews City Administrator City of Albertville Albertville, MN 55301 RE: Annexation Dear Ms. Andrews: SMITH, PRINGLE & HAYES ATTORNEYS AT LAW GREGORY V. SMITH, J.D. GARY L. PRINGLE. J.D. THOMAS D. HAYES, J.D. ELK RIVER OFFICE OLD COURTHOUSE BUILDING 326 LOWELL AVENUE ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA 5533G OFFICE PHONE (612) 441 -3990 Enclosed herewith please find the following documents for your information: 1) Letter from William Radzwill dated 5/12/86 to Minnesota Municipal Board 2) Town of Otsego's Response to Petitioner's Written Argument 3) Letter from Willaim Radzwill dated 5/12/86 to Gary J. Meyer & Tom Hayes YYoourrs� truly, Thomas D. Hayes TDH/as File No. 85-14637 Encl. DOERING, RADZWILL & OLSEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW R. KARL DOERING WILLIAM �. RADZWILL BRIAN M. OL$ZN May 7, 1986 Minnesota Municipal Board 165 Metro Square Bldg. 7th and Roberts Street St. Paul, MN 55101 TELHPHONLt (612) 266-2177 METRO: 472-7462 COKATO, MINNESOTA 55321 Re: Annexation - City of Albertville/Town of Otsego Gentlemen: Please find enclosed herewith and served upon you by United States mail, the Town of Otsego's Brief opposing annexation. Further, find enclosed a Request for Additional Hearing. Lastly, I have not received a date or acknowledgment of my Motion for Oral Argument before the Municipal Board. Please advise our office what date the Board will set for oral argument and deliberate on this matter. Sincerely, (� William S. Radzwill DuERING, RADZWILL & OLSEN WSR;dt enc. cc: Gary.J. Meyer, Attorney at Law Thomas D. Hayes, Attorney at Law MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD 165 Metro Square Bldg. 7th and Roberts St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Kenneth F. Sette Richard A. Sand Shirley J. Mihelich Paul McAlpine Leroy Engstrom Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner County Commissioner and Ex-Offico Member County Commissioner and Ex -Off i co Member IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND TO HEARING THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE PURSUANT Rule 6000.3000 TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414 T0: Gary J. Meyer, Attorney for the City of Albertville, 9405 36th Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55427. Thomas D. Hayes, Attorney for Petitioners, 207 South Walnut Street Monticello, Minnesota 55362 The Town of Otsego, by way of its attorney, William S. Radzwill of Cokato, Minnesota 55321, herein moves the Municipal Board for a date to submit additional evidence before the Municipal Board. On April 22, 1986 the Town of Otsego, by way of its planning commission chairman, Ingolf Roskast, testified that the comprehensive 9 4. plan of the Town of Otsego revised March 1983 was the official town copy. However, inadvertantly the wrong copy was submitted to the Municipal Board. Enclosed is a correct copy of the Town of Otsego land use plan update for 1984. In said correct and updated comprehensive plan, there is no housing recommendations concerning mobile home parks. The only discussion concerning mobile home parks in said adopted comprehensive plan dated 1984 which is in full force and effect at this time, concerning mobile homes is on page 6 through 9 of said comprehensive plan. There is no discussion or recitation concerning annexation. Said motion is based upon a mistake of fact, and upon the testimony and exhibits offered and received at the hearing on April 11, 1986 and April 22, 1986 before the Municipal Board in the City of Albertville, Minnesota. The authority for this motion is Rule 6000.3000, Rules of Minnesota Municipal Board, and Minnesota Statute 414.031. DOERING, RADZWILL & OLSEN by Wi liam S. Radz i I_ --�^- 180 East 3rd Street P.O. Box N Cokato, MN 55321 (612) 473-7483 (612) 286-2173 A.R.N. 50089 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD 165 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -&------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In the Matter of the Petition of RESPONSIVE WRITTEN Certain Persons for the Annexation of ARGUMENT Lands location within Wright County, Minnesota. File No. A-4297 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Township of Otsego, in its brief opposing annexation, unfortunately permitted passion and prejudice to cloud its collective thinking and recollection of the evidence. Fortunately, it is the Board's recollection of the facts that the Board will interpret and apply to the law. Contrary to the assertions of Otsego, evidence was submitted on each of the 13 factors that Minn. Stat. 414.031 subd. 4 directs the Board to consider in arriving at its Order. The Petitioners' Written Argument previously submitted details the evidence before the Board on these 13 key factors. The population trends in and around the subject property indicate the likelihood of urban/suburban type density for the property. No better proof of this trend can be offered than the proposed development of a manufactured home park. The subject property is best suited for development other than agriculture. The topography of the area presents erosion as a significant potential. Drainage is a problem as evidenced by standing water. Agricultural pollution of Mud Lake is a danger. These agricultural problems cannot be economically remedied. Residential development can deal with these problems in a Cost-effective manner. -1- Annexation of this property is a logical extention of the City's boundary. The addition of the subject property makes for a better boundary with the Township on the North as the boundary becomes an established road. The pattern of development in the area is consistent with the annexation, and the annexation would enhance development. The proposed property is near an interstate highway interchange. The roads in the area, according to the City's engineer, are adequate to support the proposed development. The annexation will result in a broadening of the City's population base which would support current and expanded commercial and industrial development within the City. Now is a fortunate time for the proposed annexation. Albertville is recodifying its ordinance, developing a manufactured home park ordinance and developing a shoreland management ordinance. The City has recognized the value of the subject property as a part of the City. An annexation at this point would allow the City's regulation of the area to be from the beginning of any development. Only Albertville can provide the necessary municipal services (chiefly sewer and water) that the subject property will need. Otsego has no municipal utility service and does not anticipate having such services in the near future. The most significant pollution issue involving the subject property relates to Mud Lake. With the City's new sewage treatment facility, pollution should be significantly reduced. Removal of agricultural run-off would also enhance the environment of Mud Lake. Albertville does not anticipate significant problems in providing government services to the subject property. Sewer and water will be required at a cost to be largely borne by Norse Development Company. Fire services are already -2- provided by the City to the subject property. Police protection through the City's contract with the Wright County Sheriff's Office can easily be extended to the subject property. The City's finances are sound. Any developing community incurs substantial debt when significant capital improvements are made. Albertville is no different. Development costs are estimated to not exceed $250,000.00. Most expenses will be borne by Norse Development. $250,000.00 is a small investment given the harvest of economic benefits the City stands to gain. And of course, one must remember the accumulated reserves the City currently enjoys. The local school district needs the increased student population the development of the subject property promises. The district will profit even more greatly than the City. Otsego cannot and will not provide the necessary sewer and water services the subject property needs. Albertville is the only governmental unit that can Provide the necessary utility services to the subject property. The acreage in question is small compared to the balance remaining within the Township. The loss of tax revenue is miniscual. The Township can easily survive without the subject property. All of these factors point to the need and appropriateness of the subject property being annexed to the City of Albertville. Only by an annexation can the health and welfare of the public be protected and preserved. The Township's written brief makes reference to the timeliness of the second amended petition. Petitioners would direct the Board's attention to Rule 6000.0700 which completely disposes of this "non -issue" raised by the Township. DATED: -3- Respectfully submitted, SMITHo PRINGLE & HAYES BY: Thomas D. Hayes Attorneys for Petitioners 207 South Walnut Street P.O. Box 668 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 (612) 295-2107 & 421-7630 Attorney I.D. #42791 -4- MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD 165 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 In the Matter of the Petition of RESPONSE TO REQUEST Certain Persons for the Annexation of FOR ADDITIONAL HEARING Lands location within Wright County, Minnesota. File No. A-4297 TO: Township of Otsego and William S. Radzwill, its attorney; City of Albertville and Gary J. Meyer, its attorney. Petitioners object to further hearing on the above -entitled petition. The Township of Otsego had sufficient time to prepare, review and consider for submission all evidence available to it. Both Township witnesses, Roskast and Will, identified the Otsego Comprehensive Plan (Township Exhibit A) as the comprehensive plan for Otsego. The document submitted by the Township in its Request for Additional Hearing appears to be a document of Wright County and further appears to be only a proposal, not an adopted document as indicated by the words "First Draft - For Discussion". The decision to grant an additional hearing is discretionary with the Board (Rule 6000.3000). The only purpose served in scheduling an additional hearing would be delay. -1- Rule 6000.3000 does not permit replies to this response: "No reply to the response will be permitted." DATED: BY: SMITH, PRINGLE & HAYES Thomas D. Hayes Attorneys for Petitioners 207 South Walnut Street P.O. Box 668 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 (612) 295-2107 & 421-7630 Attorney I.D. #42791 -2- MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD 165 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 In the Matter of the Petition of RESPONSE TO TOWNSHIP Certain Persons for the Annexation of REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Lands location within Wright County, Minnesota. File No. A-4297 TO: Township of Otsego and William S. Radzwill, its attorney; City of Albertville and Gary J. Meyer, its attorney. Petitioners object to the scheduling of oral arguments. The granting of oral arguments is discretionary with the Board's presiding officer. Rule 6000,2500 reads in part: "If a request is made [for oral or written arguments], the presiding officer shall allow all parties to submit written or oral arguments, or both." (emphasis added) Here written arguments have been permitted. The only purpose served by taking additional valuable time from the Board is delay. All parties have had ample opportunity to submit these arguments in the written form. DATED: BY: SMITH, PRINGLE & HAYES Thomas D. Hayes Attorneys for Petitioners 207 South Walnut Street P.O. Box 668 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 (612) 295-2107 & 421-7630 Attorney I.D. #42791 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL Therese Marquette, of the Township of Becker, County of Sherburne, in the State of Minnesota, being first duly sworn, says that on the 12th day of May, 1986, she served the annexed RESPONSIVE WRITTEN ARGUMENT, RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL HEARING and RESPONSE TO TOWNSHIP REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT on William S. Radzwill and Gary J. Meyer, attorneys for Township of Otsego and City of Albertville, respectively, the parties in this action, by mailing to each of them a copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope, postage prepaid, and by depositing same in the post office at Monticello, Minnesota, directed to said attorneys at Cokato, Minnesota 55321 and 9405 36th Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota 55427, the last known addresses of said attorneys. I/ /' - � ,, - "'� 'j- P - - - / , /-)(,t -/L1 �"' A�' Q-t-;CO Therese Marquette Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of May, 1986. r • BARBARA 1.SCHERSING NOTARY PUBLIC Z" WRIGHT COW:, r My Commission EAPI:f la, 1990 rVVVV0jV.%VVVww'.^.� .... ,wwwwwr MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD 165 Metro Square Bldg. 7th and Roberts St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Kenneth F. Sette Richard A. Sand Shirley J. Mihelich Paul McAlpine Leroy Engstrom Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner County Commissioner and Ex-Officio Member County Commissioner and Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ) THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND TO ) TOWN OF OTSEGO'S BRIEF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE PURSUANT ) OPPOSING ANNEXATION TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414 ) Pursuant to notice of hearing dated March 14, 1986 concerning the above captioned matter, a hearing was held before the Municipal Board on April 11, 1986 and continued on April 27, 1986. Testimony was taken on said dates before the Municipal Board. Thomas D. Hayes represented the property owners Valerius et al and Norse Development Company herein after referred to as Petitioner/developer. Gary Meyer, represented the City of Albertville. William S. Radzwill represented the Town of Otsego. Also, various citizens, who were unrepresented, appeared before the Municipal Board and they gave testimony. The property petitioned for annexation shall be known as the "Valerius property". Most of the facts before the Municipal Board are uncontroverted and fairly easily distinguished. Very little controversy arose as a result of the facts. However, interpretation of the facts is another question. The Town of Otsego's position is n F] -2- fairly clear. They are opposed to the Petition for Annexation based upon the facts presented by the Town of Otsego witnesses, and the facts presented by the petitioners and City of Albertville. In many respects the hearing before the Municipal Board resembled a zoning and planning hearing rather than an annexation hearing. Be as it may, the Municipal Board has to ultimately address Minnesota Statute 414.031, subdivision 4 in arriving at its decision. The legislature has mandated the Board shall consider the various factors in subdivision 4 in arriving at its decision. After making a fact determination, the Municipal Board has to then find, in order to - annex the property into the City of Albertville, that the property proposed for annexation is now, or is about to become, urban or suburban in character, or that the property is required to be annexed to protect the public health, safety and welfare, or finds that the annexation would be in the best interest of the property. It is argued very strongly from the facts that the petitioner did not prove any of the above required statutory requirements. The facts presented at the hearing are restated for the Minnesota Municipal boards convenience. -3- TOWN OF OTSEGO-FACTS The Town of Otsego has an urban type government under Minnesota Statutes 368. It has adopted the special provision giving it urban town powers. Pursuant to those powers, the Town of Otsego has a administrator, Lani Will. Further, the town board pursuant to said powers established a planning commission. In 1984 the planning commission developed a comprehensive plan which was adopted by the town board. Subsequently the town board has participated with Wright County Zoning and Planning Office to administer the zoning and planning ordinances of County of Wright. In so doing, Lani Will, has acted as building inspector and sanitary septic system inspector. Further, the zoning and planning ordinances have a mobile home park provision. The property known as the Valerius property, is classified in the comprehensive plan as agricultural. Further, the zoning classification is S-2 or lakeshore management agricultural. The township board in acting as an urban town has also over the last several years black topped a great deal of its town roads. They have used Minnesota Statutes 429, the special improvement statute which is applicable to municipalities as well as urban town. In black topping various town roads, they have incurred a bonded indebtedness as of 4/1/86 in the amount of $525,000. They are not in default of any bond payments.- Said bonded indebtedness is being collected by a special assessment against the benefited properties within the Town -4— of Otsego. In conjunction with rebuilding the said town roads, the Town of Otsego has also established an official town road map. The map defines the width of the various town roads and their location. The Town of Otsego has also contracted for fire service protection for the residents of the Town of Otsego with the City of Elk River fire department and the City of Albertville fire department. Further, the Town of Otsego has police protection from the Wright County Sheriffs Department. As was stated, various areas in the Town of Otsego are receiving special protection. The Town of Otsego has a mobile home park located within its jurisdictional limits. It is known as Riverbend Mobile Home Park. The mobile home park has central water and sewer in compliances to Planning and Zoning ordinances. Said Riverbend Mobile Home Park is consistent with the Town of Otsego planning commission Comprehensive Plan. Lastly, as was testified, the Town of Otsego's population according to the Official U.S. Census was 4,769 in 1980. The estimated population was 6,254,as of January 1, 1986. _ - 5- The Town of Otsego's assessed valuation for the year 1985 is $14,872,655. Lastly, its 1985 annual budget is $230,000 which services the whole Town of Otsego. Petitioner/developer-position The City of Albertville and/or the petitioner/developer has the ultimate burden of proof under Minnesota Statutes 414.031 subdivision 4. The facts presented by the City of Albertville and the petitioner/developer are very cumbersome and confusing. As I stated before, the hearing resembled a zoning and planning hearing rather than an annexation hearing. The petitioner/developer position was concerned only with the use of the land and/or a purchase agreement between the Valerius family (the property owners) and Norse Development Corporation (the developers). The property owners presented facts that the property was being used as agricultural land. There was no testimony as to whether it was "prime agricultural land" or marginal agricultural land, or the corn yield per acre. There was no data presentea from U.S. Department of Agriculture Wright County S.C.S. office as to yields. M The petitioner/developer presented evidence that they intended to develop a 250 to 270 unit mobile home park. The location of the property was next to Mud Lake which is a Natural Environment lake. They did not present any facts concerning the quality of the lake and the effect of the effluent being dumped from the existing sanitary sewer treatment system into the lake for may years. Also, there was testimony that the lake smelled and turned green every year and the lake was not a good swimming lake. The property owners did not present any facts concerning soil boreings except for soil conditions established by U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service -Soil Survey which only discusses contours and soil types on the surface. The positioners did not present any facts concerning the traffic flow on the roads adjacent to the site. The property owners did present facts showing that the property did drain in most instances into Mud Lake. However, their preliminary sketch plan did not show any of the standing water upon the premises. -7- The developers did not show any projected rate of growth within the City of Albertville and/or what impact this development would have on the existing municipal facilities and services within the City of Albertville. The property owners did not show any development and/or location of houses and farm dwellings within the vicinity. They did not present any other facts showing that the adjacent property was agricultural land. However, in viewing the Valerius property it is apparent that the development herein, would project into "prime agricultural farm land" as if it were "spot zoning". The Municipal Board, after viewing the property, should review the mobile home park plan presented by the Norse Development company. If you had done so, you have noted that, there is water standing in the area designated as ."park and tot -lot", there is water standing in the "storage area", and there is standing water along the existing lake shore which has been designated as "trail or public area". The petitioner/developer is asking the City of Albertville to help them bring in municipal water and sewer to the Valerius property, and float a bond, in the amount of $250,000. for said services. The petitioner/developer stated that the taxes per year would be $28,780. per year. No cost analysis was made as to what additional expenses would be incurred as a result of the increase in Population base. The petitioner/developer stated that there would be "restrictive convenants" against the property that would run with the land. However, these restrictive covenants can be changed by the owners of the property and are enforceable only by the owners of the property. The developers position was that the development would "benefit the city and surrounding area". There were no facts presented bythe developer which would substantiate this statement. City of Albertville -position The City of Albertville's position is also as tenuous as the petitioner/developer. The City of Albertville is offering to the petitioner/developer municipal sewage. The sewage plant has the capacity to service 1,525 residents as testified by the City Engineer, Paul Meyer. The City of Albertville has a population base of 803 as of January 1, 194. If the 250 to 270 sites were developed and there were approximately 3.9 residents per site, the total increase of residents of the mobile home park would be 1,053. This would give the City of Albertville a total population of 1,856. It would more than double the population of the city. The sewage plant would exceed it's capacity by over 330 residents. An expansion of the sewage plant would be vary costly. The city engineer, Paul Meyer, testified that it would be estimated that an expansion would cost approximately $500,000. Under the present cost sharing the federal government would pay 50% and the local municipality would pay 50%. This would be rather devastating to the City of Albertville due to the fact that they have not begun to pay for the current upgrading and expansions of the newly built waste water treatment facility. The city also presented testimony that it had a general operating fund of $143,218. for the year 1985. This general fund provided services for the 803 existing residents. The addition of over 1,000 residents in a mobile home park would be a tremendous burden upon the city due to the fact that the taxes raised as a result of this development would be $28,700. which has to be split between the school district, the County of Wright and the City of Albertville. The taxes resulting from this development would only in no way offset the additional expenses incurred by the city as a result of the -10- increase in population base. Further, the city of Albertville has not done any economic feasibility study for additional government services as a result of the proposed development. Also, it was shown that the City of Albertville had a bond indebtedness of $4,489,000. Further, that the assessed valuation of the city was $3,417,425. The bonded indebtedness is greater than the assessed valuation. Further, each man, woman and child within the City of Albertville has a indebtedness against any property they may have within the corporate limits. in the amount of $5,590. This does not include the additional $250,000 bonded indebtedness for the expansion of municipal water and sewer to the proposed development and/or any future expansion of the waste water treatment facility. The figure of $5,590. per resident just covers the existing indebtedness of $4,489,000. This problem is further complicated by the Joint Power water system between Albertville, Hanover, St. Michael and Frankfort which has suffered a shortfall over the years of $57,750. -11- The problem may be compounded further due to the fact that the payment of the bonded indebtedness for the expansion of water and sewer to the proposed development may be a deferred assessment, as was testified to by the petitioner/developer. The city also has not conducted a traffic study. As was testified, the roads leading to the property are gravel. The additional heavy traffic resulting from this development would put a high maintenance burden upon the City of Albertville and/or Town of Otsego. Presently only half of the road is being petitioned into the city limits of Albertville. Any additional costs resulting from the maintenance and/or ungrading of the said road have not been considered or introduced at this time. However, it would be'estimated that such road improvements could run as high as $4.00,000, which expense would have to be borne by the City of Albertville or Town of Otsego or assessed to the benefited property owners within the City of Albertville. The property in question is being used as agricultural land at this time. As was testified, the City of Albertville has no zoning or subdivision ordinance which would allow the development of a mobile home park at this time. The record shows that the city plans to pass such an ordinance. However, until the city has developed an ordinance and passes it, the city is in an unenforceable position. Further, any -12- sort of mobile home park development is not consistent with the general zoning patterns or comprehensive plan in the area. The City of Albertville's position is also very tenuous due to the following factors: that no municipal water and sewer feasibility study was prepared and presented for this particular development; the city does not have a comprehensive plan which allows this type of development; the city does not have a zoning or subdivision ordinance which allows mobile home parks; the city has not prepared a highway or traffic feasibility study and does not have and official transportation map; the city does not have a capitalization feasibility report; no environmental impact statement has been prepared for this development which is adjacent to a natural environment lake; no growth patterns were presented either by way of showing increased building permits, population estimates or market analysis of the growth within the City of Albertville; the city does not have a shoreland ordinance as required by state statutes; the city has not developed a fire department cost projection as a result of the doubling of population within the City of Albertville; lastly, the city does not have a developers contract or agreement setting forth specifically what is going to be developed. As the city administrator, Maureen Anders testified, these are all "general ideas" and have not been specifically set out in writing. Further, the city has not protected itself economically in requiring the developer to give a letter of credit for cost incurred as well as if the project is -13- half built or never developed. What happens economically to the city if the water and sewer line are put in and the project is never built? It was testified that the City of Albertville has approximately 2,100 acres within its city limits. It was further testified that the property petitioned for annexation is 61.11 acres. The record showed that within the city limits of the City of Albertville there is over 1,000 acres of undeveloped agricultural and/or commercial property. The petitioner, was uncertain if city water was necessary. However, ground water tests were not taken or discussed at the hearing. Further, it is uncertain if the City of Albertville has a water ordinance requiring that the petitioners hook on to the municipal services. Lastly, the evidence showed that the city has more or less 2,100 total acres according to the testimony of Mayor Walch. That 420 acres are plated. There remains 1,680 acres of unplated land within the city. There is over 1,000 acres of vacant agricultural land. Municipal water is available to most of the 1,000 vacant acres. Sewage also is available in may areas within the city. Mayor Walch's statement that there is no other land available "to his knowledge", -14- is rather perplexing due to the vast amount of vacant city land available, as shown in the sworn record. _and may not be available within the city limits of Albertville due to the strong showing of opposition to the annexation by the residents of Albertville. This fact is enumerated by the petition of the residents of the City of Otsego. The board has to take into consideration the two petitions submitted to it at the close of the hearing which are in opposition tc the annexation. The residents of the Town of Otsego and the residents of the City of Albertville have a right under the U.S. Constitution to petition their governmental bodies for a redress of grievances. AMENDMENT [I.] Freedom of religion, speech and press; peaceful assemblage; petition of grievances Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [emphasis added] - aW! A similar provision is provided in the Minnesota Constitution - Bill of Rights Section 3. Even though Minnesota Statutes 414 does not specifically provide for redress to the Municipal Board by way of a petition in opposition to annexation, both U.S. Constitution and Minnesota Constitution provide for such a procedure. The Municipal Board should evaluate the petitions with the U.S. Constitution in mind. It must also pointed out that a great number of the residents in the area attended both hearings from the beginning to the end of each day. The petitioner/developer have not met their statutory burden under Minnesota Statutes 414.031 subdivision 4, which requires that a showing be made that the property is urban or suburban in character or about to become urban or suburban in character. The property as set out in the petition is a rural setting and any different classification either by way of annexation and/or zoning would destroy the rural harmony in the area. Second Amended Petition. On April 28, 1986, I received a second amended petition. It is my understanding that the petitioners are asking the Municipal Board to grant a change in the description wherein all of the town -16- road would be annexed into the city. Not only is the filing of the second amended petition untimely due to the fact that all of the evidence had been submitted to the Municipal Board, but the petitioner failed to take into account any of the problems the heavy traffic would place on the local roads. Again the petitioners did not address this specific problem or present any evidence to the Municipal Board. Best Evidence In reviewing all the evidence above, still, the best evidence is to physically view the property as set out in the. petition before the Municipal Board. In viewing the property the Municipal Board can not only obtain an idea of the rural setting, but view the corporate limits of the City of Albertville. It is clear that there is ample room within said city limits to develop whatever type mobile home park the city wants to develop. As both the city administrator, Maureen Anders, Mayor Walch and Lani Will, the deputy clerk for the Town of Otsego all testified to, there is over 1,000 acres of undeveloped land within the City of Albertville. This space should be uti 1 ized before any further property is annexed. DOERING, RADZWILL & 0 SEN by William S. iQj Cokato, MN 55321 A.R.N. 50089 DOERING, RADZWILL & OLSEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW R. EARL DOERING WILLIAM S. RADZWILL BRIAN M. OLSEN May 12, 1986 Gary J. Meyer, Attorney at Law 9405 36th Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 Thomas D. Hayes, Attorney at Law 207 South Walnut Street P.O. Box 668 Monticello, MN 55362-0668 Re: City of Albertville/Town of Otsego Gentlemen: TELEPHONE: (a12) 2aa-2173 METRO: 473-7483 COKATO, MINNESOTA 55321 Please find enclosed herewith and served upon you by United States mail, the Town of Otsego's Response to the Petitioner's Written Argument. Sincerely, J6 William S. Radzwill DOERING, RADZWILL, & OL N WSR;dt enc. cc: Minnesota Municipal Board DOERING, RADZWILL & OLSEN ATTORNEYS AT LAIN R. KARL DOERING WILLIAM 4. RADZWILL BRIAN M. OL ILN May 12, 1986 Minnesota Municipal Board 165 Metro Square Bldg. 7th and Roberts St. St. Paul, MN 55101 T[LKPNONLt (suo 2so-3(73 METRO- 473-7463 COKATO. MINNESOTA 55321 Re: Annexation - City of Albertville/Town of Otsego Gentlemen: Please find enclosed herewith and served upon you by United States mail, the Town of Otsego's Response to.the Petitioner's Written Argument. Sincerely, William S. Radzwill DOERING, RADZWILL & OLSEN WSR;dt enc. cc: Tom Hayes Gary Meyer s MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD 165 Metro Square Bldg. 7th and Roberts St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Kenneth F. Sette Richard A. Sand Shirley J. Mihelich Paul McAlpine Leroy Engstrom Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner County Commissioner and Ex-Officio Member County Commissioner and Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ) THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN !AND TO ) TOWN OF OTSEGO'S RESPONSE TO THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE PURSUANT ) PETITIONER'S WRITTEN ARGUMENT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414 ) The Petitioner/developer Valerius et al and Norse Develop- ment Company has submitted, by way of their attorney, Thomas B. Hayes, the written argument concerning the above captioned matter. The Petitioner /developer argued that it is in the best interest of the property owners, Valerius and the developer, Norse Development Company to annex the property. However, that is not the question to be answered by the Municipal Board. The question to be answered by the Municipal Board is the property proposed for annexation now, or about to be, urban or suburban in character. That is the ultimate question to be answered by the Municipal Board. The Petitioner/developer, argue in their Brief, that all of the statutory requirements under 414.031, Subdivision 4 have been addressed as to whether the property meets this criteria. They further argue in their summary that everyone benefits from the annexation. I beg to differ with that opinion. Annexation pursuant to Minnesota Statute 414 was not established for the benefit of property owners and/or developers. It was established to meet the needs of the State of Minnesota, and more specifically to establish a relationship between cities and towns concerning governmental jurisdiction. It focuses upon the questions of urban or suburban development. The Municipal Board should address the question of urbanization of rural property in a rural setting. That is the question before the Municipal Board at this time. In viewing the property subject to annexation and/or the total municipal boundary lines of the City of Albertville, the -.Municipal Board should ascertain that both the Town of Otsego and the City of Albertville have a very rural setting. Any development proposed by the City of Albertville should remain within the existing city of Albertville limits. The City of Albertville does not need any more land by way of annexation. The testimony reveals that the City of Albertville has its hands full taking care of its own problems without looking for more area to govern. Further, The City Administrator, Maureen Anders, -2- and Mayor Mr. Walsh, testified that there is over a thousand acres of undeveloped land within the City of Albertville. This fact in itself should negate any annexation to the City of Albertville. Lastly, it is noted that the Petitioner's written argument submitted to the Municipal Board makes reference to the Town of Otsego's comprehensive plan revised March, 1983. The written argument specifically makes mention of language concerning a mobile home park should be annexed to a municipality. In this particular case, the proposed mobile home park does not exist at this time. The Town of Otsego has adopted a comprehensive land use plan updated in 1984. There is no mention of any annexation or mobile home parks concerning annexation in the comprehensive land use plan updated in 1984. The council for the Petitioner/developer knew full well about the change and revision of the comprehensive plan of the Town of Otsego when he submitted his brief. I suggest that the Municipal Board strongly look at the revisions in the Town of Otsego's land use update of 1984 and make the comparison. Sincerely, (� William S. Radzwill DOERING, RAOIWILL & OLSEN - - MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn. 55313 Phone 612 - 682 -1781 May 8, 1986 Honorable Mayor & City Council c/o Maureen Andrews, Administrator Albertville Minnesota 55301 A ° r.r.i J ir.i L. Honorable Mayor & City Council: I am writing in response to the April 7, 1986 letter from Bruce Ragan of the Corps of Engineers. I apologize for the length of time taken in replying, however,:the necessity of a reply to Mr. Ragan's letter was questionable after the April 21, 1986 letter of the MPCA releasing the project money. It is our desire that this correspondence will conclusively resolve the issue of specification interpretation. Mr. Ragan's letter stated the Corps contention concerning contract document interpretation. We were perplexed as to why this inter- pretation was only recently put forth in light of the previous months concurrence of the work by the Corps. The engineer and city have previously responded to the NOV issued by the MPCA. The information within that correspondence should be examined and shall serve as background material. This response will essentially be limited to the issues raised by the Corps. The Corps sets forth its reasons why the liner install- ation was not in strict accordance with the contract documents. However, in reaching its conclusion the Corps misconstrued the specifications. The following discussion will substantiate that Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Registered Land Surveyor pursuant to the contract documents the contractor met the specifications for the liner installation. As enumerated in our previous NOV reply, and as Mr. Ragan's letter correctly states, the intent and interpretation of the specifications require that the liner material meet the "Minimum Requirements" as specified. However, these "Minimum Requirements" refer specifically to those liner properties identified within Section 3.0.c. as listed on page 2-13 of the specification. Field seam requirements are neither identified nor specified in this section. This section simply required that the virgin liner material meet the properties as listed, and if a liner thicker than 20 mils was required to do so, it must be supplied. It is improper to infer that this section, referring specifically to identified minimum requirements of the liner material, was in some manner specifying field seam requirements. One major question concerns the interpretation of the following statement: "[t]he field seams shall be constructed so that the seam in shear is as strong as the sheet. All field seams shall be made in strict accordance with the on -site representatives recommendation." The engineer's interpretation of the intent of the specifications is� of prime importance • since section 27 of the General Conditions imparts this responsibility to the engineer. Even so, this interpretation must be consistent with reasonable contract document inter- pretation and not inconsistant with what a reasonable bidder would infer from reading those specifications. The engineer's intent and interpretation of this statement must be made in concert with the remainder of the liner specification, since to do otherwise is improper specification interpretation. This interpretation is essentially as follows: First, the specifi- cation required that a liner material be supplied that met the minimum requirement of Section 3.0.c. The addendum to the 9 specfications also stated that the engineer anticipated a 20 mil PE liner would meet the designated minimum requirements. Second, the specification required that this liner material was to be seamed by fusion welding. Third, the liner installation was to be performed in strict accordance with the on -site manufacturers recommendations. In conjunction with this requirement, meticulous non-destructive testing, as performed on other MPCA-EPA liner projects, was performed. Also, when stressed in shear, separation of the fussed seam was not to occur, thereby showing that the seam did not fail before the sheet. Destructive testing showed that this condition was also met. Fourth, the liner manufacturer was required to certify the acceptability of the liner installation and provide a 20 year warranty on the liner and seams. Finally, the liner installation must pass the stringent water balance test prior to the project acceptance. These requirements have all been met, with the exception of the water balance which has yet to be conducted. Section 3.0.d. identifies factory seam requirements if factory seams are used. Based upon this section, the Corps postulates that since a factory seam strength of 55.2 pounds per inch width (ppiw) would have been required had factory seams been used, this would have produc-ed a factory seamed sheet with a minimum ultimate tensile strength of 55.2 ppiw. This leads to the Corps conclusion that field seams must meet this value to have a "seam in shear as strong as the sheet." This reasoning is not appropriate for the following reasons: First, the word "strong" is improperly interpreted. The correct interpretation will be given later in this correspond- ence. Second, factory seams were not even used, so this portion of the specfication does not apply. Any bidder/manu- facturer not using factory seams would disregard all specifi- cation language subsequent to the following statement: "if PE is seamed by the manufacturer at the factory. . .". Therefore, S this portion of the specification is not applicable. Finally, if the Corps reasoning were adopted, a strict interpretation of a "seam in shear as strong as the sheet" would yield conflicting field seam requirements depending upon whether factory seams were or were not used. If factory seams were used, the Corps would conclude that 55.2 ppiw ultimate strength would control since that would be the weak point of the factory seamed sheet. However, if factory seams are not used, as was the case in Albertville, the sheet's ultimate tensile strength of 75 ppiw clearly exists, which should then mandate a seam strength of the same value to meet the Corps interpretation of the "seam in shear as strong as the sheet." This analysis, which improperly interprets "strong", and which can produce different field seam requirements based on the presence or absence of factory seams is not appropriate. Moreover, the specification does not base field seam requirements on factory seam specifications, and a correlation between the two cannot be made. (See attached letter of Mr. Jerry Fisher). The interpretation of the specifications by the bidder is _ crucial since he is supplying materials and labor to meet the intent of the specifications. The bidder can be held to no higher standard than what would reasonably be interpreted by the bidder from a correct reading of the specifications. In this regard, the bidder will evaluate the words and sentences in light of their, meaning as used within their particular discipline. Various sections of the specification must then be incorporated to produce an overall interpretation of and requirement of the contract documents. The definition of "strong" is of prime importance in the interpretation of seam requirements. The Corps apparently interprets this word to mean ultimate tensile strength even though the specification does not impart this definition. An interpretation of "strong", when used in field seam nomen- clature, as the strength at the yield point rather than at the ultimate tensile point is appropriate when analyzing the specification and liner requirements and especially when viewing the liner industry's interpretation (See attached letters of Mr. Fisher and Mr. Morris Jett of Schlegel Linings). In other construction activities, a specification that gives strength requirements often refers to the strength at yield. For instance, in specifying reinforcing steel for concrete, 60 ksi steel refers to yield stress rather than the stress at break. Likewise, strength nomenclature when used in con- junction with PE seaming is interpreted as yield strength by the industry. This interpretation is reasonable and proper since it provides a seam that will serve the function for which the liner was installed. Interpreting the seam strength to refer to the ultimate tensile strength at break is neither consistent with the industry definition nor is it consistent with the overall specification requirements. Destructive testing confirmed that the strength of the seams exceeded the specified yield strength of 20 mil PE. In fact, many of the tests exceeded the National Sanitation Foundation's field seam tensile requirements for 30 mil PE. The testing revealed that the seam did not separate and that the seam will perform the function for which it was designed. An analysis of the specification --also reveals that "strength" of field seams cannot be interpreted as ultimate tensile strength. Based upon the fact that the specified fusion welding will produce a reduction in the physical properties of the parent material adjacent to the seam, and based upon the fact that the 20 mil PE meets the "Minimum Requirements", it is obvious that a 20 mil PE seamed by fusion welding will not produce a seam equal to the ultimate tensile strength of the parent material. Furthermore, as previously discussed, a 55.2 ppiw factory seam strength would have been allowed had factory seams been used. Based on this fact, it is not reasonable to infer that the field seaming specification would require field seams to meet the ultimate tensile strength of the parent material. This is particularly evident since a factory seam should generally meet higher standards since it can be made under controlled factory settings, as opposed to a field seam where conditions are variable and dynamic. Moreover, it is not reasonable to infer that a liner thickness greater than that needed for the "Minimum Requirements" was specified to meet a ?5 ppiw field seam strength since a 55.2 factory seam strength would have been acceptable had factory seams been used. Therefore, in the Albertville specification, "strength" cannot be interpreted as ultimate tensile strength when used in reference to field seaming, and to so hold would produce conflicting specification requirements. This above discussion shows that the word "strong" when used in reference to field seaming cannot be referring to ultimate tensile strength. The reasonable- interpretation of "strong", as used in the field seaming specification, when evaluating the entire liner specification, the bidders under- standing, and the industry's interpretation, is the yield strength of the PE material. Therefore, the field seaming was performed in accordance with the contract documents. Since the Corps felt that the contract documents were not strictly complied with, it is requiring that the City of Albertville receive from their design engineering consultant a letter stating various criteria. We are uncertain as to what the Corps intent is concerning this letter. If the Corps is requesting a written express warranty or guarantee from the engineer, this obviously cannot be given. However, if the Corps is requesting a "Certification of Design" similar to what was signed in the Step 2 & 3 grant application, this can be supplied. This requirement, however, should be moot since the liner was installed in accordance with the requirements of the contract documents. In conclusion, the following is noted. First, the City of Albertville as well as the State and Federal Goverments are receiving exactly what the engineer intended, and what was required, under the contract documents. Second, the bidders interpretation of the contract documents are consistant with that of the engineer. Further, this interpretation is consistant with that of the industry. Third, a 20 year material warranty has been received for the liner, including seams. Finally, the project will not be accepted until all testing is completed, including the water balance test. Hopefully this satisfactorily addresses the issues raised by the MPCA and Corps of Engineers. It appears to us that the central issue is one of specification interpretation. This semantical issue should not have cost as much time as it has since the bottom line is the construction of an economical, workable, and fully operational facility for its design life, and this is what will be obtained. Sincerely yours, MEYER-ROHLIN,_ZNC. Paul Meyer Professional Engineer PM:Kp cc: r_ a/— �L}lam M SCHLEGEL LINING TECHNOLOGY, INC. 200 South Trade Center Parkway Tel: (406) 273-3066 (Conroe) P.O. Box 7730 (713) 350-1613 (Houston) The Woodlands. Texas 77360 Telex: 792745 Morrie E. Jett ViCS Pr681041nt. Marketing May 2, 1986 Mr. Paul Meyer Meyer Rohline 1111 Highway 25 North Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Dear Mr. Meyer: It is the opinion of Schlegel Lining Technology, Inc., that the strength of a welded HDPE seam in shear direction will be equal to or greater than 100% of the yield strength of the parent HDPE material as per NSF Standard Number 54. Thank you. Very truly yours, SCHLEGEL LINING TECHNOLOGY, INC. ` 4t-g-r-� Morris E. Jett Vice President, Marketing MEJ/wf FMCON ASSOCIATES COFJSULTANTS IN WASTE MANAGFMEYT AMD FNVIROHMENTAI COMTROL April 14, 1986 Paul Meyer Meyer-Rohlin, Inc. 1111 Highway 25N Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Dear Paul: I concur with several statements made by Mr. Ragan in his letter of 04-07-86 to Ms. Maureen T. Andrews. There were however some areas I would like to comment on. Specification Section 2, Subsection 260, paragraph 3.0.c. and addendum #1, paragraph 4 in part specifies a 55.2 pound per inch of width PVC and/or P.E factor seam strength. It should be noted that the LLDPE used was delivered to the site in seamless wound rolls 600 ft. long by 24 ft. wide. This is common in extruded geomembrane. However, the PVC is a calendered sheet that requires a factory seam every 6 ft. or less. In addition, the PVC factory seams are produced under controlled conditions and with equipment* that cannot be used in the field. For this reason, factory seam values are not applicable in the field. To do so would be a deviation from the specification. Paragraph 3.0.d. of the same section relates to seam field strength and specifically to field tearing bond (F.T.B.). The National Sanitation Foundation (N.S.F.), an organization chosen by the EPA to set the geomembrane standards, defines F.T.B. in Standard 54 (revised November, 1985) as "failure of one of the parts of a ply by tearing instead of separating from the other part of the specimen at the separation line. In addition, Matrecon Corporation, Oakland, California, and Dr. Henry Haxo, author of the geomembrane test data published in the EPA Manual SW870 uses the material yield point to measure the seam tensile strength in shear. All of the manufacturers of HDPE/LLDPE geomembranes use the N.S.F.'s definition of F.T.B. to determine quality of the seam, i.e. if the seam samples yield (start to neck down) outside the seam when tested in shear, it is classified as "pass". fl eadq u.a a to u : 90 AncheA St.eet, San Joae, CaZi 6oAn a 95712 (408) 275-1444 G. F. F.ishen - 10S. 224 Tefty TAait - f1 nzdate, IL 605U (312) 986-09Qn Paul Meyer April 14, 1986 Page 2 I consider correspondence such as these beneficial to the industry as there is an insufficient amount of information disseminated. I would be remiss however if I did not point out that in this case the dissension over seam strength is academic since Poly -America has included the seams in their twenty year material warranty issued to the city of Albertville, Minnesota. Sincerely, EMCON ASSOCIATES Jerry Fisher JF/sk *Dielectric equipment requires controlled conditions due to high voltage. Automated solvent systems are proprietary designs that are to heavy and cumbersome for field use. MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. fC7 LJ O ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn.55313 Phone 612-682-1781 r_77 May 13, 1986 Bill Neal Poly -America, Inc. 2000 W. Marshall Grand Prairie, TX 75051 RE: Albertville Dear Bill: I am writing in response to questions concerning the liner that have arisen as a result of a recent MPCA correspondence to the City of Albertville. As you know, the MPCA has released the retained funds, but in doing so they drafted a four page letter to the City expressing all of their "concerns". One item they raised was the cost associated with getting the liner exposed and ready for repair once a damaged area had been found. As you know, this cost could be at a sizeable portion of the overall repair cost. If damage to the liner would occur due to conditions or factors beyond what the liner warranty covers, the liner manufacturer would obviously not be responsi- ble for preliminary costs associated with getting the liner ready for repair. However, the question of who is responsible for these front end costs comes to light when the damage to the liner has been determined to be subject to repair pursuant to the warranty. The city's understanding is that if it is determined that damage to the liner is covered under the warranty, these front end costs would also be covered under the warranty. Since this is a concern of the city would you please address the above issue. In doing so you may wish to address the history of the warranty and how it is interpreted as well as what industry wide standards require of such warranties. Also, interpretation of warranty requirements for other liners within the State of Minnesota may be beneficial. Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Registered Land Surveyor Please give me a call if you have any questions or would like to further discuss the issue. Sincerely yours, M711ieyer OHLI , INC. P Professional Engineer PM:kp cc:City of Albertville