Loading...
1988-08-15 CC Agenda/PacketCITY OF ALBERTVILLE P. 0. BOX 131 ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: (612) 497-3384 OOUNCIL AGENDA AUGUST 15, 1988 I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. APPROVAL, OF THE AGENDA * III. APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL MINUTES -- August 1, 1988 -- August 2, 1988 IV. CC*KTNITY FORUM 7:05 Ed Hackenmueller -- Sign For Store 7:30 Sean Hancock of the Lemna Crop. --Request to use Samples of Water Pulled from Waste Water Treatment Facility for Testing the Effects of their Product on Duckweed 8:00 Gary Barthel --Tree Removal 8:15 Joint Power's Update a. MAINTENANCE - Project Updates - Drainage Ditch by Railroad Tracks - Drainage Ditch by Barthel Industrial Drive and Railroad - Sale of the Street Sweeper b. LEGAL - Adoption of the following Ordinances: ORDINANCE NO. 1988- AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS), PROHIBITING USE THEREOF UNTIL ISSUED, AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF ORDINANCE NO. 1988- AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WEED ELIMINATION, ASSESSING OF COST AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF ORDINANCE NO. 1988- AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS AND SURETY * - Petition Regarding Weed Problem in the Beaudry 2nd Addition and Letter sent to the effected Property Owners * - SAMPLE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING WEED COMPLAINTS - Other Business Make our City ... , .... Your City We invite Home, Industry, Business CCXINC;IL AGENDA PAGE ��. ENuINEERING - Project Updates + - Pay Request for Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. * Pay Requests for Meyer-Rohlin Other Business (J. ADMINISTRATION +' - Income Received and Bills to he Paid Pay Increase for Lorie Villareal - CkV Catcher - t5astcun Canopy Building. Site - P).,tbl is Hearing. on SUBDIVISION RE(.3m TIONS - Other Business VI. MEMBER'S REPORT VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIiI. MOTION TO ADJOURN • 0 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE P. O. BOX 131 ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: (612) 497-3384 (;OUNCII, MINUTES AUGUST 15, 1.988 Tht regular meeting of the Albertville City Cc)uncil_ was called to order by Mayor Loretta Roden. Members present included Bob Braun, Don Cornelius, Donatus Vetsch and Gary S.chwenzfeier. Others present included Maureen Andrews, Boh Miller, Bob Sullentrop and Lorie Villareal. Ken Lindsay came late at the end of the meeting. The agenda for the evening's meeting was reviewed by the (;ounc i 1. Don Cornelius made a motion and Bob Braun seconded it to approve the agenda. All were in favor and the motion carried. The Council reviewed the minutes of the August 1st Council meeting and the August 2nd informational meeting. There were no corrections or additions so a motion was made by Don Cornelius and seconded by Bob Braun to approve the minutes of August 1st. Make our City ........ Your City We invite Home. Industry. Business All were in favor and the motion carried. Donatus Vetsch then made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 2nd informational meeting. Don Cornelius seconded this motion. All were in favor and the motion carried. Thee was no Joint Power's update since the meeting was not until the end of the month. Bob Sullentrop updated the Council on the construction projects currently underway within the City. The Westwind project is complete except for the curb, gutter and blacktop. Rain has been a big problem; washing out the Class 5 gravel twice. The project will be finished as soon as everything is completely dry. Other than that, Westwind is meeting the estimated project schedule. The Council was informed that the Braun's Addition now has all the utilities in except the storm sewer. The streets will be surfaced with Class 5 gravel on Tuesday. Barthel Manor has the blacktop in now and they are backfilling with black dirt. Bob informed the Council that the seal coating was scheduled for later in the week and that Bob had agreed to allow the contractor to stockpile the extra pea rock out at the lift station on 52nd Street provided that Ken agreed. The Council was informed that the damaged curbs in Barthel Manor have been repaired. It was pointed out that the repaired PAGE 2 area appeared a little lighter but that it looked real nice. As the color blends you will not be able to tell where the damage was. Bob explained to the Council that the curbs on 57th and Main would not be repaired this year since Latour was replacing the curb in the Braun Addition instead of having a subcontractor do the work. It was suggested that this work get added to the street maintenance program for 1989. Gary Schwenzfeier questioned whether or not the chip in the concrete curb in front of Weber s (on Large Avenue) was to be repaired as part of the street maintenance program. The Council was informed that Ken is going to go ahead and repair the chip as soon as he has time to do it. The street maintenance is complete except for the sealcoating which will be done this week. A question was raised as to who will be doing the sealcoating. The Council was informed that Buffalo Bituminous had subcontracted with Allied. There was also some discussion about the completion of Barthel Manor--lst Addition and when the work was scheduled to be completed. Bob was asked to follow up on this issue with Bowerly Brothers and find out when the work is to be completed. No formal action was taken on this question. PAGE 3 A pay request in the amount of $27,827.14 for Buffalo Bituminous was presented by Bob Sullentrop. This pay request does not include the recent work on overlayments for Barthel Manor or Hackenmueller`s. A motion was made by Donatus Vetsch and seconded by Gary Schwenzfeier to authorize the pay request for Buffalo Bituminous in the amount of $27,827.14. All were in favor and the motion carried. The minutes should note that two pay requests for Meyer-Rohlin were included in the Council packet for the Council's review. It was brought to the Council's attention that there are alot of weeds along both sides of the road on 60th Street that need to be mowed down or pushed back before the sealcoating is done. The Council requested that Maureen inform Ken that the Maintenance Department should schedule the repair as soon as possible. Mr. Sean Hancock, a representative of the Lemna Corporation, was present to request that he be allowed to use samples of water pulled from the Waste Water Treatment Facility to test the effects of their product on wastewater. The testing will have -no effect on the ponds and no residual (or anything that grows) will be left in the water. PAGE 4 Mr. Hancock explained that he will be using less than 2700 gallons of water in 14 individual cells. He wants to use an actual wastewater pond environment and not a test situation to secure the real effects. A floating sturdy boom system will be used and will be anchored with chains and ropes to the edge and bottom of the pond so that nothing will be damaged. The experiment will be finished by mid -September or by the end of September at the maximum. One chemical (one of which is used to kill algae during discharge time) will be used in one cell only, which will hold approximately 190 gallons of water. Mr. Hancock went on to explain that he currently has six projects, two of which are in Louisiana and Florida. He hopes to accomplish what effect sediments would have in action to duckweed. It was also explained to the Council that this experiment will be to Mr. Hancock`s own benefit and that there will be no cost to the City. Mr. Hancock expressed that there would be no problem in cooperating with the City and the City"s engineers. Taking into consideration the Council's concerns, Bob Miller advised the Council to enter into an agreement with the Lemna PAGE 5 Corporation for protection purposes. This agreement will include releasing the City from any liability, will give starting date and deadline date of experiment, will state that Mr. Hancock will take everything with him when he's finished and that he will keep a day by day log of his operations. It was also suggested that the engineer should check with the Pollution Control Agency to find out if it is all right to have such an experiment conducted. After careful consideration, all members of the Council agreed to allow Mr. Hancock to conduct his experiment. Bob will prepare the agreement between the City of Albertville and the Lemna Corporation. The proposed sign for Ed Hackenmueller's gas station/convenience store was discussed by the Council next. The Council was informed that Ed was requesting that he be allowed to install a second sign relating to gas pricing at the front of the store. He explained that the sign he had order would measure 12'X 9' X 20' and would include gas pricing information to attract the local customers. Bob Miller pointed out that under the current sign ordinance that the sign face is allowable but that the proposed size did not conform to the ordinance. Under present ordinance requirements the sign face can not exceed 16 square feet (or 4X4) PAGE 6 and that the City could deal with it one manner or another, listing the following as options: I. Grant a conditional use Permit to allow the sign because it exceeds the maximum requirement. 2. Amend the text to better represent a more realistic requirement. 3. Make no changes and only allow the 16 square foot sign. Bob went on to explain that the Hackenmueller request fit into two sections of the Ordinance, that is the signs would fit under the Multiply Use section of the ordinance which allows for additional signage when more then one business is house under one roof and secondly it fits under the special requirements allowing additional signs for those in the gas station business. Because the business fits under these special requirements and allowances Bob pointed out that there is more flexibility in what is allowed for signs. He also pointed out that in an effort to control the signing that the City could enter into a "Sign PUD" of sorts which would allow the specifics of the signage to laid out. There was some discussion regarding whether or not the City wanted to amend the ordinance to allow for larger signs or grant a variance on the requirement. It was pointed out that if a PAGE 7 problem is already occurring then the language needs to be changed. It was suggested that the reason the gas signs seem larger now is that they are now offering more types of gas therefore needing more room to advertise. After some additional discussion it was agreed that the City would amend the ordinance to change maximum size of the face front to allow for an 80 square foot frontage instead of the lb square feet set forth and to allow Ed Hackenmueller to install the sign requested once the necessary information had been provided. A motion was made by Don Cornelius and seconded by Bob Braun requesting that an amendment be drafted allowing for the change sign frontage and to allow the Hackenmueller sign once a sign package has been submitted and reviewed by the Council. All. were in favor and the motion carried. Gary Barthel was present to discuss with the Council the issue of tree stump removal and who is responsible when the tree is on the City right of way. "Dunnell Minnesota Digest" states that if the tree was there when the easement went through it is City property, but if the owner planted it, then the owner maintains ownership of the tree and it is his responsibility to maintain and care for the tree. Bob pointed out that typically when City`s acquire easements rights they also acquire the rights to everything in the easement (i.e. trees, soil, ect.) and that PAGE 8 in most cities the municipality typically removes trees on the boulevard at their own expense, instead of relying on the property owner. Gary Barthel's tree is on the easement although it was planted by the original owner. Mr. Barthel is giving his consent to have the tree removed and is willing to take out one stump if the City will agree to taking out the other one. After some discussion, the Council agreed to have the City take out one stump and cut down the remaining tree. Gary will help with the removal. It was agreed to leave the removal until fall when it's cooler. The time lapse will also allow the new street work to settle some plus give time to find somebody to take the wood. It was suggested that it would be in the best interests of the City and Mr. Barthel to have a liability form signed for protection purposes. Don Cornelius and Maureen updated the Council on the Maintenance Department since Ken was not yet at the meeting. The Burlington Northern Railroad Roadmaster had contacted Don Cornelius and had agreed to make a site visit out to look at the drainage ditch by the railroad tracks. After the site visit was made the railroad company agreed that the City could enter their property to correct the drainage problem but asked that no PAGE 9 work be done until the City had received a letter from Burlington Northern granting the same. No problems are foreseen. Dennis Fehn was contacted and it will take him approximately 1 to 1 1/2 hours to come in with a scraper and clean out the drainage ditch by Barthel Industrial Drive and the freeway. The next item discussed was that of the sale of the street sweeper. Because Ken was not at the meeting at this time the discussion was somewhat limited. There was some discussion concerning what the City had decided on for a price. The general concensus was that it was $800 or a best offer over $700 would be considered. The Council next made motions to adopt the following ordinances: ORDINANCE NO. 1988-5 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS), PROHIBITING USE THEREOF UNTIL ISSUED, AND PROVIDING A PENALTY THEREOF Gary Schwenzfeier made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1988-5. Donatus Vetsch seconded this motion. All were in favor and the motion carried. PAGE 10 ORDINANCE NO. 1988-6 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WEED ELIMINATION, ASSESSING OF COST AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF (Claus reference to Ordinance 1986-1) Bob Braun made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1988-6. Gary Schwenzfeier seconded this motion. All were in favor and the motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 1988-7 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS AND SURETY Don Cornelius made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1988-7. Bob Braun seconded this motion. All were in favor and the motion carried. The discussion next went to the petition regarding the weed problem in the City and the letter sent to the effected property owners. Maureen requested that someone else also verify the addresses of the effected owners. If the City does the weed elimination work, the cost will be assessed back to the property owners. A motion was then needed to act on complaints of weeds. Don Cornelius made a motion and Gary Schwenzfeier seconded it to allow the City to act on the weed complaints. PAGE 11 The income received and the bills to be paid were reviewed by the Council. A question was raised as to whether or not any income had been received by the City for Friendly City Days. Jim Walsh was to approach all the organizations, however, he has not yet done so. Let the minutes show that only income from the Albertville Lioness Club has been received. Hearing no other questions or comments, Donatus Vetsch made a motion to approve the bills. Gary Schwenzfeier seconded the motion. All were in favor and checks 8939 through 8964 were paid. The Mayor stated that the Council had met in regards to the pay request for Lorie. The Council agreed to a $1.00 per hour more increase. The Council feels that is what the City can afford at this time. Maureen has not been able to reach the dog catcher, so the matter was tabled. A letter has been sent by Loren Kohnen, the City`s building inspector, to Custom Canopy requesting them to clean up their building site. The Council was informed that a public hearing needed to be set regarding Subdivision Regulations. Don Cornelius made a motion and Gary Schwenzfeier seconded it to set a public hearing for September 6th at 8:00 p.m. All were in favor and the motion carried. PAGE 12 Don Cornelius made a motion to change the September 5th Council meeting to September 6th because of the Labor Day holiday. Bob Braun seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried. The matter of junk cars was brought up again in regards to how are we going to follow up on the certified letters that were sent out by the City. It was agreed that those persons who received letters should now be contacted by phone. Then, 48 hours after phone contact, if nothing has been done, the vehicle will be towed and the cost assessed back to the owner. The City should decide who they will be contracting to do the towing should it become necessary. The first budget work meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, August 30th at 7 p.m. There was no members report. Ken Lindsay was present at the meeting at this point. Ken informed the Council that Don from DJ"s was interested in purchasing the street sweeper. There had been no discussion about what DJ would offer for the sweeper. Ken brought to the attention of the Council that he had a personal complaint about a person that has harassed and threatened him because of a curb not being replaced. Ken stated that as a citizen and a fireman he has a right to have something PAGE 13 done about the situation. It was suggested that the City get Bob Millers advice before taking any action on this matter. Ken informed the Council that he will find out what to use to fix the curbs. The speech Ken gave at the Minnesota Wastewater Operator's Association seminar was very well received by those who were present. Hearing no other comments a motion to adjourn was made by Bob Braun and seconded by Don Cornelius. All were in favor and the meeting adjourned. `-4 Ylcza�wkni PAGE 14 ORDINANCE NO. 1988-_--- AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS AND SURETY The City Council of the City of Albertville, Minnesota, ordains: Section 1. Eupogg=. The City has previously adopted Ordinance No. 85 -J..J entitled .JJJJJ- ---- JJJJJ J- ---- ------ J JJJJJJJJ1JJjJ JJJ--------J which provides for procedures and standards for effective City review procedures of all developments within the City, including all multi -residential developments and commercial and industrial buildings or expansions of such existing buildings, and Planned Unit Developments. (a) Upon City Council approval of the site plan and prior to the issuance of building permits or initiation of work on the proposed improvement or development, the Developer shall execute a performance agreement setting all site improvement items and terms of completion of said items. The performance agreement and any surety required therein must be approved by the City Attorney as to form. If a conditional use permit and/or variance is granted or approved coincident with Final Site Plan approval, the City shall be provided with a surety guaranteeing compliance with the conditions thereof relating to any required installations. Any such surety may be by bond, cash escrow or letter of credit as approved by the City Council. The security shall be non -cancellable and shall be in such amount as set by the City Council after receiving a report by the City Engineer or from City staff on the estimate cost of labor and materials for the proposed improvement and development. The City shall hold the security until completion of the proposed improvements and development and a certificate of occupancy indicating compliance with the approval, conditional use permit or variance and ordinances of the City has been issued by the City Administrator or building official. (b) Any surety required by the performance agreement shall be noncancellable and shall guarantee conformance and compliance with the conditions of the site plan approval, the performance agreement and the Ordinances -1- of the City. (c) The City shall hold the surety for such period of time as set forth in the Performance Agreement. (1) The surety may only be released by the City Council. (2) Periodically, the amount of the surety may be reduced by the City Council. (3) Reduction and release actions will only be initialed after proper request has been made by the developer. (d) Failure to comply with the conditions of the site plan approval, the performance agreement or the Ordinances of the City shall result in forfeiture of the surety to the extent necessary to achieve the project's total compliance with the approved site plan. Section 3. Insuecti.ans.Durina.Development. (a) Site Improvements. (1) Following the issuance of final site plan approval by the City Council, the City Engineer shall specify those site improvement items requiring inspections and approval by the City. (b) Compliance With Overall Plan. Following final plan approval of a site plan or a stage thereof, the City Administrator shall, periodically until the completion of the development, review all permits issued, and construction undertaken and compare actual development with the approved site plan. (1) If the City Administrator finds that the development is not proceeding in accordance with the approved plan, the Administrator shall immediately notify the Council. (2) Within 30 days of such notice, the Council shall either by Ordinance revoke the site plan approval or shall take such steps as it shall deem necessary to compel compliance with the final site plan as approved; or shall require the applicant or landowner to seek an amendment of the final site plan. Section 4. Effective.Date. This Ordinance shall be in full -2- force and effect from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Albertville this J J1J day of ------------ 1988. J JJ-------- JJJJ-----------J--»1 Loretta Roden, Mayor ATTEST: J JJJJ J J J -A J J JJ J JJ J J JJJJ J J JJJ JJ J Maureen Andrews Administrator/Clerk (Published in the Crow River News JJJJ-JJJJJJJJJJ-----JJJJ�-A" JJ) -3- ORDINANCE NO. 1988---, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS), PROHIBITING USE THEREOF UNTIL ISSUED, AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF The City Council of the City of Albertville, Minnesota, ordains: Section 1. Administration - . Cent i f i.cate of Oggupancv. Except for farm and residential buildings, no building or structure erected or moved, or that portion of an existing structure or building erected or moved, shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatsoever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been issued by the City Administrator stating that the building or structure complies with all of the provisions of the zoning Ordinance of the City of Albertville. The provisions of this Section shall apply to and include, without limitation, any change in the use, character of occupancy, occupancy classification or zoning classification of any structure, building or portion thereof. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be valid only for the use named therein. Section 2. App ;�.cat�i.Q;. Said certificate shall be applied for coincident with the application for a building permit, conditional use permit, and/or variance and shall be issued within ten (10) days after the building official shall have found the building or structure satisfactory and given final inspection. Said application shall be accompanied by a fee established by the City Council and set forth in a duly -adopted resolution or Ordinance. Section 3. prnh bjjj . Whosoever shall use or occupy a building or structure for which a Certificate of Occupancy is required by this Ordinance until the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued as provided herein is guilty of a misdemeanor. It shall be the obligation of any person having a proprietary or tenancy interest in such building or structure affected to maintain or preserve said Certificate of Occupancy as a permanent record on the premises and available for inspection upon request by the City Administrator or Building Official. Whosoever shall fail to so maintain such record is guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 4. a a LU . Any person violating any provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $700.00 or imprisonment not to exceed 90 days or both. -1- Section 5. Effecti_y.e.pat. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Albertville this J J...J day of JJJJJJJJJJJ 1988. J JJJJJJJJ.r.�JJ.�JJJJJJJJJJ��+��1J� Loretta Roden, Mayor ATTEST: J JJJJ J J JJ JJ JJJJ JJJ JJJ JJJJJjJJJ Maureen Andrews Administrator/Clerk (Published in the Crow River News JJJJJ-------JJ-JJJ------------ ) a -2- ORDINANCE NO. 1988---- AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WEED ELIMINATION, ASSESSING OF COST AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF The City Council of the City of Albertville, Minnesota, ordains: Section 1. When.WP-eds.N.uisa= . Any weeds, whether noxious as defined by law or not, growing upon any lot or parcel of land outside the traveled portion of any street or alley in the City, to a height greater than six inches or which have gone or are about to go to seed, are a nuisance. The owner and the occupant shall abate or prevent such nuisance on such property and on land outside the traveled portion of the street or alley abutting on such property. Section 2. NoticE .to..DestrAY. On or before June 1 of each year and at such other times as ordered by resolution of the Council, the Clerk shall publish once in the official newspaper as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes 18.271, a notice directing owners and occupants of property within the City to destroy all weeds declared by this section to be a nuisance and stating that if not so destroyed within ten days after publication of said notice, the weeds will be destroyed by the Department of Public Works at the expense of the owner and if not paid, the charge for such work will be made a special assessment against the property concerned. Section 3. Remayal_hu_Ci_tti. If the owner or occupant of any property in the City fails to comply with the notice provided above within ten days after its publication, the City shall cut or cause to have cut and remove such weeds. The City Administrator/Clerk shall keep a record showing the cost of such work attributable to each separate lot and parcel. Section 4. Assp—ssment. On or before September 1 of each year, the City Administrator/Clerk shall list the total unpaid charges for the weed removal against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under this section. The Council may then spread the charges against property benefited as a special assessment under Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101 and other pertinent statutes for certification to the County Auditor and collection the following year along with current taxes. Section 5. P_enalty..for..Interf.erence. Any person who interferes with a City employee or other authorized person in the performance of his duties under Section 3 is guilty of a misdemeanor, but a prosecution shall be brought for such violation only on the direction of the Council. -1- Section 6. Effective _natP. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Albertville this J JJJ day of JJJJJJJ J J JJ I 1988. Loretta Roden, Mayor ATTEST: J JJJJ J J J J J JJ JJJ J J J JJJJJJJ JJJ JJ Maureen Andrews Administrator/Clerk (Published in the Crow River News JJJJJJJ J J J J J JJJJJJJ J J J---J J J JJ -2- eyer��) m,��/ JA4 srao. .pane 27 , 1988 B.H.S. INVESTMENTS Box 21-115 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 RE: WEED CONTROL PROBLEM AT 11630 55TH STREET Dear Sirs: The City of Albertville has been asked to contact You regarding your property which is located at 11630 55th Street, here in Albertville. It was brought to the City Council's attention by the adjourning property owners that only minimal maintenance is being preformed on your property. The neighboring property owners feel somewhat frustrated by the fact that they are making an effort to keep their yards groomed and looking neat yet your yard goes unattended and is full of weeds. The City is aware that it has been extremely dry and that established lawns are suffering as a result of the draught conditions that we are experiencing. It seems however that lots that have allowed the weeds and tall grasses to grow seems to be thriving regardless to the lack of rain-. Hopefully this letter will bring the problem to your attention and that you will take corrective measures to eliminate the problem. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter in more detail please feel free to contact me, Maureen Andrews at 497-3384. The City would like to thank you in advance for your attention to this problem. v E�6 3t'1 5ha a Ly�--►"Onr) 0aq g) q q � �� ►� r� �� �- q I LH r, r1CN� Sincerely, CITY OF ALBERTVILLE Maureen T. Andrews City Administrator CITY OF NEW HOPE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE WEED COMPLAINTS 1.0 POLICY - All weed complaints received by city personnel are to bg referred to the special assessment clerk. 2.0 ORGANIZATIONS AFFECTED City Clerk's Department, Park and Recreation Department and Public Works Department. 3.0 PROCEDURE 1. All weed complaints are to be routed to the special assessment clerk who will take the necessary information and record it on the Weed Complaint Form (Form 1) which will be made in duplicate. 2. The special assessment clerk will insert the required information about the property --legal description, PID number, owner's name and address and other pertinent information on Part I of the Weed Complaint Form. 3. Once Part I of the form is completed, one copy will be referred to the Assistant Weed Inspector and one copy retained by the special assessment clerk. The assistant weed inspector will place his copy in a tickler file for review in two weeks from date of referral. 4. The asst. weed inspector will inspect the property and signify in Part III of the weed complaint form under Initial Inspection. If necessary, the special assessment clerk will send out a Notice to Cut (Form 2). 5. The asst. weed inspector will follow up the procedure from then on with the special assessment clerk handling the paper work. If the weeds are cut by the property owner, the inspector will sign and date the final inspection __portion of -Part II, and return to the special assessment clerk for filing. 6. If the weeds are not cut by property owner as requested, the asst. weed inspector will notify the public works department by sending the Weed Complaint Form (Form 1) with Authorization to Destroy Weeds (Form 3) and Weed Cutting Costs Sheet (Form 4) to public works. (special assessment clerk types up and gives to inspector who signs Form 3 and places in public works' tray). Public works department will eliminate the weeds within ten days of receiving notice. 7. The figures on the Weed Cutting Costs Sheet (Form 4) must be reviewed annually by payroll department. 8. Upon completion of the work, the public works director will make sure that Part III of the weed complaint form and the weed cutting cost sheet are completed. These will list the date of the order, date of completion of the work, the hours spent (half-hour minimum), the rate and the total cost. It is to be signed by the public works director or representative. The weed complaint form is then returned to the asst. weed inspector who will, in turn, verify that the weeds have been eliminated by signing the final inspection portion of the weed complaint form. Page 2 Adm. Procedure Weed Complaints 9. The asst. weed inspector will then transmit the form to the special assess- ment clerk who will bill the property owner for the cutting done by the city. The property owner will receive one notice of billing which will state that if not paid within 14 days, the costs will be assessed in the fall. 10. Regardless -if the property owner or the city cuts the weeds, after final inspection, the weed complaint form is to be returned to the special assessment clerk. 11. At the appropriate time in the fall, the special assessment clerk will prepare an assessment roll for all unpaid charges. 12. It should be noted that Council policy now is that general cutting will not be done until mid -July in order to preserve nesting of birds, etc. 4.0 APPENDIX Appendix "A" - Weed Complaint Form (Form 1) Appendix "B" - Inspector's Notice to Occupants, Owners, etc. (Form 2-notice to cut) Appendix "C" - Inspector's Authorization to Destroy Weeds (Form 3) Appendix "D" - Weed Cutting Costs (Form 4) Appendix "E" - Assessment Clerk's record sheet. Rev. 5-25-88 f 1 M NO. 1 PART I COMPLAINT DATA Address/Location Complaint Name_ Legal PID PART II INSPECTIONS Initial: Signature INSTRUCTIONS Send Notice: Weeds Cut By Owner: CITY OF NEW HOPE WEED COMPLAINT FORM Address DATE: COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY Phone Letter Person Final : Date Signature Date No Problem: Weeds Cut by City: PART III CITY WORK ORDER (Work to be completed within 10 days of order) Date of Order: Date of Completion of Work: Work Completed by: PART IV Cost Billed: Cost Received: Cost Assessed: Signature Rev 5/24/88 Weeds-001 APPENDIX "B" (Form 2) 4) STATE OF MINNESOTA .� DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE INSPECTOR'S NOTICE TO SERVE ON OCCUPANTS, OWNERS, AGENTS, OR PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN CHARGE OF WEED INFESTED LANDS DATE COUNTY TOWNSHIP OR CITY By Authority of Minnesota Statutes, 1976, Chapter 18, Notice is hereby given To , Minnesota Occupant To , Minnesota Owner to destroy or eradicate within days from the date given above, all noxious weeds herein mentioned, located in and upon the following described land and in such manner as herein directed. PER CITY OF NEW HOPE CODE SECTION 9.70 KIND(S) OF WEEDS APPROXIMATE ACREAGE HOW TO DESTROY OR ERADICATE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND SUBDIVISION TOWNSHIP SECTION RANGE LOT NUMBER BLOCK CITY INSPECTOR SIGNATURE WEED INSPECTOR FOR INSPECTOR SIGNATURE WEED INSPECTOR FOR INSPECTOR SIGNATURE WEED INSPECTOR FOR INSPECTOR SIGNATURE WEED INSPECTOR FOR 110. 17 AU-00178-02 (Previously Form 1) APPENDIX "C" (Form 3) 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE i&- INSPECTOR'S AUTHORIZATION TO DESTROY WEEDS For the Person Hired to Destroy Weeds ownsnip or City I County As the Local Weed Inspector for the above political subdivision, I hereby authorize Name Address the bearer, to destroy, in the manner indicated below, weeds herein mentioned and now standing, being, or growing on the land located in: Subdivision Section Township Range Lot No. Block City Owned By Address on whom a notice was served on to destroy said weeds in the (Date) manner and extent listed below. KIND(S) OF WEEDS ACREAGE DESTROY OR ERADICATE AS FOLLOWS: RATE OF PAY AGREED UPON DATE INSPECTOR NAME (Print) INSPECTOR SIGNATURE INSPECTOR PHONE N U-uuiou-us White Copy — To Person Hired 4b., (Previously Form 4) Green Copy — Filed with Statement of Costs Pink Copy — Weed Inspector APPENDIX "D" (Form 4) LABOR WEED CUTTING COSTS -- hrs. Public Works employees @ $ 23.48 I $ hrs. Seasonal employees @ $ 9.84 $ (above rates include fringe benefits & supervision) EQUIPMENT hrs. tractor and mower @$18.48 /hr OTHER EQUIPMENT hrs. Weed Whip @ $0.37 /hr hrs. @ /hr hrs. @ /hr (include travel time in equipment hours) ADMINISTRATION Weed Inspector $ 19.20 ) Clerk $ 32.00 $ 51.20 TOTAL $ COMMENTS: DATE CUT Rev 5/18/88 'ROPE-RTY/Address/Owner/PID No Follow - up A Cum -owner g Urderto Pub s 0 INSPECT (NOTICE SENT On Roll To County Billed _ STEP 4 STEP 5 -MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn.55313 Phone 612-682-1781 August 8, 1988 City of Albertville c/o Maureen Andrews, Administrator Box 131 Albertville, MN 55301 Re: 1988-1A Improvement Project Albertville, Minnesota Honorable Mayor & City Council: The contractor for the above referenced project has 'requested partial payment for the work completed to date. Below you shall find the quantities for the work performed. BID "A" Barthel Manor Second Addition Streets Item No. Item 1. Class 5 aggregate 2. Subgrade preparation 3. 2" bituminous base MnDOT 2331 4. 2" bituminous wear MnDOT 2341 5. 112" bituminous base MnDOT 2331 6. 112" bituminous wear MnDOT 2341 7. B618 curb & gutter 8. Surmountable curb and gutter Bid Inst. Qty. Qty. Unit Unit Price Total Price 400 547.12 ton $ 6.00 $ 3,282.72 13520 13520 s.y. $ .20 $ 2,704.00 3200 3200 s.y. $ 3200 s.y. $ 8470 8470 s.y. $ 2.00 $ 6,400.00 2.25 $ 1.65 $13,975.50 8470 s.y. $ 1.80 $ 1970 2047 l.f. $ 4.00 $ 8,188.00 3500 3448 l.f. $ 3.50 $12,068.00 Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Licensed Land Surveyor ^ Item No. Item 9. Black dirt 10. Seeding with mulch 11. Adjust gate valves 12. Adjust manholes 13. Adjust catch basins 14. Density testing Bid Inst. Qty. Qty. Unit Unit Price Total Price 870 C.Y. $ 6.00 $ 1.6 acre $ 650.00 $ 5 each $ 100.00 $ 12 each $ 150.00 $ 8 8 each $ 50.00 $ 400.00 15 each $ 20.00 $ TOTAL BID "A" $47,018.22 BID "B" HACKENMUELLER FRONTAGE ROAD 1. Class 5 aggregate (cv)(inplace) 2. 12" bituminous base MnDOT 2331 3. 112" bituminous wear MnDOT 2341 4. Subgrade preparation 5. Density testing 6. Black dirt 7. Seeding with mulch BID "C" STREET MAINTENANCE 225 234.23 c.y. $ I0.00 $ 2,342.30 1350 S.Y. $ 1.70 $ 1350 S.Y. $ 1.85 $ 1365 1365 s.y. $ .40 $ 546.00 4 each $ 20.00 $ 75 C.Y. $ 6.00 $ .15 acre $ 1000.00 $ TOTAL BID "B" $ 2,888.30 1. 112" bituminous overlayment MHD 2341 modified aggregate (FA-2) 15140 2. Seal coat 160 2A. Bituminous material for seal coat 3200 ^ 3. Pavement removal & patching 3" 1200 4. Replace curb 8 gutter 35 s.y. $ 1.80 $ ton $ 21.00 $ gal. $ 1.00 $ 625 s.y. $ 5.50 $ 3,437.50 l.f. $ 6.00 $ Item Bid Inst. No. Item Qty. Qty. Unit Unit Price Total Price 5. Replace driveway apron 20 l.f. $ 6.00 $ 6. Adjust gate valves 9 each $ 125.00 $ 7. Adjust manholes 9 each $ 125.00 $ 8. Remove curb 8 gutter 35 l.f. $ 3.00 $ 9. Remove driveway apron 20 l.f. $ 3.00 $ 10. Bituminous leveling course MHD 2331 70 66 ton TOTAL BID "C" TOTAL PROJECT COST LESS 5% RETAINAGE LESS PREVIOUS PARTIAL PAYMENTS PARTIAL PAYMENT #2 $ 25.00 $ 1,650.00 $ 5,087.50 $54,994.02 2,749.70 24,417.18 $27,827.14 We therefore recommend Partial Payment #2 to Buffalo Bituminous, Inc., Buffalo, MN in the amount of $27,827.14. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. Bob Sullentrop Professional Engineer sl File: E-8601-I, 8801-B, 8801-G cc: Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. -MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. ,LNG/NEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn. 55313 Phone 612 - 682 -1781 August 5, 1988 City of Albertville c/o Maureen Andrews, Administrator Box 131 Albertville, MN 55301 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: Re: 1988-3A Improvement Project Engineering Invoice No. 3 Staking and Inspection Charges: Date _ 2 Man Crew 3 Man Crew Enq. I Enq. II Enq. Aide 7/5/88 8.0 3.0 7.5 7/6/88 5.0 4.0 -- 7/7/88 1.5 6.0 7/8/88 2.5 4.0 7/11/88 7.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 7/12/88 8.5 2.5 6.0 3.5 7/13/88 8.5 5.0 8.5 7/14/88 4.5 3.5 6.5 4.5 7/15/88 4.0 2.0 7/18/88 10.0 3.0 7.0 7/19/88 6.0 2.5 2.0 7/20/88 3.5 1.0 7/21/88 9.0 2.5 6.0 7/22/88 5.5 9.0 3.0 7/25/88 2.0 3.5 8.0 1.0 7/26/88 1.5 5.0 7/27/88 6.0 7/28/88 3.0 5.0 7/29/88 4.0 10.0 59.0 9.5 45.0 107.0 27.5 2 man crew: 59.0 hrs @ 18.92 x 2.5 = 2790.70 3 man crew: 9.5 hrs @ 24.73 x 2.5 = 587.34 Engineer I: 45.0 hrs @ 17.82 x 2.5 = 2004.75 Engineer II:107.0 hrs @ 17.16 x 2.5 = 4590.30 Eng. Aide: 27.5 hrs @ 12.04 x 2.5 = 827.75 DIRECT CHARGES: Burlington Northern Permit Deposit TOTAL INVOICE #3 Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Licensed Land Surveyor 10,800.84 450.00 $11,250.84 - MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn. 55313 Phone 612 - 682 -1781 City of Albertville c/o Maureen Andrews, Administrator Box 131 Albertville, MN 55301 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: Re: 1988-1A Improvement Project Engineering Invoice No. 3 Staking and Inspection Charges: Date Eng. I Eng. II Eng. Aide 7/5/88 1.5 1.0 7/6/88 1.0 2.0 1.5 7/8/88 1.0 7/11/88 2.0 7/12/88 1.5 7/14/88 1.0 3.0 7/15/88 5.0 7/18/88 1.5 8.5 7/19/88 .5 2.5 7/20/88 1.5 0.5 7/21/88 2.0 3.5 7/22/88 1.0 2.0 5.5 7/25/88 1.0 7/26/88 1.0 2.5 7/27/88 2.0 7/28/88 4.0 7/29/88 0.5 2.0 13.0 7.5 42.0 Engineer I 13.0 hrs @ 17.82 x 2.5 = 579.15 Engineer II 7.5 hrs @ 17.16 x 2.5 = 321.75 Eng. Aide 42.0 hrs @ 12.04 x 2.5 = 1264.20 TOTAL INVOICE #3 August 5, 1988 $21165.10 Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Licensed Land Surveyor SEWER ACCOUNTS WRIGHT TITLE GUARANTEE BOB WACKER (Building Permit -deck) REGISTERED CLOSERS DJ'S HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING REGISTERED CLOSERS LORETTA RODEN (Park Rental) TRI COUNTY ABSTRACT JOHN-GEORGE, INC. SUNRISE PLUMBING WILFRED LINDENFELSER INCOME RECEIVED AUGUST 15, 1988 TOTAL 3,311.92 1,264.77 43.50 5,490.52 73.00 10.00 25.00 10.00 100.00 70.00 25.00 $10,423.71 BILLS TO BE PAID AUGUST 15, 1988 8939 MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. 330.55 8940 MEINY'S DIGGERS, INC. 971.00 8941 ROBERT J. MILLER 541.50 8942 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS, INC. 27,827.14 8943 MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. 119250.84 8944 MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. 2,165.10 8945 NORTHERN OXYGEN SERVICE, INC. 66.75 8946 ROBERT L. MINKEMA 275.00 B947 PERA 146.44 8948 PERA 9.00 8949 CHOUINARD'S 63.51 8950 NEW BRIGHTON LUMBER CO. 135.46 8951 CROW RIVER NEWS 35.55 8952 DENNIS FEHN GRAVEL 647.80 8953 NORWEST BANKS 79690.45 8954 FIRST TRUST 19334.38 8955 FIRST TRUST 13,491.88 8956 KEN LINDSAY (Mileage) 19.58 8957 KEN LINDSAY 671.00 895E MAUREEN ANDREWS 593.12 8959 LORIE VILLAREAL 304.36 8960 MIKE RUTKOWSKI TOTAL $68,570.41 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE - P. O. BOX 131 ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: (612) 497-3384 GATE: August 12, 1988 TO: Mayor Roden and Members of the Council FR)M : Maureen Andrews RE: Lorie Villareal`s Request for Pay Increase At the last meet' of the Council there was some discussion regarding the extension of Lorie Vlareal`s position, which when concluded the Council agreed that she should stay on. For this I thank you, because the help is much needed and Lorie`s ability much appreciated. As a part of that discussion Lorie had requested that the Council consider a pay increase over the $4.00 an hour that MEED reimburses the City. - After some limited discussion the Council requested that I put tether some information regarding the funds that were budgeted for support staff and what would be available to spend toward this pay increase. The following is a summary of what was budgeted and what has been spent up to June 30, 198 : 1988 ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET FOR SUPPORT STAFF $2,000.00 MONEY SPENT (AS OF JUNE 30, 1988) 115.00 REMAINING BALANCE $1,885.00 The following is a ipotential budget of what would be spent if the Council approves the increase being requested: @ 2.00 an Hour X 80 Hours a Pay Period $160.00 Number f ( Pay Periods Remainingin 1988 X 10 TOTAL . �. �. �� 1. From what these records indicate it appears that there is enough money in the budget to cover the requested increase. If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to give me a call. Make our Cit v ........ Your City We invite Home, Industrv, Business ALBERTVILLE LIONESS SEWER ACCOUNTS 8961 8962 ADDITIONAL INCOME RECEIVED AUGUST 15, 1988 TOTAL ADDITIONAL BILLS TO BE PAID AUGUST 15, 1988 HACKENMUELLER'S MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 140.00 172.98 $312.98 11.16 50.00 T TOTAL $61.16 * SCHEDULES I -II -III FOR LUMP SUM PENSION PLANS STATE FIRE AID YEAR 1989 Firefighters Relief Association of Albertville, Minnesota County of SCHEDULE I Wri-jht Computation of benefit of relief association special fund (at $ 179 per year of service) for all members based on their years of service as active fire department members.- 1 Name 2 12/31/ 87 Age 3 F.D. Entry Date 4 1988 5 To End of This Year 6 1989 7 To End of Next Year Years Active Service Accrued Liability Years Active Service Accrued Liability 1. R. Kirscht 49 10 59 29 5,075 30 5,250 2. K. Wacker 55 6 61 28 4,900 29 5,075 3. G. Leider 51 2 62 27 4,725 28 4,900 4. G. Valerius 43 9 68 20 3,500 21 3,675 5. J. Ripplinger 51 4 69 20 3,500 21 3 675 6. Gordon Bernin 34 1 73 16 2,499 17 2,730 7. Gregory Bernin 35 1 73 16 2,499 17 2,730 8• D. Vetsch 35 6 74 15 2,282 16 2,499 9. R. Braun 34 2/77 12 1,684 13 1 873 10. R. Yolles 36 8/77 11 1 502 12 1,684 11. K. Lindsay1,502 1.2 1,684 12• J. Chouinard1 78 10 1,330 11 1,502 13. F. Beaudr 31 5 79 1.0 1,330 11 1,502 _ 14. J. Vetsch 28 1 80 9 1,166 10 1.1330 ;5, K. Zachman 29 3/81 8 1,008. 9 1,166 16. G. Barthel 27 10/81 7 861 8 1,008 17. P. Heinan 26 10/81 7 861 8 1,008 18. A. Barthel 25 2/82 7 861 8 1,008 19. M. Fehn 24 4/82 7 861 8 1,008 20. Richard Wacker 24 7/82 6 718 7 861 21. Robert Wacker 29 10/82 6 718 7 861 22. K. Roden 26 2/83 6 718 7 861 23. K. Lidberg 29 2/85 4 455 5 585 24. H. O'Donald 30 5/85 4 455 5 585 25. K. Mealhouse 30 6 86 3 333 4 455 26. D. Heinan 23 6 86 3 333 4 455 27. B. Wulff 28 9 86 2 217 3 333 28. M. Merges 28 1 88 1 105 2 217 29. M. Vetsch 24 1 88 1 105 2 217 30. Total of Deferred Pensions If An Total of Unpaid Installments If An Total of Early Vested Pensions If An A. Accrued Liability Thru Next Year 1989 jtotal, column 7) _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ B. Accrued Liability Thru This Year 1988 (total, column 5) 46,103 _ _ - _ _ _ _ > C. Subtract Line 8 from Line A (normal cost; enter here and on Line 6 Schedule III) 50,737 46,103 4,634 Fractional years of service must be calculated to nearest full year. r installment liability, enter amount which will be payable after end of this year in both column 5 and 7. .f interest is to be paid on unpaid pensions, add interest for 1 year in column 7. A copy of these schedules must be presented to the City Council before August 1 each year. * 1 year break in service SCHEDULE II Projection of Relief Association special fund assets to end of this year, (December 31, 1988) Assets at January 1, 1988 (this year) Anticipated income to end of this year a) Minnesota State Aid b) Receipts from local taxes 1987 & 1988 c) Interest on investments d) Other income $ 5,162 3,903 650 50 1. $ 1.7,495 Total of lines a-b-c-d--------------- - - - - -- 2. $ 9,765 Beginning assets plus estimated income for this year (L1 + L2) Estimated disbursements through end of this year e) Pensions $ f) Other benefits g) MSFDA or VFBA dues, if any h) Administrative and overhead 3. $ 27,260 Total of Linese-f-g-h--------------- - - - - -- 4. $ -0- Projected assets at end of this year 12/31/88 (L3-L4) 5. $ 27,260 Calculation of average special fund income per member (other than interest or investment _ income) State Aid Last year 4,916 2 years ago 4,525 3 years ago 3,714 Totals 13,155 Municipal Support 0 3,000 4,100 + 7,100 + 10% of surplus (if any) 20,255 Total 3 year income $20,255'.- 3 = $ 6,752 + 27 (no. of members) = 6. $ 250 CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL FUND REQUIREMENTS This information must be certified to the governing body of the municipality or indepen- dent nonprofit firefighting corporation by August 1, 1988. We, the officers of the Albertville Firefighters Relief Association, state that the accompanying schedules have been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Volunteer Firefighters Relief Association Guidelines Act of 1971 (including M.S. 69.772) and that the schedules are correct and complete to the best of our knowledge. The financial requirements of the relief associations Special Fund for 1989 are $ 2,248 Check here if no municipal support required The average non -investment income per member of said special fund for the past 3 years was $ 250 A 0�z/ /011, �C ''- -21._ kY Signature of Presiden Date Signature of Secretary Date Signature of Treasurer Date S SCHEDULE III Computation of Financial Requirements for Next Year - 1989 Column A Column B Column C 1. Assets from Line 5. Schedule II - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $27,260 2. Accrued liability to end of this year (from Line B, Schedule I) - - - - - - - - - - 46,103 3. a) If Line 2 is more than Line 1, subtract Line 1 from Line 2. Deficit - - - - - 18,843 b) If Line 1 is more than Line 2, subtract Line 2 from Line 1. Surplus - - - - - If surplus exists, enter 10% of surplus amount in Column C and go to Line 6. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Amortization of deficit (or deficits) incurred prior to end of last year (see note). Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Year Original Amount Retired Amount Left Incurred Deficit Amount in Prior Years to Retire 1983 32,920 - 25,631 7,289 19 - 19 - 4. Totals 7,289 32,920---x10%----- 3,292 5. Subtract Column 3 total from Line 3(a). (If Column 3 1s equal to or greater than Line 3(a), no new deficit exists.) If Column 3 1s less than Line 3(a), difference is new deficit. Enter - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 1.1,554 Enter 10% of this new deficit in Column B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,155 6. Increase (from Linec, Schedule I) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 4,634 7. Anticipated expenses Next Year, (other than pensions, or investments) 1989 estimates - - - - -0 - 8. Anticipated income Next Year 1989 estimates a) Minnesota State Aid - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,420 b) 5% interest on amount of Line 1 above - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,363 c) Other income (do not include local taxes or Investment income) - - - - - - - 50 Total 8 a+b+c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6,833 9. Total, ColumnB--------------------------------- - - - - -- 9,081 10. Total, ColumnC-------------------------------------- - - - - -- 6,833 11. If Line 9 is more than Line 10, the difference is the amount of municipal support required. Certify this amount to city council before August 1 (bottom part of Schedule II -Special Fund Requirements) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 2,248 12. If Line 10 Is more than Line 9, no municipal support is required. Certify that fact to council before August 1. Council is permitted to provide funds in excess of requirement. dote; Deficits are generally retired in less than 10 years, because of increase in state aid, turnover gain and earned interest greater than 5%. If desired, the amount in Column 2 may be increased so that the total of Column 3 is equal to Line 3(a). If more than one deficit is being amortized (the law requires each deficit to be retired separately), adjust Column 2 for the oldest deficit first. When Column 2 equals Column 1 for any deficit, that deficit has been retired and may be removed from the amortization schedule. Whenever a New Deficit appears in Line 5, the original amount of such deficit must be added to the amortization schedule the following year. INFORMATIONAL MEETING CMI COUNTY DITCH NUMBER 9 AUGUST 2, 1988 Mayor Loretta Roden called the informational meeting regarding County Ditch Number 9 to order and introduced Thore Meyer of Meyer-Rohli.n, who was to present the finding of facts regarding the storm water run off from the WESTWIND development. The list of those attending has been attached to the back of this document. Thore explained that this meeting had been called at the County Commissioner's and Ditch 9 Committees request so that the property owners along County Ditches Numbers 9 and 21 could hear what, is being proposed for the area that had been the Michael Becker farm prior to being purchased and developed by John -Gorge, Inc. Thore first introduced those present to the details of the plans for Phase I of WESTWIND and the proposal for the subsequent phases of II and III, which include the possible installation of a detention pond to hold the storm water run off. The discussion included these findings of facts: * That the development of WESTWIND will be completed in phases, at which time storm sewer, streets, sewer and water will be designed to adequately handle the development as it occurs. INFOF44ATION MEETING PAGE 2 * That WESTWIND (Phase I) consist of 52 single-family lots, 4 multiple family lots and 14.2 acres of park land (Attachment A), which consists of approximately 18 acres of land. * That approximately two-thirds of the entire plat (106 acres) drains to the south into County Ditch 9, while the remaining one-third drains northeasterly into School Lake. That in designing a system that can adequately handle rain for a development the Engineers design the storm sewer system for a five year storm Thore went on to explain that it is standard engineering practice to size storm sewer system in this manner because of the expense involved in installation. In the event that the storm brings the water faster then the sewer system can handel it temporary ponding occurs in the street, which will then eventually drain away (typically water does not stand for more than an hour or so). * That the purpose of a detention pond is to hold water in a confined area until the water can drain away at the same rate it would have if the land had been left in its natural state. This is accomplished by restricting the water and forcing it to outlet through a downsize culvert which is located at the bottom of the pond. That the design of proposed detention pond was done only after doing the necessary calculations to determine the number of acre feet needed to adequately handle the storm water run-off from the WESTWIND development. The Engineers calculations indicated that the INFORMATION MEETING PAGE 3 pond nods to be approximately 11.5 acre feet to detention, which can be obtained in a variety of ways, either by a large shallow pond or a pond that takes up less land mass but is built deeper to retain the water. ' The Engineers explained that the actual design of the pond has not been determined but it appears that in all likelihood the pond would be developed so that the base of the pond would be approximately 2 feet above the base of the County Ditch and would have a substantial dike system around the three sides of it as well as around the entire park so not to create any hardship to the adjoining properties. (Attachment B). It is important to note that the detention pond would be done in conjunction with the park, knowing that in the event of heavy downpours the pond could have a potential to back up into the playing fields. * It was pointed out as an example that with the dike system around the pond that if water reached the top of the dike that the area would be holding some 45 acre feet or 4 times the amount of water going into the ditch, which is a reality to an unlikely extreme. At this time the discussion was opened for questions, which included some of the following: Has the drainage system been adequately designed for Phases II and III? INFORMATION MEETING PAGE 4 Thore explained that the actual design of the detention pond/storm sewer system will be designed and calculated so that it will be able to handle the storm water run-off. It was also pointed out the definition of a WO year storm is 6 inches of rain in 24 hours. * Harry Welter, Mayor of St. Michael expressed his City`s concern regarding the impact of the City of Albertville"s water on Regal Creek which runs through their corporate boundaries and asked what assurance they have that there will not be problems further down the road? Again it was pointed out that by the use of the detention pond the rate - of discharge will not change, therefore the City of Michael should not receive any additional water from the City of Albertville. It was pointed out that the basis for this statement relys on the fact that the County ditch system is cleaned and is being maintained properly by the County Board, because it falls under their jurisdiction. * The question was asked regarding how the water would be controlled? Thore explained that the control for such a structure will be done by placing a culvert in at the bottom of the pond which would then let the water out at a prescribed rate. It was pointed out that there would bP no gate valve located on the outlet to allow water to be released at a faster rate then allowed. INFORMATION MEETING PAGE 5 Someone asked what the differences in elevations would be between the County ditch, the detention pond and the tops of the dikes? The floor of the ditch appears to be at an elevation 944 feet above sea level, the base of the pond would be constructed at approximately 946 feet above sea level and the tops of the dikes would be about 3 or 4 feet higher then the pond (or approximately 952 feet above sea level). The concern was expressed that work would be done and the other land owners would not know anything about it. Arlyn Nelson, County Commission, stated that under the proceedings of ditch law, any time work is done on a County ditch that the beriefitting property owners must receive notice of improvement. So those present, who are on the County ditch have the assurances that they will be aware of what is happening. * Someone questioned who would be responsible for cleaning out the ditch? It was pointed out that the City has no control over the cleaning of a County ditch, that it would be the responsibility of the Board to arrange for the cleaning and that work would be assessed back to the benefitting property owners once a Redetermination of Finding had been completed. INFORMATION MEETING PAGE 6 At this time Thore reminded everyone that the original purpose for ditches were to RECLAIM lands for farming that without proper drainage would not be tillable. He also pointed out that these ditches were designed so that they followed the natural drainage ways, therefore not disrupting the laws of nature. And under current practices the ditches are also used for drainage outlet storm water, without the benefit of clear Statutory language to define what is acceptable practices. One of the parties present pointed out that in fact the ditch is not draining properly because of not being cleaned out. It appears that the last time the ditch was cleaned out was in 1983. Arlyn Nelson pointed out that the County does not go forth with ditch cleaning unless it is requested by those that will benefit from the work. There was some questions regarding the City`s sewer system and whether or not the storm water run-off could go through those lines? It was explained that the WESTWIND project would be serviced with City sewer and water, but that it is not allowable under Minnesota Pollution (control Agency regulations to discharge storm water run-off into the sewer system. INFORMAT TON MEETING:, PAGE 7 At this time City staff went through the materials which were handed out to the participates in the meeting. The packet included the following: 1. A letter from Mr. George Yankoupe of John -George, Inc. discussing the platting of WESTWIND (Phase I) and its impact on County Ditch Number 9.; 2. A letter from Meyer-Rohlin Engineers -Land Surveyors which provides the findings for the basis of the Yankoupe letter; 3. A portion of the minutes of the' , �L iti�/ l/ 1988 County Board minutes regarding the City of Albertville's assurance that to take full liability/responsibility for findings of the Engineer with regards to the impact of Phase I on County Ditch Number 9; and 4. The City of Albertville"s RESOLUTION RELATING TO SURFACE WATER IN WESTWIND DEVELOPMENT, which provides written assurance that the City of Albertville does indeed warrant the findings of the City Engineer and will accept liability and responsibility resulting from surface water drainage from proposed development as such development (first phase) impacts on Ditch Number 9. The resolution provides additional assurances that as a condition of further development, the developer will need to join in a process which will include the interested parties (i.e. the City, Wright County, the drainage authority and the owners of benefitte.,d landowners) to address the impact of Phases II and III, including INFORMATI(__V MEETING PA(AE 8 physical facilities, costs and other matters relatingto the proper and appropriate resolution of the drainage and discharge of surface waters into Ditch Number 9. At this time Bob Miller, the City Attorney, addressed the City"s standing on this issue. lie pointed out that the Council supports the findings of the Engineer and passed the resolution regarding this matter as the vote of confidence in the findings. He pointed out that the City has never taken the stand that a petition for outlet should riot be filed and in fact set forth assurances that prior to any future platting being approved that the City will n proceed undt:r the Statutory regulations for completing the process. The representative of the City of St. Michael stated that if their City was not satisfied with the solutions presented that they would be forced to stop the water from draining through Regal Creek. He stated that no one had ever approached then, to see if they approved of the drainage plan. It was agairi pointed out that the development of WESTWIND does not change the natural drainage flow but rather changes the rates at which the water runs, but that through the controls established through the evening's discussionP. shfuld not YLave any adverse impact on the people downstream of the development. It was questioned whether or not the City of St. Michael was attempting to stxjp Alhertvill'e from developing through the process of tying the drainage issue up. 'There was no real crAment back in response to this statement. INFORMATION MEETING PAGE 9 At this time Bob Miller pointed out that the City of Albertville has ordered a feasibility report on the storm water drainage plan for the undeveloped areas of the City. It is the City's intent to use the findings of this study to determine which is the best outlet for storm water run-off. In an effort to summarize the issue at hand, Bob reviewed with the parties present that the project (Phase I) is on the table, the engineering studies no adverse impact on Ditch 9, the City has agreed to take the responsibility for Phase I and the City is currently undertaking the study for future storm water drainage. He asked what more needed to be done or said before the County and the land owners had enough assurances that the City is working in the best interest of those involved. Bob also explained that all communities are faced with the problem of what to do with storm water and that in most situations the problems can be resolved without hurting anyone. Some other questions that where brought up included: Who would maintain the detention pond? The group was informed that it would be part of the City's general maintenance program. The group was also informed that when the pond is drained dry that the City will keep the area mowed so not to effect the detention pond storage space. I NFORMAT ICON MERT I NG PAGE 10 * Someone commented on whether or not that meant the farmers would be doubled taxes? It was explained that the maintenance of storm sewer systems is a regular maintenance item which makes up part of the tax levy. It was pointed out that the development will generate additional tax dollars which in effect will compensate for any additional costs. * Someone asked if the City was planning on lining the base of the detention pond in the same fashion as the Waste Water Treatment Facility was lined? It was explained that there was no reason to go to that expense because the purpose of that liner is keep from contaminating the soils. Storm water run-off does not need to be separated and treated before discharging. Again the purpose of the detention pond was explained, that the reason for this type of system is to provide for short-term storage of water until the ditch or the ground around the ponds can take on the water. It was also pointed out that detention ponds are used in most cities and are accepted as a standard method of storm water removal. At this point someone expressed their concern that this issue has been taking place without anyone knowing about it. In an effort to clarify what has happened up to this point, Arlyn Nelson presented a chronology of events. INFORMATION MEETING PAGE 11 1. County Officials noticed that Preliminary Plat for the entire WESTWIND project showed outlet of water into County Ditch Number 9. 2. Representatives of the City and the Developer met with the County Board to explain the proposal and attempted to come up with a solution which would be satisfactory to all those involved. 3. Arlyn Nelson called to order the meeting of the County Ditch 9 committee to review with them the issue of WESTWIND. This meeting was held at the Frankfort Town Hall. 4. The City and the developers met again with the County Board to discuss and update them on the events to date. It was at this meeting that the City Attorney gave the City's assurance that Albertville would take the responsibility of liability with regards to the impact of Phase I on the County ditch. 5. The City of Albertville passed the resolution supporting the Attorney's assurances. 6. A meeting was held at the WESTWIND site with the County Ditch 9 Committee, Arlyn Nelson , City representatives and the developers to see hands on the effects to the ditch. It was at this meeting the City agreed to host the informational meeting. 7. The Information meeting was held. INFORMATION MEETING PAGE 12 Arlyn pointed out that in order to stop the work from being done, the County wrAild have to prove harm is being done from the result of the improvement. There would have to a different finding of fact that the Engineer report is incorrect and that these costs would have to be borne by those on the ditch. It was her feeling that, this was riot necessary. Bob Miller again stated that the City realizes that, Ftta;r II and ilT have potential impact on the ditch and agree- that b�:fore. any work is done with regards to these phases that the ditch issue will have to be resolved. He preF•sed the rx)int, that this is required in the statute, as. well [K-ing responsible as a City. He stated that this was probably just the: begirinIng in the way rrjetirngrs n-sgarding this issue and that the City will rrN,ve i:autiO�u;-;ly in making any decisions. At this point Bob asked that, the matter rx--- wraIT)r%J up by a si.tEp-�rt; of confidence in the findings of the meeting. He asked that anyone- strongly opposer] to the idea indicate it by a Fibow of hands. The notes should Lhow that only one person raised their hand. There were no other comments so the meeting adjourned. darkenwald, inc. Industrial and Commercial Real Estate Nwip� `67 N.E. River Road .K River, Minnesota 55330 (612)411-3700 June 8, 1988 Wright County Auditor Wright County Courthouse Buffalo, MN 55312 Dear Si r, John George Inc. entirely by John is now the owner in the Southeast Section 2-120-24. prior to Becker. darkenwald REAL ESTATE Re: Plat. of Westwind, City of Albertville Coilnty Di tch #9 is a Minnesota Business Corporation that is owned F. Darkenwa.ld and George W. Yankoupe. The corporation of the former Mike Becker farm consisting of 105 acres 1/4 of Section 35-121-24 and the Northeast 1/4 of The Clemens Dehmers Estate was the -owner of the farin The portion of the farm within the County 9 ditch watershed was assessed for benefits when the ditch was first constructed. 'rhe farm was also included in the 1983 assessment. An 18 acre portion of the farm was recently platted as Westwind. The plat lies entirely within the City of Albertville. It is unlikely that the platted area would use the existing Ditch 9 as an outlet since the storm drainage outlet for the portion of the plat that drains to the South would outlet onto relatively flat land at a distance of approximately 1760' from County Ditch 9. (cf. attached Engineer report dated May 31, 1988) When, if and as subsequent platting and development otters on the lands immediately west and south of the plat of Westwind, it may become rieQwssary to use Ditch 9 as an outlet for storm drainage. We would like to therefore suggest that appropriate county representatives meet with our engineer to determine to what extent if any, it would be necessary to use Ditch 9 as an outlet. Based on their findings we would then be in position to file an outlet petition and have the matter determined by the County Board in a timely fashion before subsequent development occurs. We are prepared to meet with you and the County Board in order to expedite handling of this matter. Sinter ly, r� Ger) ge W. YankQlipe — CAPT CEC USH ET) Professional En ineer MEMBER MINNEAPOLIS BOARD OF REALTORS MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. 31NEERS-LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn.55313 Phone 612- 682-1781 May 31, 1988 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The former Becker farm located in the southwest corner of County Roads 19 and 37, Albertville, Minnesota, is currently being developed into proposed single-family residential, multiple -family residential, and commercial properties, to be known as Westwind Development. Concerns have been expressed regarding the impact of this development upon County Ditch No. 9, as it currently exists within the city of Albertville, Minnesota. County Ditch No. 9 starts approximately i mile south of County Road #37 and approximately I mile west of County Road #19, and flows in a southerly direction. The existing conditions of County Ditch #9 are not conducive to a proper drainage flow. Stagnant water now stands approximately 2 feet deep in the upper reaches of the ditch. Obviously the lower reaches of County Ditch #9 and the outlet ditches (County Ditch #21 and Regal Creek) need cleaning to provide proper operation. Phase I of the Westwind Development includes 52 single-family residential lots and 4 multiple residential lots. The drainage of the multiple lots is to the north, away from County Ditch #9. The 52 single-family residential lots will drain to the south and outlet onto overland flow approximately one-third of a mile from the start of County Ditch #9. Considering the condition of the existing County Ditch #9, the long distance of overland flow at a very flat gradient and the restricted outlet of the Phase I drainage, we would expect no appreciable impact upon County Ditch #9. At the time of the development of Phases II and III (the single-family residential portion only), a detention pond can be constructed, if deemed necessary. The proposed multiple residential and commercial areas of Phase II and III are designed to flow to the north and not included in the County Ditch #9 watershed. Respectfully submitted, MEY ROHLIN, INC. hore Meyer sl cc: Darkenwald Real Estate City of Albertville Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Licensed Land Surveyor -Ecnillewaert to appoint Dr. Ronald Brown as Wright County Coroner. JV == as f Z)l l ows : Mc.Al p i ne, Schillewaert , Engstrom - Aye. Nel son ,"lotion carried 7-1. C.J. Arlien, Auditor/Treasurer, presented agenda items at 9:05 A.M. lengthy discussion evolved on the Albertvilla City "'.Jest wind" pig_ .t=m and its impact on County Ditch #9 with many interested-4 aarti=s attendants. Thore Meyer, as spok.esr,,an, noted that since their or_viZu_ County Board appearance on May 'rd, they have completed calculations and have submitted a letter to the developer and the City of Albertville analyzing their findings and their feeling that ,-;er- wi 1 1 be no impact on County Ditch #9 from Phase 1. He added that -Ni -Phases II & III they may have to consider a detention pond, so they would like some direction from the Board today. Nelson commented that the main issue is whether or not all systems are going to be able to accommodate the kind of water runoff from this size development in the wet years of the future as well as tie present dry years. Arlien said he had suggested to the developer at the recent meeting at the Town Hal: to submit a Petition Tor an outlet for Ditch #9 similar- to the situaticr, with Ditch #20 in Maple Lake a few yr-ars ago. MacPhai 1 commented that he left that meeting thinking they would be submitting a petition as a form of cooperation to handle the situation, but no petition was filed. He added that they maintain it would have no impact on the ditch, and if the County finds that to be true, perhaps we do not have a prcbl=,n. He said it should be made clear that any future development may result in delay and inconvenience to the developer and the impac-L becc,nes ireater on Ditch #9. George Yank:oupe, representing t;-A made several statements Clarifyingdeveloper _ the ob ject: ve of all three phases of the project. McAlpine commented thy*. the County is fully responsible for a County ditch. MaLPhail said the County simply mans ditches. Po�� Mil 1 er, legal counsel for the City the `y of Albert �i 1 ie, made the state,.:ent that the City would warrant to the County Board that should the data represented by their Engineer prove not to be true, the City would accept full liability%responsibility. the stated that she would like the opportunity to convene a meeting of that local group of people who have had a historic interest in Ditch #9 including the people of St. Michael. Nelson then moved to table any further discussion about County Ditch #9,and the Westwind Plat until next weel:: providing an opportunity tc meet wi _h the puopl e of both Ditches 9 ?,. ^1 and the people of the St. Michael area. McAlpine seconded the motion and it carried unanimously by those present. Arlien presented the Board with a copy of a Resolution adopted by Ottertail County urging that Wright County consider a similar resolution voicing objection to the 1988 tax law and requesting their legislators to repeal that law and work for meaningful and effective property ta:: reform. Arlien 'said he was not asking for action on it today. He recommended they review it for a week and he will place it on the agenda again next week. a motion by McAlpine, seconded by Schillewaert, all present voted to -pprove the application for Game & Fish Agent for the Clearwater Travel Plaza, Clearwater, MN. Paul Jordan, Woodland Township resident, met with the Board to request approval of an easement on Section 12 in the area of the County Park to construct a bridge on the property. Arlien said the matter way -i==,4 CITY 0! ALB ERTVILLLE Resolution No. f� RESOLUTION RELATING TO SURFACE WATER IN WESTVIND DEVELOPMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Albertville, County of Wright, State of Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the developers of that certain residential and commercial development in the City of Albertville, commonly known as the "Westwind Development" have recorded the plat of the first phase of the project; said plat designated as "Westwind". Z. That Meyer-Rohlin, Inc., the Engineers for the City of Albertville, have reported to this Council that the proposed drainage plan for surface water for the first phase of the development has no appreciable impact on Drainage Ditch No. 9. That for subsequent phases (sometimes designated Phases II and III) the developers propose to construct a retention pond to accommodate drainage of surface waters from that part of the project flowing in a generally southerly direction. 3. That the Board of Commissioners for Wright County have expressed concern as to -"the impact of the Westwind Development on Drainage Ditch No. 9. This Council represents to the County Board of Wright County that should the data represented by the City Engineer prove not to be true (that there is no appreciable Impact on Drainage Ditch No. 9 from the development of the Westwind Plat), that the City would accept liability and responsibility resulting from surface water drainage from the proposed development as such development (first phase) impacts on Drainage Ditch No. 9, 4. That the City shall require as a condition for the further development of the Westwind project, that the developers join in a process which shall involve the City, Wright County, the drainage authority and owners of the benefitted land for Ditch No. 9, to address the impact of Phases II and III (or subsequent phases involved in the development of the Westwind project), including physical facilities, costs and other matters relating to the proper and appropriate resolution of the drainage and discharge of surface waters into Drainage Ditch No. 9. 5. Thai the City Administrator is hereby directed to -1- present to the Board of Commissioners of Wright County and to the developers a copy of this Resolution. Adopted this 11f day of _��__�_,,_______0 1988. Mayor ATTBS T s , 1 i I Ads inistrator/City Clerk (SEAL) I, Maureen Andrews, being the duly appointed Administrator/City Clark of the City of Albertville, hereby certify that the above Resolution is a true and correct copy of a Resolution relating to surface waters of Westwind Project, duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Albertville, Minnesota, the ' day of ___ .......1 1988. r - (SEAL) Maure n Andrews Administrator/City Clerk J -Z-