Loading...
1986-11-03 CC Agenda/Packet1E I• COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 3, 1986 I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA III. • APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES IV. DEPARTMENT BUSINESS a. Administration - Income Recieved and Bills to be Paid - Approval of Building Permits Permit Type of Amount of # Name Construction Address Permit 60 Kevin Mealhouse Garage Addition 5687 Main Ave. - Other $51.55 pd. b. Engineering - Pay Request for Buffalo Bituminous--$128,556.69 - Pay Request for LaTour Construction--$7,546.50 - Update on Barthel Residential --Phase II and Beaudry's 2nd Addition - Update on Psyk's 4th Addition c. Maintenance Update: Roto-Rooter is in town cleaning out the old disposal plant ® 40 a gallon. - Update: Jerry Valerius is working j days doing the fall street sweeping. d. Legal - Prepayment of Temporary Construciton Bond 7:30 - Sign Moritorium--Mr. Tom Houck of Traveler's Advertising is requesting that he be allowed to put a back on their sign across I-94 from Don's (it is currently faced with a Perkins sign) V. OTHER BUSINESS a. Joint Powers -,-Agreement between the City of Albertville and Frankfort Township • b. THE MINNESOTA PROJECT • C. Minnesota Association of Small Cities SMALL TALK • d. November's Calendar e. Other Business VI. MOTION TO ADJOURN The November 3rd Council meeting agenda has been kept short so that there will be time to set up for Election Day 6 0 COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1986 The regular meeting of the Albertville City Council was called to order by Mayor Walsh. Members present included Gary Schwenzfeier, Donatus Vetsch, Don Cornelius and Bob Braun. Others present included Maureen Andrews and Gary Meyer while Don Berning and Barry Johnson were both absent. The minutes of the October 20th Council meeting were corrected as follows: Permit #59: 11649 51st Street for Doug Psyk--New Home. The motion was made by Donatus Vetsch ans seconded by Gary Szhwenzfeier. The motion was then voted on. Schwenzfeier, Vetsch, Braun and Walsh were in favor and Cornelius obstained from voting. Jim Walsh commended Barry on his outstanding job of engineering.... with weather and more that one project going at one time Barry has kept on top of things. With these correction there was a motion to approve the minutes made by Gary Schwezfeier and seconded by Bob Braun. All were in faovr and the motion was carried. There was a motion to approve the bills. The motion was made by Donatus Vetsch ans seconded by Gary Schwenzfeier to approve checks 7516 through All were in favor and the bills were paid. Gary Meyer next reviewed the the waiver of 30 day notice for the recalling of the 1984A Temporary Construciton Bond. The Council was informed that all the bond holders had signed the waiver so that the bond could be called. On a suggestion by Maureen that the records should show a motion authorizing the payment to First Trust for the amount of the Bond and interest. The motion was made by Don Cornlius and seconded by Bob Braun to approve pay- ment to First Trust St. Paul in the amount of $714,112.50 for the 1984A Temporary Construction Bond. All Council Members were in favor and the motion carried. The Council next reviewed the letter to the Frankfort Township Board regarding the settlement of the lawsuit between Frankfort and Albertville. Gary suggested that he make som a additional changes and have it prepared for Jim's signature by Wednesday evening. The Council was in full agreement but no motion was needed. Minutes Page 2 The next item the Council dealt with was a request by Mr. Tom Houck of Traveler's Advertising to be allowed to put a backup sign on an existing sign located on freeway property within the City of Albertville. The Council packet included a letter from Gary Meyer in which he states that it is his feelings that a backup sign would violate the intent of the sign moritorium. Mr. Houck requested that the Council would consider the moritorium to cover new site location and lot new sign faces on existing signs. At this time Gary pointed out to the Council that since the moritorium was enforced there have not been any new faces added or permits issued. It was decided that the issue would be postponed until the City has had time to look into the problems of the existing ordinance and make the required changes. There was a motion to continue the sign moritorium until present ordinance is reworded and the City will notified Mr. Houck when ordinance is clearified. The motion was made by Gary Schwenzfeier and seconded by Don Cornlius. All were in favor. Maureen asked Mr. Houck to send copiest of some ordinances of cities he is currently located in. Barry Johnson of Meyer-Rohlin was asbsent so there was just limited discussion on projects. Ken had brought in some bituminous that that broken up out on Lake Street. Maureen informed the Council that Barry was aware to the problem. Maureen informed the Council that Ken had been working with Roto-Rooter in an effort to get the old disposal plant cleaned out. Ken requested the Council to decide how much time and money did they want to spend for having Jerry Valerius street sweeping. It was decided that the most important streets needed to be done were Main, 51st and 57th. Maureen was asked to that the newspaper put the notice in the paper regarding parking on streets at night. Ken and Don Cornlius are suppose to keep their eyes open for an available boat to be used in cells one and two out at the Wastewater Treatment Facility. Jim informed the Council that he had talked to Ken about the gas detector and that Ken is to train members of the Firedepartment to use the gas detector in case of an emergency. There was a motion to approve a building permit for Kevin MealhouO for an addition to his garage. The motion was made by Don Cornelius and seconded by Gary Schwezfeier. All were in favor. Gary and Maureen have been directed by the Council to look into contract garbage collection. Gary Schwenzfeier said that he had not had time to contact any of the cities that contract their service out. Minutes Page 3 There was a suggestion made that the City Official meet with the State Senator and Representative and the County Commissioner before the first of the year to discuss what types of things the City is concerned about. The feeling is that is is important to meet before the nex legislative session starts. The Council was reminded that the the League meeting is scheduled for November 20th. Any members wishing to go are to contact to Maureen. There was some discussion on the steps for the back door. Bob said he would look into costs. There was a motion to adjourn made by Donatus Vetsch and seconded by Gary Schwenzfeier. All were in favor. The Council members stayed and helped set up for the election. I would like to say thank you to each Council member, Eugene Valerius, Judy Roden and Gary meyer for helping set up. Your help was really appreciated. L • LAW OFFICE MEYER & MILLER A Partnership of Professional Corporations 9405 - 36TH AVENUE NORTH ~` NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55427 ROBER'i J. MILLER, P.A. GARY J. MEYER, P.A. GARY J. MEYER, P.A. (612) 542-3030 October 28, 1986 File No. 1840.61 Maureen Andrews City Administrator City Hall Albertville, MN 55301 Re: Outdoor Advertising Dear Maureen: LEGAL ASSISTANT GAIL RANDALL You have made inquiry to me regarding the sign moritorium and the question of a double face or backup. It would be my opinion that putting a double face on a single face sign or a backup sign on an existing sign would be another "face" for a sign, and would be in violation of the spirit of the moritorium on additional signs which the City of Albertville adopted some time ago. Of course, the City may at any time it chooses suspend the moritorium, but that would take Council action. Very truly yours, MEYER & MI41,ER By : Gary a. Meyer, P.A. GJM/gr ALBERTVILLE OFFICE: 5951 LARGE AVENUE P.O. BOX 51 AL19ERTVILLE, MN 55301 (612)497-3838 ON tin Ear OCT.,,sss to the Ground A network for good ideas in`community development and. improvement STUDY FINDS NEW LOCAL MARKETS FOR FARM —Southeast Minnesota grocery stores and restaurants are willing to more than double their purchases of food products from local farmers. That is one finding of a recent study by the Minnesota Project exploring the potential for profitable diversification of area farms. "Many southeast Minnesota farmers are devastated by the crisis in agriculture", said Loni Kemp, Minnesota Project staff based'in Preston. "Our rural communities are suffering as a result. We believe that one part of the answer has to come from farmers themselves. Diversification of crops and creative strategies for marketing agricultural products can help put the profit back into farming." A market survey was sponsored by the Minnesota Project, a non-profit organization, to find out if area bulk food purchasers, such as restaurants, grocery stores, schools, and hospitals, are willing to buy any of over 100 food commmodities from local growers. ,s A striking 58% say they are willing to buy from local farmers when the crops are in season. Interestingly, about half the identified market is for meats, primarily beef. About a fifth of the market is for miscellaneous products, mainly vegetable oil and whole wheat flour. Vegetables, dairy products, and poultry each represent about 8% of the potential market, followed by fruits and nuts at 4%. Little local demand was found for grains. While full-scale conversion from field crops to specialty crops is not expected, the Minnesota Project does hope that area farmers will begin growing and marketing products that return greater profits than corn. "Even a small venture into diversification can provide a valuable supplement to farm income, once the market is identified", says Kemp. The summary report, entitled "AgMarket Search for Southeast Minnesota", contains a full description of research and recommendations, and is also available, for $5.00. For more information, contact Loni Kemp at 507/765-2700. MINNESOTA PROJECT TO CO-SPONSOR HOUSING R:CONFERENCE dire __Minnesota Project and the Joint Religious Education and Research Fund (JRERF) will be sponsoring a conference designed to increase church involvement in rural housing issues. The conference will bring together rural church leaders, housing professionals, and interested citizens to share their concerns, information and experiences in working on housing problems. The conference will focus on developing local solutions to local housing issues through ecumenical and church/public/private partnerships. Th be several workshops held duri conference which will center on housing, with a broad range of housing for the elderly, family housing, and t of single parent families, and sh housing both of an emergency nat transitional housing. The worksho present models that have been throughout the state 4nd jean¢ for the participants.,;'"'"' The conference will also' featue# 1 presentations on both financial and hum resources that are available to communities for project development. The keynote speaKer will be Bishop John J. McGraith of Owensboro, Kentucky, a leader in the rural revitalization movement in the United States. The conference will be held at the Green Lake Bible Camp near Spicer, Minnesota, on November 1, 1984. Registration materials will be available in August. For more information on the conference contact either Doug Wise at the Minnesota Project (612/378-2142) or Sam Horowitz at JRERF (612/870-3670). NEIGHBORS STEERING COMMITTEE FORMED The August edition o An Ear to ' the Ground" described the start-up by the Minnesota Project of the Neighbors Program. An integral part of the planning and implementation of this new program will be played by a six person Steering Committee. This Committee will offer suggestions about rural communities which could benefit from participation in the program; recommend "mentor" communities; and assist with an ongoing evaluation of Neighbors. The Minnesota Project is pleased. that the following individuals have agreed to serve as members of the Neighbors Steerting Committee: Don Heinzman, Managing Editor of the Elk River Star News; Margaret Kinnunen, Clerk, Embarrass own —slip, Jane Leonard, Coordinator, Minnesota Community Improvement Program; Mark Loftus, Executive Director, Countryside Council; Gordon Stobb, Area Extension Agent, Minnesota Extension Service; Sister Mary Mark Tacheny, Director, Minnesota Catholic Rural Life. The next edition of "Ear" will report on the first Neighbors initiative; a regional effort to encourage the development of home -based entrepreneurs in N.E. Minnesota. For more information concerning Neighbor's contact John Kuester at 1-800-582-5179. " FORD GRANT SUPPORTS SOLID WASTE AND The Minnesota Project has received a grant from the Ford Foundation's Rural Poverty and Resources Program to study groundwater and solid waste management programs and policies in rural communities nationwide. The Minnesota Project has several years of experience in these two resource areas through the Southeastern Minnesota groundwater information and education project and through a variety of waste management projects, including the Winona County Recycling and f,gmposting programs. The Minnesota Project is continuing to 'design programs to help Minnesota's small rural communities manage resources with appropriate technologies and for the highest level of value. The research to be conducted in the Ford study will provide an opportunity for looking at successful models in other communities and sharing that information with Minnesota sites. Policy implications of research findings will be explored and policy recommendations for counties and communities will be incorporated into the project report. Findings will also be shared with interested organizations and individuals in report form and through presentations at national forums in the fall of 1987. To discuss model programs that you would recommend be included in the project, or to share other ideas that you have about this project, please call Marcia Keller at the Minnesota Project. CITIZENS CALL ON LEGISLATORS FOR COMPREHENSIVE RURAL POLICY What 2 sTould metropolitan -area legislators know in order to legislate rural policy? Legislators should know that there is an urban -rural constituency alive and growing in Minnesota for the purpose of forging solutions to the critical problems in rural communities. That is what 100 Minnesotans --farmers, rural citizens, urban and suburban residents --told metropolitan legislators September 17 at the State Capitol in a rural policy forum designed to lay the groundwork for a comprehensive rural policy for Minnesota. The forum was the culmination of a series of dialogues between urban and rural Minnesotans held throughout the state over the past several months, and was an opportunity for metropolitan -area legislators to hear reports from dialogue participants. The need for long-term, comprehensive solutions was a frequent theme of the forum. 2222 ELM STREET SOUTHEASTERN OFFICE Minneapolis, MIN 55414 50 BOX 4 ' PRESTON, MN 55965 (612) 378 -2142 An Ear to the Ground is produced on a monthk haws MP the !Minnesota Prom, a center for Public Policy Scuds arx Community Detelopment. There was talk of the need for the legisiatur.' to establish a council similar to th Metropolitan Council for rural Minnesota` whose function would be to address the divers` needs of rural Minnesota on a systematic` basis. There was praise for Minnesota's :mediation and debt -restructuring system, but nearly unanimous agreement that the legislature needs to go beyond that To formulate a comprehensive rural policy. There was optimism that a growing urban -rural partnership is providing the momentum for such a policy. The Rural Policy Forum is a program of the Minnesota Food Association in cooperation with the Land Stewardship Project, Minnesota Catholic Conference, Minnesota Council of Churches, Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture, the Minnesota Project, and the University of Minnesota Extension Service. Funding is provided by the Governor's Rural Development Council, Otto Bremer Foundation, and Williams Steel and Hardware. GROUNDWATER The Minnesota Project spearheaded a 1983-1986 community organizing, publi education and local government action campaig on the issue of groundwater protection in southeastern Minnesota. The karst groundwater project has now drawn to a close, after four years of education efforts aimed at encouraging local solutions to contamination problems. Project director Loni Kemp says she' impressed with the growth in awareness of hq our everyday activities can pollute groundwater in the vulnerable karst area. Every county in the southeast area has taken actions to accelerate water testing, inform their citizens, and adopt parts of the model groundwater ordinance we published. Plans are underway for Winona State University to host a 1987 follow-up to our 1985 Tri-State Karst Conference. The Minnesota Project's future efforts will include research into the national scene --what are other communities and groups doing to successfully protect groundwater at the local level? One thing that has really changed since we started our project is recognition of the key role that agricultural chemicals play in our groundwater problems. Future work must focus on how to foster alternative farm practices that cut chemical use. Mayor City OF Albertville City Hall Albertville MN 55301 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION U.S. POSTAGE �*�qM N The following LEGISLATIVE CONCERNS have been developed by the MAOSC Board as the agenda for the 1987 Legislative Sessign. All Small City Mayors and Councils are urged to review the following issues, make whatever comments, or changes you wish made, add whatever additional issues you wish addressed, and return to the MAOSC office in Staples. MAOSC LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS - 1987 Legislative year 1. ANNEXATTON- Position: The MAOSC urges no Legislation establish opportunities for entities to annex land without the cooperation and support of annexed property owners and governments (townships, etc.). Reason The inter relationships between townships and small cities and between property owners and small cities are too important to legislate annexation. If specific cities wish to obtain authority to ann c land under a procedure differing from the current system, then let the legislation be specific for the requesting governmental entity (i.e. specific legislative requests should be applicable only to the requesting authority). The current authorities and responsibilities of the Municipal Commission remain intact. 2. CHARITABLE GAMBLING: Position: The MAOSC proposes that the State Legislature allow -the appropriate local government to license and control the charitable gambling events that are under STATE EXEMPTION (i.e. Bingo for non-profit four events or less a year, raffles under $750.00, etc.). Reason: The State of Minnesota currently authorizes certain gambling events based on times conducted and/or prize value -to be held without licensing. It seems appropriate that all charitable gambling events should be monitored, and it also seems appropriate that local governments should be given the responsibility and authority to license all charitable gambling activities that are STATE EXEMPT. 3. COURT: Position: County Attorney prosecutions for townships and small cities (cities under 5000 population) should be uniform. 4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Position: Economic Development activities for Small Cities and Townships should include: a. Establishing a grant distribution criteria which would recognize the importance of 2, 3, or more employees to small communities, to allow Ma and Pa businesses and industries to flourish, to develop the potential of Greater Minnesota Small Cities and Townships; b. Developing a total package concept for small cities and townships which would allow for economic devlopment by considering new technologies in wastewater treatment, which could lead to opportunities for construction of low income and senior citizen housing, which would allow for the creation of more business and industry in Small Cities; MAOSC LEGISLATIVE ISSUES - Page 2 C. Through MAOSC Regional Meetings (and personal contact) provide information and guidance to Small City Mayors and Councils which will assure that every Small City and Township has equal opportunity to participate in the Economic Development Programs and processes. Reason: Most of the Small Cities (cities under 5000 population) are not in a financial position to maintain the staffs necessary to plan for their city's future. This is particularly true when cities populations are less than 2500. The effort required to evaluate a communities potential, to prepare necessary documents to justify or to document, to understand the opportunities (and directives) is beyond the time and expertise available to small city officials. Industrial development has been a phenomena relegated to the larger cities because staffs are available to search for grants, dollars, low interest loans, etc., and promote tax increment financing and other development tools. The economic development priorities generally evolve around industries with the potentials to employ a large number of employees, as such the potentials of many Greater Minnesota Small Cities and Townships have been bypassed and overlooked. It also appears that industries are being attracted to locations where many amenities (theater, major sports activities, numerous shopping centers, etc.) are located. This view overlooks the quality of life in Greater Minnesota Small Cities and the caliber of the work force. Technology to industrialize Greater Minnesota exists in the inventive minds of our rural population, there is a need to recognize that an industry with MA and PA employment, or any level of employees is as important to a Small City as the 100 employee firms are to larger cities. It is also well to note that the infrastructure in our small cities do not lend themselves to a major infusion of employment, but rather to slow and continuous growth. 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Grant Information): Position: All Small Cities should be provided with information regarding the locations of Foundations, the types of grants available, and the criteria for obtaining funding from Foundations or State and Federal Sources. A publication should be made avail- able to all Small Cities with all this data, or the data should be made available for publication in the MAOSC paper "Small Talk". Reason: The Small Cities are not necessarily priviledged to know where sources of funds exist to accomplish the many goals a Small City might embark upon, or how to take advantage of opportunties. A community armed with the knowledge of where grants and other funds may be available, and for what purposes, could then evaluate, plan, and seek assistance in community development. 6. ENVIRONMENT: Position: The MAOSC urges that Pilot. Plants for new waste disposal technologies such as CCBA be funded as with any other waste disposal system. That a thorough evaluation of new technologies be a part of a grant -in -place turn key operation to allow Small Cities to introduce economical waste water treatment into their cities. t1KOSC LEGISLATIVE ISSUES - Page 3 Reason: The high cost of developing municipally operated sewage disposal systems using todays systems, prevent many, if not the majority of the Small Cities in Minnesota from establishing a sound Sewage Disposal System. The populations required to make conventional systems financially sound do not exist in the Small Cities. Technology is now available to allow the development of affordable wastewater treatment systems in Small Cities, technology which can change the quality of life, and development potential for a majority of our Small Cities. Because privatization will require technological advances to assure any private effort will be profitable, the opportunity exists to demonstrate the feasibility of privatization of wastewater treatment by a grant funded pilot plant. Stipulations could include refunding of grant monies (into a financial pool) if technology meets goals of efficiency and economy. 7. WASTE MANAGEMENT: Position: That a commission be appointed to study alternatives to Sanitary Landfill disposal. Reason: The current system of Garbage Disposal is archaic, and because of a lack of options or alternatives that are financially and/ or environmentally feasible, the Sanitary Landfill system appears to be the sole method of Garbage Disposal. New systems (methods) of disposal and financing are needed to meet environmental requirements and to reduce costs 7a residents of Small Cities. Increasing State and Federal requirements and controls assure ever increasing landfill costs, and alternatives are mandatory to change the direction of these escalating costs. 8. DISTRIBUTION OF GAS TAXES: Position: The MAOSC has highlighted the Gas Tax distribution issue for over four (4) years, and proposes that the people of the State of Minnesota be allowed to vote on distributing Gas Tax Receip t currently distributed to CITIES OVER 5000 POPULATION TO ALL CITIES IN MINNESOTA. (This refers specifically to the 9% currently distributed to only those cities over 5000.) Reason: The current Minnesota Law directs Gas Taxes be distributed as follows: 62% to the State Department of Transportation, 29% to the Counties, and 9% to CITIES OVER 5000 POPULATION. The County apportionment includes funds for CSAH (County State Aid Highways) within cities. All cities in Minnesota receive these funds, the average CSAH mileage in cities UNDER 5000 is one (1) mile, in cities OVER 5000 is twelve (12) miles. (See Department of Transportation Annual Report on Highway Fund apportionment.) It is obvious that Small City Minnesota residents pick up 100% of non-CSAH street/avenue mai+ nance costs, whereas in Cities OVER 5000 population, the 9% apportionment reduces their total city borne street/avenue mainenance cost on their property owners. MAOSC LEGISLATIVE ISSUES - Page 4 9. GOVERNMENT - Elected Official Liability & the Vicarious Liability Issue Position: The MAOSC urges a thorough study of the effect of the Vicarious Liability issue on Elected City Officials; or that any Liability of elected officials be limited to statutory amount carried under Errors and Ommissions by Cities on their elected officials. Reason: Officials of Small Cities and Townships have traditionally assumedelected positions because of urgings of citizens, or a sense of community, with many in office through write-in vote. Management of Small Cities and Townships dictates that Elected Officials be knowlegeabie to a certain degree on all issues relating to city life, a "Jack of all Trades, Master of None" knowledge. State and Federal laws are so numerous and so diverse that no one person can possess all knowledge of the rules and regulations. (No more is this evident than in the large staffs existing in large cities, seemingly in position because of the needs to monitor state and federal requirements - and to take advantage of programs.) Small City and Township elected official remuneration ranges from zero (0) dollars to around $3400 per year, havdly a salary that would make Mayor and Council Positions sought after. The potential for loss of an elected officials personal property because of the vicarious liability issue may cause difficulties in the recruitment of persons to vie for elected positions in Small Cities. The issue is "Why should a person who has established themselves in a community with a home, or a business, or an industry, jeopardize all because he or she chose to be community minded, to be concerned for his/her neighbors, for his/her community?" 10. HOUSING: Position: The MAOSC proposes that agencies responsible for paying part or all of the heating (utility) costs for welfare or low income persons, be directed to work with the City Councils of the respective cities where these payments occur to develop ways and means to reduce utility costs of public funded residents and to coordinate efforts undertaken with state or federal funds to insulate, weatherize, etc. Reason: The housing of many low and moderate income families is inadequate at best. The costs of utilities keep increasing, and the costs to state and federal agencies increase accordingly. Any program which can improve the conditions of housing will assure a reduction in the federal and state costs, a reduction in costs to the taxpayer, a lesser amount of delinquent utility bills in the city, and an opportunity to beautify homes as well as make them energy efficient. A number of programs are currently available to assist in weatherizing low and moderate income homes, to make them energy efficient; however, very little coordination with the respective city exists. The City Councils, Planning Commissions, and Building Inspectors should be an integral part of any state or federal funded housing improvement program in the Small Cities. MAOSC LEGISLATIVE ISSUES - Page 5 11. INSURANCE AND LIABILITY: _ Position: Court judgements for personal injury should not be allowed to exceed the potential earning power of the claimant should he or she live to age 65 and become a Social Security or other retirement benefit recipient. Further, that any payments be made at the wage rate of the claimant, i. e. no lump sums. Reason: Historically, judgements have been awarded by the courts, to claimants, in dollar amounts in excess of the potential lifetime earnings of the claimant,`and in excess of any medical costs (should injury be the reason for legal action). These awards have created conditions, especially in local governments, that in effect advise people to sue governmental bodies because that is a 'guaranteed source' of awards, that the jurys and judges appear tr be favorable to claimants awards especially where local governments are concerned. There is a need to reduce the liability paid and to halt the sue, sue, sue, syndrome. Little is said, or little is taught, that the city is people, and when the city is sued, the source of funds for steeper insurance premiums is the pocketbook of Mr. and Mrs. resident taxpayer. Claim awards should also specify the maximum dollars that a legal counsel could be awarded to assure superflous claims would not be initiated. All claims that are paid on a schedule (i.e. monthly, semi- monthly, etc.,) should consider (1) the interest generated on funds set aside for the award to the claimant, and (2) the tax benefits which accrue from the 'award' (medical, etc.) so claims do not become "bonus programs". The Legislature is urged to better regulate, or to regulate the insurance and legal industry, to assure that rate structures, the evaluation of rate structures, and cost of insurance are thoroughly evaluated when the records of cities reveal low or negligible insurance claims. 12. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID (LGA) : Position: That the Local Government Aid (LGA) distribution issue must be resolved, that the factors introduced into any formula must be applicable to all cities whether the population is 30 or 300,000, and that the end result of the solution must be fairness and equity. Reason: As long as the current method of LGA distribution continues to govern state aids there will be a division among cities, continuing Legislative debate, and divergent views expressed based on the desires of various governmental groups. Local Government Aid has been a very volatile issue since 1979 because of the legislatively established method of distributing LGA to cities, that year. The Legislature, through statute in 1984 and 1985, directed that a LGA study committee be formed and the issue studied with proposals presented and available to the Legislature the year following the study groups activities. The result MAOSC LEGISLATIVE ISSUES - Page 6 was NO studies conducted, NO committee action responding to the Statutes requirements, NO opportunities for Small Cities to testify on their concerns, end result NO ACTION. In 1986 a broader plan was presented by the State Revenue Department to evaluate the TOTAL MINNESOTA TAX SYSTEM; however, as of September 1986, NO ACTION has been evident to meet the stated goals of the plan. Thus the Legislature and State Government offices have failed to abide by their own directives, and the documents of 1984, 1985, and 1986 which directed resolution of the Local Government Aid (LGA) issue resulted in NO ACTION. the lack of compliance resulted in Legislation which in 1986 placed a "5.8% limitation on each cities LGA increase for 1986" and "gave 4% to cities receiving over $200 per capita LGA". This type of Legislation reveals that the Legislators either (1) do not understand the problems associated with the current LGA distribution system, or (2) have discovered what the MAOSC has been saying the last four years that the current system is discriminatory, and as such reveal major problems and major dollar losses in LGA to a majority of the Small Cities (and some larger cities) since 1979. 13. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID (LGA) DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE: Position: That the LGA distribution to Local Governments should be minimally on a quarterly basis. Reason: The ability to manage city financial activities, when the Legislature and the State are continually jockeying the LGA payment schedule, AFTER THE CITIES BUDGETING PROCESS HAS BEEN COMPLETED, causes all kinds of problems. This 'jockeying' often results in the need to borrow monies which increases costs to local governments. A distribution schedule that provides stability is mandatory. As an aside, the State contingency fund should contain adequate fund to preclude any large variations in State financial commitments to units of Government. 14. PERSONNEL: Position: The MAOSC proposes that unemployment compensation NOT BE PAID to employees who leave their jobs voluntarily, OR where their action in the work place is cause for removal from employment (i.e. tardy, accident prone, drunkenness, absenteeism, etc.) Reason: Unemployment compensation has become a major factor in the Cost of Government, and because local governments have so little control over the incidents that determine the costs, action must be taken - legislatively. A review of the unemployment compensation laws must be made and the laws revised to permit compensation only to those who warrant unemployment compe nsation, and not to those who regularly leave the workplace after accumulating sufficient work periods to b ecome qualified for unemployment compensation. Seasonal workers who know they are seasonal employees should not come under the State Unemployment Compensation program. MAOSC LEGISLATIVE ISSUES - Page 7 15. PERSONNEL: Position: The MAOSC proposes a total review of the impact of the current part time employment practices of many companies particularly the future impact on the taxpayer of medical care, retirement, etc. Reason: A situation is becoming prevelant in the business community wherein part time employment is becoming more the norm than full time jobs. The end result is that many employesss (looking particularly at single parent families) are not covered by medical, retirement, and other benefits. It seems that under this situation, single parent households will have to be supported through a welfare (taxpayer supported) system with food stamps, medical, and in the event of disability, taxpayer supported totally. A study which looks at the ramifications of this type of hiring practice would determine how this issue will be addressed in the future. 16. LEGISLATIVE AND GOVERNMENTAL MANDATES: Position: The MAOSC position is that any Legislation, rules or directives which mandate a requirement upon local units of government must include a Cost Impact Statement, and a statement of how the State will finance the mandate. Reason: Whenever the Legislature establishes a program, or the State Government through rules and regulations derived from Legislation, mandates a requirement upon local governments, local governments scurry to try and determine first the cost of the program, then have to determine how funds are going to be generated .to pay the cost. More often than not budgets do not provide the flexibility to fund mandates. It is imperative that the Legislature and State Governmental offices, when preparing any document which will impose a requirement upon a local unit of government, determine before hand what this action will cost, then provide the funding to meet the mandated requirements. cot } a r r = a N C i h .o J - 2• V J v U INCOME RECIEVED NOVEMBER 3, 1986 EVER -READY CONSTRUCITON $ 20.00 SEWER ACCOUNTS 458.00 152 CLUB 800.00 REGISTERED CLOSERS 4,563.74 11 it 5,556.09 fl if 7,885.59 BARTHEL CONSTRUCTION (2 PERMITS) 1,275.00 MEINY'S DIGGERS, INC. 20.00 KEVIN MEALHOUSE 51.55 WRIGHT CO. JUVENILE COURT RESTITUTION PROGRAM 106.25 (REPAYMENT OF BURGLARY WHICH OCCURRED ON OR ABOUT JUNE 1984 AT PARK) BILLS TO BE PAID NOVEMBER 3, 1986 HOLMES AND GRAVEN GLEN DIXON (TO BE REIMBURSED BY MONTICELLO PRINTING WEBER OIL DENNIS FEHN GRAVEL NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS (FEES REG. BOND ISSUE) UNITED TELEPHONE SYSTEM MARKHURD MAUREEN ANDREWS MAUREEN ANDREWS KEN LINDSAY KEN LINDSAY JIM WALSH DON CORNELIUS DONATUS VETSCH GARY SCHWENZFEIER BOB BRAUN DON BERNING DON'S AUTO ALBERTVILLE AUTO PARTS MEINY'S DIGGERS, INC. ALBERTVILLE BODY THE JAYCEES) FOR ACCEPTENCE OF 20,736.22 f 2,545.00 270.62 57.80 13.66 132.00 500.00 84.02 3,200.00 461.41 50.00 5 9.� q l 50.00 160.00 110.00 105.00 leo•c o 'eo,co 334.1 26.22 ivy . oQ 82.00 MAUREEN ANDREWS (MILAGE-838 MILES X .22/MI; SUPPLIES $6.63) BUFFALO BITUMIOUS LaTOUR CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 190.99 129,938.19 7,546.50 146,491.46 � *p • � CL 4 �r- rl l mil- � l l a • � --MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn.55313 Phone 612-682-1781 November 3, 1986 Honorable Mayor & City Council c/o Maureen Andrews, City Administrator Albertville, MN 55301 Re: 1986-1 Improvement Project Partial Payment No. 2 Members of the Council: The Contractor has requested Partial Payment No. 2 based upon the following estimated quantities completed to date on the above referenced project. BID "A" - SANITARY SEWER Item No. Item 1. 8" Sewer Pipe (10 -12) 2. 8" Sewer Pipe (12' - 14') 3. 6" Plug 4. 4" x 8" Service Connection 5. 4" PVC Service Pipe 6. 4" PVC Service Riser 7. Crushed Rock 8. Density Testing Qom'_ Unit Unit Price Total Price 39 l.f. @ $ 11.00 $ 429.00 169 1.f. @ $ 12.00 $ 2028.00 2 each @ $ 30.00 $ 60.00 13 each @ $ 50.00 $ 650.00 322 l.f. @ $ 5.00 $ 1610.00 45 l.f. @ $ 7.00 $ 315.00 20 c.y. @ $ 25.00 $ 500.00 28 tests@ $ 30.00 $ 840.00 TOTAL BID "A" I___6432.00 Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Licensed Land Surveyor BID "B" - WATERMAIN Item No. Item 1. 6" D.I.P. (Class 52) 2. 8" D.I.P.(Class 52) 3. 6" D.I.P. Plug 4. 8" D.I.P. Plug 5. 12" D.I.P. (Class 50) 6. 1" Service Connection 7. 1" Copper 8. Hydrant Extension 9. Density Testing 10. 12" Slip Joint Plug 11. 8" Gate Valve/Sleeve Qty. Unit Unit Price Total Price 16o l.f. @ $ 14.00 $ 224o.00 120 l.f. @ $ 19.00 $ 2280.00 2 each @ $ 50.00 $ 100.00 1 each @ $ 90.00 $ 90.00 20 l.f. @ $ 25.00 $ 500.00 11 each @ $ 125.00 $ 1375.00 400 l.f. @ $ 7.00 $ 2800.00 3.0 l.f. @ $ 250.00 $ 750.00 20 tests@ $ 30.00 $ 600.00 1 each @ $ 103.10 $ 103.10 1 each @ $ 1610.00 $ 1610.00 TOTAL BID "B" $ 12448.10 BID "C" - STORM SEWER & STREETS 1. 12" R.C.P. Class 4 60 l.f. @ $ 20.00 $ 1200.00 2. 101, P.V.C. (0-81) 416 l.f. @ $ 10.35 $ 4305.6o 3. 10" P.V.C. Cleanouts 1 each @ $ 105.00 $ 105.00 4. 27" Catch Basin 3 each @ $ 700.00 $ 2100.00 5. 48" Catch Basin 2 each @ $ 850.00 $ 1700.00 6. 18" R.C.P. Bend (30.5 ft. radius) 2 each @ $ 250.00 $ 500.00 7. Excavation 1350 c.y. @ $ 5.00 $ 6750.00 8. 4" Subsurface Drain (See Detail) 700 l.f. @ $ 4.00 $ 28o0.00 9. Class 5 Gravel (Vehicle Measure) 6949 c.y. @ $ 6.95 $ 48295.55 10. Class 5 Gravel (In Place) 2340 c.y. @ $ 11.00 $ 25740.00 11. Surmountable Curb & Gutter (See Detail) 12. B618 Curb & Gutter 13. Curb & Gutter Bac kf i l l 14. Common Borrow (Vehicle Measure) 15. Granular Borrow (Vehicle Measure) 16. Cross Gutter 17. 2331 Bituminous Base (12" Thick) 18. 2341 Bituminous Wear (12" Thick) 19. Bituminous Removal 20. 8" Reinforced Concrete Driveway Payment 21. Manhole Adjustment 22. Gate Valve Adjustment 23. Catch Basin Adjustment 24. Topsoil 25. Seedin (Mix 5) 26. Sodding 27. 6" Sanitary Sewer Cleaning 28. 2' 6" Manhole Adjustment 12545 l.f. @ $ 3.94 $ 49427.30 915 l.f. @ $ 3.94 $ 3605.10 13460 l.f. @ $ .30 $ 4036.00 0 C.Y. @ $ 5.00 $ 0.00 0 C.Y. @ $ 15 s.y. @ $ 6.00 $ 0.00 20.00 $ 300.00 21060 s.y. @ $ 1.50 $ 31590.00 0 S.Y. @ $ 1.75 $ 0.00 0 S.Y. @ $ 2.00 $ 0.00 0 S.Y. @ $ 30.00 $ 0.00 0 each @ $ 125.00 $ 0.00 0 each @ $ 125.00 $ 0.00 22 each @ $ 50.00 $ 1100.00 0 C.Y. @ $ 6.00 $ 0.00 0 lbs. @ $ 12.00 $ 0.00 0 S.Y. @ $ 1.60 $ 0.00 0 l.f. @ $ .35 $ 0.00 1 each @ $ 351.23 $ 351.23 TOTAL BID "C" $_1839ni 8 ALTERNATE BID "D" ADD/DEDUCT for Final Wear Coarse At later date $ 0.00 SUBTOTAL BID "A" $ 6432.00 SUBTOTAL BID "B" $ 12448.10 SUBTOTAL BID "C" $ 183907.78 011i111i=1IM13 . "A", "B", "C" $ 202767.88 MINUS 10% RETAINAGE $ 20278.79 MINUS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS $ 52570.90 GRAND TOTAL $ 129938.19 We recommend Partial Payment No. 1 in the amount of $129,938.19 to the contractor Buffalo Bituminous, Inc., Box 337, Buffalo, MN 55313. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely yours, MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. 17 Bariy D. tohnson Project Engineer BDJ:1g cc:E-601-A cc:Don Berning, Clerk CC:Buffalo Bituminous -MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. fC7 U O L rNGINEERS-LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn.55313 Phone 612- 682-1781 j-:::7 November 3, 1986 Honorable Mayor & City Council c/o Maureen Andrews, City Administrator Albertville, MN 55301 Re: 1986-2 Improvement Project Partial Payment No. 1 Members of the Council: The Contractor has requested Partial Payment No. 1 based upon the following estimated quantities completed to date on the above referenced project. BID "A" - WATERMAIN Item No. Item QQy_ Unit Unit Price Total Price 1. 6" D.I.P. 0 l.f. @ $ 10.90 $ 0.00 2. 8" D.I.P. 0 l.f. @ $ 13.10 $ 0.00 3. 8" Gate Valve w/box & raiser 0 each @ $ 400.00 $ 0.00 4. 6" Gate Valve w/Box & Raiser 0 each @ $ 290.00 $ 0.00 5. Hydrant 0 each @ $ 1055.00 $ 0.00 6. 8" x 8" x 8" Tee 0 each @ $ 150.00 $ 0.00 7. 6" x 8" x 6" Tee 0 each @ $ 145.00 $ 0.00 8. 8" 114 Bend 0 each @ $ 100.00 $ 0.00 9. 8" 222 Bend 0 each @ $ 100.00 $ 0.00 10. 8" x 6" Reducer 0 each @ $ 60.00 $ 0.00 ^ 11. 6" x 6" x 6" Tee 0 each @ $ 110.00 $ 0.00 Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Licensed Land Surveyor 12. 8" 90 Bend 0 each @ $ 110.00 $ 0.00 13. 6" 90 Bend 0 each @ $ 90.00 $ 0.00 14. 6" Plug 0 each @ $ 60.00 $ 0.00 15. 1" Water Service Group 0 each @ $ 60.00 $ 0.00 16. 1" Copper 0 l.f. @ $ 5.70 $ 0.00 17. Density Testing 0 each @ $ 32.00 $ 0_00 TOTAL BID "A" $---- 0.00 BID "B" - SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION 1. Sanitary Sewer (0'-8' Cut) 0 l.f. @ $ 9.95 $ 0.00 2. Sanitary Sewer (8'-10' Cut) 0 l.f. @ $ 10.95 $ 0.00 3. Sanitary Sewer (10'-12' Cut) 0 l.f. @ $ 12.45 $ 0.00 4. 4" x 4' x 8' Polystnrene Insulation (In place) 0 l.f. @ $ 5.70 $ 0.00 5. Manholes (complete) 0 each @ $ 870.00 $ 0.00 6. Extra Depth Manhole 0 l.f. @ $ 60.00 $ 0.00 7. 4" x 8" Wye 0 each @ $ 30.00 $ 0.00 8. 4" Service Pipe 0 l.f. @ $_� 5.80 $ 0.00 9. 6" Plug 0 each @ $ 15.00 $ 0.00 10. Deniity Testing 0 each @ $ 32.00 $ 0.00 TOTAL BID "B" $____0.00 BID "C" - STORM SEWER Item No. Item Qty. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1. 12" RCP 0 l.f. @ $ 14.30 $ 0.00 2. 15" RCP 0 l.f. @ $ 15.15 $ 0.00 3. 18" RCP 0 l.f. @ $ 24.70 $ 0.00 4. 48" Catchbasin (Complete) 0 each @ $ 885.00 $ 0.00 5. 27" Catchbasin (Complete) 0 each @ $ 600.00 $ 0.00 6. 18" RCP Plug 0 each @ $ 35.00 $ 0.00 7. 12" RCP Apron 0 each @ $ 200.00 $ 0.00 8. 15" RCP Apron 0 each @ $ 220.00 $ 0.00 9. Density Testing 0 each @ $ 32.00 $ 0.00 10. 48" Manhole 0 each @ $ 1250.00 $ 0.00 TOTAL BID "C" $0_00 BID "D" - STREET CONSTRUCTION 1. Excavation 6450 c.y. @ $ 1.30 $ 8385.00 2. Class 5 Aggregate (In place) 0 C.Y. @ $ 6.94 $ 0.00 3. Density Testing 0 each @ $ 27.00 $ 0.00 TOTAL BID "D" $_8385.00 TOTAL PROJECT BIDS "A", "B", "C" & "D" $_8385.00 MINUS 10% RETAINAGE $ 838.50 GRAND TOTAL $ 7546.50 We recommend Partial Payment No. 1 in the amount of $7,546.50 to the contractor, Latour Construction, Rt. 1, Box 76, Maple Lake, MN 55358. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely yours, MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. Barry D. ohnson Project Engineer BDJ:1 cc:E-9601-D cc:Don Berning cc:Latour Construction JOHN R. GREEN �-. Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9209 October 30, 1y86 HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612)337-9300 Maureen Andrews Administrator City of Albertville Albertville, Minnesota 55301 Re: $57b,000 City of Albertville, Minnesota General Obligation Improvement Bonds Series lbob6A Dear Ms. Andrews: Within the next few days the City will receive a bill regarding the second printing of the above -referenced Bonds. The second printing was necessitated by the enactment of the new tax reform legislation by President Reagan on October 22, after the Bonds were originally printed. The new law dictates certain modifications to our bond counsel opinion, which modifications must be printed on the Bonds. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call. Sincerely, ohn It. Green JRG:jes cc: Nancy Langness HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Statement of Services October 30, 1986 City of Albertville City Hall Albertville, Minnesota 55301 File No. AL141-5 Invoice No. 86101V Review of law; preparation of preliminary and final resolutions; draft closing certificates concerning the $575,000 City of Albertville, Minnesota, General Obligation Improvements Bonds, Series 1986A; correspondence and telephone conversations with financial consultant and rendering of approving opinion in connection therewith; disbursements for delivery services, reproduction of documents, transcripts and postage. Total Fee $ 2,545.00 ORDINANCE 1975-4 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING ADVERTISING DEVICES (BILLBOARDS) AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF The City Council of the City of Albertville, Minnesota, ordains: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this Ordinance, the terms defined in this Section shall have the meanings herein given them. Subdivision (1): "Advertising device" means any billboard, poster, panel, painted bulletin board, or other communicative device which is used to advertise products, goods, and -or services which are not exclusively related to the premise which the advertising device is located. They are designed and placed to seize the observers attention beyond what is necessary for him to identify an establishment and take appropriate action. Subdivision (2): "Interstate highway" means any highway at any time officially designated as a part of the national - system of interstate and defense highways by the commissioner of highways and approved by the appropriate authority of the federal government. Subdivision (3): "Adjacent area" means a strip of land 100 feet in width immediately adjacent to and along and parallel to the right of way of an interstate highway, except for off ramps, take off ditches or similar areas where the area shall be measured from the prolongation of the normal right of way line. Subdivision (4): "Erect" means to construct, build, raise, assemble, place, affix attach, create, paint, draw or in any other way to bring into being or establish but it shall not include any of the foregoing activities when performed as an incident to the change of advertising message or customary maintenance of an outdoor advertising structure or device. Subdivision (5): "Advertising area" means that portion of the advertising face of an advertising device which includes the border and trim thereof, but excludes the base and apron supports and other structural members. If an advertising device is constructed so that the faces are not constructed back-to-back, the angle shall not exceed ten (10) degrees. If said angle is greater than ten (10) degrees the total area of both sides added together shall not exceed the maximum allowable advertising device area. -1- requirements of the City Council, if compliance would bring the advertising device into lawful conformity with this ordinance. Subdivision (7): Advertising devices erected or maintained after the effective date of this ordinance not complying with the regulations hereof may be removed by the City upon 60 days prior written notice by certified or registered mail to the owner thereof and to the owner of the real property on which such advertising devise is located, provided that no notice shall be required to be given tot he owner of an advertising device whose name is not stated upon the advertising device or the structure on which it is displayed unless the name of such owner is otherwise reasonably known to the City Clerk. The period of such notice shall be computed form the date of mailing. SECTION 3. PROHIBITED DEVICES. The following advertising devices are specifically prohibited by this Ordinance: (a) Which purports to be or resembles an official traffic control device, sign or signal, or railroad sign or signal; or which hides from view or interferes in any material degree with the effectiveness of any traffic control device, sign or signal, or railroad sign or signal, or which obstructs or interferes with the driver's view of approaching, merging or intersecting traffic for a distance not to exceed 500 feet. (b) On private land without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof. (c) On trees, shrubs, or which are painted or drawn upon rocks or natural features, or on public utility poles. (d) Which has distracting flashing or moving lights so designed or lighted as to be a traffic hazard. (e) Which are structurally unsafe, in disrepair, or are abandoned. (f) Painted directly on building walls. SECTION 4. GENERAL STANDARDS. Advertising devices shall comply with the standards in this section. Subdivision (1): The maximum area of sign face, whether a single sign face or each face of two back-to-back signs, shall not exceed 350 square feet including border and trim, but -3- excluding base and apron supports and other structural members. The maximum size limitation stated in this subdivision shall apply to each side of an advertising device structure and signs may be placed back-to-back, but not more than two displays to each facing and such advertising device shall be considered as one advertising device. Subdivision (2) : (a) No advertising device shall be erected closer to any other such device on the same side of the same highway facing traffic proceeding in the same direction than 2,000 feet on any interstate highway. Subdivision (3): Not more than one advertising device shall be erected or maintained upon one lot or tract of land. No advertising device shall be erected on a lot or tract of land, if such lot or tract of land is already improved by a building. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each full 10 acres of a larger parcel of land shall be deemed a separate lot or tract of land for the purpose of this subdivision. Subdivision (4): The maximum height of any advertising device shall be twenty (20) feet from the ground. SECTION 5. NON -CONFORMING ADVERTISING DEVICES. Subdivision (1): The following are non -conforming advertising devices. (a) Devices prohibited by Section 3. (b) All other devices not prohibited that do not conform to the provisions of this Ordinance. Subdivision (2): A non -conforming advertising device may not be: (a) Structurally altered except to bring into compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. (b) Expanded. (c) Re-established after its removal for 30 days. (d) Re-established after damage of more than 50 percent of advertising device replacement cost except to bring into compliance. Subdivision (3): All non -conforming and prohibited advertising devices shall be removed or brought into conformity -4- located, specifying the violation and giving fourteen (14) days in which to correct or remove the violation. After the expiration of fourteen (14) days and the violation is not corrected or discontinued, any person convicted of such violation shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days or by a fine of not more than $300.00, or both, and each days violation after the initial fourteen (14) day period shall constitute a separate offense. In addition thereto, the City may seek injunctive relief in the district court of the county in which the non -conforming or prohibited advertising device is located and require that either the advertising device conform or be removed. SECTION 9. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced from and after its passage and publication according to law. Passed by the City Council this 20th day of January, 1975. Mayor ATTEST: Published in the Crow River News Wednesday, Jan. 29, 1975. -6- ORDINANCE NO. 1983-4 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1975-4 ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE REGULATING ADVERTISING DEVICES (BILLBOARDS) AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF" The City Council of the City of Albertville ordains: 1. That Ordinance No. 1975-4 entitled "An Ordinance Regulat- ing Advertising Devices (Billboards) and Providing a Penalty for Violation Thereof, Section 5, Subdivision (3)" be deleted and the following be substituted therefor: "Subdivision (3). All nonconforming and prohibited advertising devises shall be removed or brought into conformity with this Ordinance after notification in writing within thirty (30) days after said notification." Adopted by the City Council of Albertville this day of , 1983. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Published in the Crow River News , 1983. CITY OF ALBERTVILLE ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: 497-3384 November 3, 1986 Frankfort Town Board % Louis Lazer, Chairman 9221 loth Street St. Michael, Minnesota 55376 Dear Chairman Lazer: (T N. . ' VYA 4 As a result of our meetings regarding the settlement of the Frankfort/ Albertville lawsuit, the City of Albertville agreed to put in writing the agreement reached between the two boards. It is the City's understanding that the agreement is as follows: That the City of Albertville agrees not to actively seek annexation of any properties under Frankfort Township jurisdiction for the period of ten (10) years. This agreement however shall not supersede any of the provisions set forth in Minnesota Statute 414, regarding annexation. There was additional discussion regarding the $5,000.00 payment that the cities of Albertville and St. Michael each recieve as payment towards the watertower system. The City at no time has ever felt that $5,000.00 payment was part of this agreement. It is the City's belief that unless St. Michael agrees to forego the $5,000.00 payment the City of Albertville will not be willing to either. If in the future St. Michael agrees to waive the payment the City will be willing to reconsider the issue. If this agreement is satisfactory to the Board sign the attached agreement and forward a copy back to the City. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact our City Administrator at 497-3384. attachement Sincerely, CITY OF ALBERTVILLE James A. Walsh Mayor A -take our City.... ... . Your City We invite Home, Industry, Business ALBERTVILLE AND FRANKFORT TOWNSHIP LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Albertville and the Town of Frankfort agree to settle the pending lawsuit provided that the follwing stipulation is followed: THAT THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE AGREES NOT TO ACTIVELY SEEK ANNEXATION GF ANY PRGPERIES UNDER FRANKFORT TOWNSHIP JURISDICTION FOR THE PERIOD OF TEN (10) YEARS. THIS AGREEMENT, HOWEVER SHALL NOT SUPERSEDE ANY OF THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN MINNESOTA STATUTE 414, REGARDING ANNEXATION. Passed by the Albertville City Council on this day of November, 1986. ATTEST: JAMES A. WALSH, IT'S MAYOR Passed by the Franfort Town Board on this 1986. ATTEST: LOUIS LAZER, IT'S CHAIR CITY OF ALBERTVILLE DONALD BERNING, IT'S CLERK day of FRANKFORT TOWN BOARD IT'S CLERK