1996-11-04 CC Agenda/PacketLl
0
•
AT ,BERT T I LLE CITY I L
AGENDA
November 4, 1996
7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/ADOPT
(Mayor/Clerk/Council)
AGENDA
7:05 2. MINUTES (Co,, )
a. Regular City Council J:ieeting - uctober 7, 1>''_-b
b. Special Council Meeting - October 21, 1996
7 :10 4. AUDITING CLAIMS , o;u-jcjl )
7:15 5. CITIZEN FORUM - i0 Minute Limit
7 : 2 5 0 . CONSENT AGENDA [ * ] (council,,
a.
Financial Statement - October
b.
Follow Up Sheet - October 7, 1996, meeting
C.
Department Report - October
d.
WWTF Operation Report September 1996 (PSG)
e.
J^ipprove 1991 Fire Protection Agreements wit City of
Otsego ($12,243.47) and City of St. Michael
($19,017.77)
f.
Approve Jones Intercable request for Franchise
negotiations (franchise renewal date 9/14/99)
g.
Establish special meeting to canvass election on
November 6, 1996, at 12:00 Noon
h.
Establish special meeting to approve bond sale for
CSAH 37/19 Intersection Realignment and North
Frontage Road Sanitary Sewer Extension Projects on
November 25, 1996, at 7:00 PM
i.
Accept JR`s Appiiance J�-Lsposai inc. repor : :l Clean
ui-, Lay
�.
"approve illcrea-e ates _L L);; `ur ingtoil
`northern for the City Park and parking lot
amount of $16,08b.Uiti
1.
JJMCIT insurance "FiL> anlage L ..:_t' daietor�
..v :;oclates)
'. uU11tY He:SOiU'L1ur1 4)b- 4 60.1-a 'eN a: iC
Rat,_ Change
i l.
A p p r t f \
i997 in the amount of S;>3,40;
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Jtiliit7g ii.ems
1; Oiilp t'l afl - K.__ . i eT tjr ec 1,l US if
Ordinance #1996-21.) (AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ThE CITY ` v LOIv 1Id 7 L" 1V1
AMENDMENT)
i) Ordinance iAN OI DIiiAiiC;L RI::.� ikiL)TT, 1.1
INTERIM (MORATORIUM) ORDINANCr AI;D ITS
EX`."ENSIC?iV (C kfii. Axl: E [OLd_flanceu
1996-8] CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT ANL
CONS`IRU�.`1'.T_OI1 OF ' W0-IIAM�lL`1 i>"i1 Lii'GS 1,41, N THr
R-3 ZONING DISTRICT),
b. City Engineer
1) Schany Enterprises Grading Permit
2) Kenco's Parkside 4th Addition Grading Permit
3) Update on Projects
C. Approve EAW Negative Declaration Minneapolis Factory
Shoppes (JMJ Properties)
d. Shared Roads Agreement with City of Otsego and City
of St. Michael
e. Cedar Creek Golf Course & Housing Project (Golf
ComYdttee)
f . Ditch Maintenance - Quote (Fehr Excavating)
• 8:30 8. NEW BUSINESS
a. Complaint regarding JPB hydrant flushing p ocedures
b. Resolution #1996-63 - Resolution Authorizing
Springsted Incorporated to Negotiate the S3ale cf
Approximately $400,000 General Obligation Tax
Increment Bona—, , Se_ fes i996=', (uob 3'iiisL c
. COUNCIL REPORTS (c�urlci l
d iDV CTTZ. 11 IATT
•
ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
November 4, 1996
Albertville City Hall 7:00 PM
PRESENT: Mayor Michael Potter, Councilmembers Curt Muyres,
Duane Berning, John Vetsch, and Sharon Anderson, City Administrator
Garrison Hale, City Clerk Linda Houghton, City Engineer Peter
Carlson, City Attorney Mike Couri, Financial Advisor Bob Thistle
Mayor Potter called the regular meeting of the Albertville
City Council to order.
The agenda was amended as follows:
Add Item 8c - Discussion on salt supply storage
Delete Item 7d - Shared Roads Agreement with the Cities of St.
Michael and Otsego
Delete Item 7e - Cedar Creek Golf Course & Housing Project
Move Item 8b - Place item 8b after Auditing Claims
Anderson made a motion to approve the agenda as amended.
Berning seconded the motion. All voted aye.
The minutes of the October 21, 1996, meeting were amended on
Page 3 at Paragraph 3 to read "Bernard Vetsch" rather than "Marvin
Vetsch" and at Paragraph 7 to read "to deny having a fire hall lot
survey".
Anderson made a motion to approve the minutes of the October
7, 1996, meeting as presented and to approve the minutes of the
October 21, 1996, meeting as amended. Muyres seconded the motion.
All voted aye.
Vetsch made a motion to pay the claims (Check #'s 10503 -
10535) as presented. Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Bob Thistle of Springsted, Inc. presented a proposed $400,000
bond issue for the Council to consider. Proceeds from the bond
will be used to finance the 1996 North Frontage Road Sanitary Sewer
Extension and the CSAH 19/37 Intersection Realignment Projects.
The bond will be a 10-year issue, callable after seven years.
Thistle explained that the issue is relatively small and the
market is flooded with bond issues at this time of year. He
believes this issue will not be able to be sold at a low interest
rate. Therefore, he recommended that the issue be negotiated with
several banks as a smaller issue to achieve a better interest rate.
City Attorney Couri explained that the City will be using
$100,000 of reserved capital projects funds toward the project and
will hold an additional $100,000 of those funds to pay for any
excess costs that arise from the CSAH 19/37 project. Should the
City find they do not need the extra capital, those funds can be
applied toward prepayment of the bond.
ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
November 4, 1996
Page 2 of 5
Muyres made a motion to adopt RESOLUTION #1996-63 titled
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THE
SALE OF APPROXIMATELY $400,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT
BONDS, SERIES 1996A and, further, to authorize Springsted to
negotiate a shorter call date if possible. Berning seconded the
motion. All voted aye.
Mayor Potter brought up that Springsted, Inc, can do a
"Sensitivity Plan" for the City to adopt. Thistle estimated the
cost would be $500-$1,000, but he agreed to provide a definite
quote for the Council to consider.
No one present wished to address the Council under Community
Forum.
Item 6f (Approving the Jones Intercable request for franchise
negotiations) was removed from the consent agenda at the suggestion
of the administrator, who pointed out the 1999 renewal dat and the
rapid technology changes may challenge the concept of exclusive
franchises.
Vetsch made a motion to approve the Financial Statement for
October as presented. Berning seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Vetsch made a motion to approve the Follow Up Sheet from the
October 7, 1996, meeting as presented. Berning seconded the
motion. All voted aye.
Vetsch made a motion to approve the October Department Report
as presented. Berning seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Vetsch made a motion to approve fire contracts with the City
of Otsego in the amount of $12,243.47 and with the City of St.
Michael in the amount of $19,017.77. Berning seconded the motion.
All voted aye.
Vetsch made a motion to approve the September 1996 WWTF
Operation Report as presented. Berning seconded the motion. All
voted aye.
Vetsch made a motion to establish a special meeting to canvass
the election on November 6, 1996, at 12:00 noon. Berning seconded
the motion. All voted aye.
Vetsch made a motion to establish a special meeting to approve
the bond sale for CSAH 19/37 Intersection Realignment and North
Frontage Road Sanitary Sewer Extension Projects on November 25,
1996, at 7:00 PM. berning seconded the motion. All voted aye.
ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
November 4, 1996
Page 3 of 5
Vetsch made a motion to accept JR's Appliance Disposal report
from the City's Clean Up Day conducted September 21, 1996, as
presented. Berning seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Vetsch made a motion to approve the increase in lease rates
established by Burlington Northern Railroad for the City Park
areas. Berning seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Vetsch made a motion to accept the Piper -Jaffrey Settlement
payment of $16,085.09. Berning seconded the motion. All voted
aye.
Vetsch made a motion to accept the memo from the City's
Insurance Agent Arlan Middleton explaining the Fire Damage Limit in
the City's insurance policy. Berning seconded the motion. All
voted aye.
Vetsch made a motion to receive Wright County Resolution #96-
54 titled Solid Waste Compost Rate Change. Berning seconded the
motion. All voted aye.
Vetsch made a motion to approve the LMCIT Workers'
Compensation rates for 1996-1997 in the amount of $3,407. Berning
seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Mayor Potter removed himself from the Council at 7:40 PM to
avoid a potential conflict of interest.
Frank Svoboda of Svoboda Ecological Resources was present to
explain the EAW process for the Minneapolis Factory Shoppes.
Muyres made a motion approving the Findings of Fact stating
that there is a negative impact and directing staff to prepare a
resolution stating that the Council finds that an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the Minneapolis Factory Shoppes is not
necessary. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Mayor Potter returned to the City Council to continue the
duties as mayor at 8:03 PM.
The Council reviewed and discussed a memo from City Planner
David Licht regarding the 60th Street area housing issue related to
B-4, R-3 and R-1 zoning.
Anderson made a motion to adopt ORDINANCE #1996-23 titled AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE #1988-12 (MAP
�-. AMENDMENT) rezoning the 60th Street residential area to R-1
(Residential District - Single Family). Potter seconded the
motion. Anderson, Potter, Berning, and Vetsch voted aye. Muyres
voted no. The motion carried and Ordinance #1996-23 was adopted.
ALBERTVILLE CITY COLNCIL
November 4, 1996
Page 4 of 5
Berning made a motion to adopt ORDINANCE #1996-22 titled AN
ORDINANCE RESCINDING THE INTERIM (MORATORIUM) ORDINANCE AND ITS
EXTENSION (ORDINANCE 1995-12 AND 1996-8) CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT
AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS WITHIN THE R-3 ZONING
DISTRICT. Vetsch seconded the motion. All voted aye.
City Engineer Pete Carlson reviewed the grading plan submitted
by Schany Enterprises for his site along 62nd Street and
receommended approval of a grading permit.
Anderson made a motion to approve a grading permit for Schany
Enterprises. Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Carlson reviewed the grading plan as proposed for the Parkside
4th Addition and recommended approval of a grading permit.
Anderson made a motion to approve a grading permit for
Parkside 4th Addition. Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Carlson updated the Council on other projects in the City as
follows:
(1) Carlson has received a permit from Burlington Northern
Railroad to allow the City to lower the culvert under the tracks by
Sunrise Plumbing. the work will be started in the spring.
(2) The streets in Parkside 3rd Addition have curb and class
5 gravel installed but have not all been paved at this time. Due
to the wet conditions, completion may not be possible until spring.
(3) Easements must be secured in the Greenhaven Addition to
correct the drainage problems. The administrator will contact the
property owners to secure approval for an easement.
(4) The North Frontage Road Sanitary Sewer Extension Project
is complete except the final road work.
(5) Carlson reviewed the letter he has sent to MPCA regarding
the phosphorus removal problem at the WWTF.
The Council reviewed and accepted the quote from Dennis Fehn
Gravel & Excavating Inc. to clean approximately 300 feet of ditch
along 70th Street, to clean approximately 600 feet of the ditch
along County Road 19 to the lake, and to clean approximately 100
feet of ditch between the lakes. Funding for the project will be
from the Storm Water Revenues Fund.
Anderson made a motion directing the engineer and the
administrator to view the ditches to determine which should be
cleaned and authorizing the expenditure of up to $2,000 from the
Storm Water Revenue Fund to clean those areas. Berning seconded
the motion. All voted aye.
The Council reviewed a complaint regarding hydrant flushing
procedures used by the Joint Powers Maintenance Department. Mayor
ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
November 4, 1996
Page 5 of 5
Potter explained that he brought the complaint to the attention of
the Joint Powers Board at the October meeting. Staff was directed
to send a letter to the individual who registered the complaint
explaining what had happened.
Councilmember Vetsch was concerned that the salt mixture has
been placed in the back of the Public Works building again this
year creating an eyesore for the surrounding businesses, as well as
creating a leeching problem.
Mayor Potter asked the Council to consider canceling the "For
Sale" listing on the EDA/Fire Hall lot because of a potential EDA
project trade situation that benefits both the City and an
established local business. The Council would like a legal opinion
on cancellation of the listing and will address the question at the
December meeting.
Anderson made a motion to adjourn at 8:35 PM. Muyres seconded
the motion. All voted aye.
A",;w
Michaef Potter,
Mayor
C77L,t��--
Lin a Houghton, Clem
UPCOMING M= I NGS / IMPORTANT DATES
November
5
General
Election Polls Open
7:00 AM to 8:00
PM
Novembei
7
Canvass
the Election Meeting
12:00
Noon
November
12
Regular
Planning & Zoning Commission
Cancelled
November
19
Special
P&Z Commission (Comp
Plan Workshop)
7:00IM
November
25
Finance
Committee Meeting
5:30 EM
November
25
Special
City Council Meeting
(Springsted)
7:00H4
November
25
Joint Powers Board
7:30 EM
November
27
Staff Meeting
9:00 PM
December
2
Regular
City Council Meeting
7:00IM
December
3
Trutr in Taxation Hearing
7:00 24
December
10
Regular
Planning & Zoning Meeting
7:0024
December
16
Special
City Council Meeting
(if needed)
7:00 21
December
30
Special
City Council Meeting
(Year -End)
7:00 IM
January 6
Regular
City Council Meeting
7:00 PM
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
October 2 - October 31, 1996
Beginning Cash Balance October 31, 1996
INCOME (October 2 - October 31)
Beer Permits
10.00
Building Permits
27,242.72
Donations
1,429.80
Fire Aid
10,985.00
Impound Fees
37.00
Interest
808.45
Liquor Licenses
4,050.00
Loan Payment - Fraser
689.06
Piper Jaffrey Stlmt.
16,085.09
Police Aid
3,332.00
Recycling Incentive
1,122.25
Reimburse -Clean Up Day
450.00
Sewer/Storm Water
38,310.31
Special Assessment
8,730.54
Title Search
20.00
Miscellaneous
15.00
TOTAL INCOME
EXPENSES (Oct. 1 - Oct. 31)
Check #10439-10482
(Approved 10/7/96) 71,516.29
Preapproved Checks 26,908.64
(List Attached)
TOTAL EXPENSES
Ending Cash Balance October 31, 1996
113,362.22
98,424.93
$163,830.19
$178,767.48
INVESTMENTS:
CD #9226 - Alb. Development Corp. matures 11/3/96
CD #10412 - matures 12/27/96
CD #10190 - matures 3/1/97 @ 5.4%
CD #10203 - matures 3/29/97 @ 5.4%
Dain Bosworth Investments (9/30/96)
TOTAL INVESTMENTS
Money Markey Savings Acct. (9/30/96)
7,202.87
14,310.65
121,443.91
404,451.33
1,301,116.10
$1,84.8,524.86
$3 42 , 87 3.10
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
PREAUTHORIZED CHECKS ISSUED
October 7 - October 31, 1996
Check No.
Vendor
Reason
Amount
Payroll 10/11/96
P1694
Gary
997.01
P1695
Linda
826.40
P1666
Ken
897.01
10483
AT & T
Long Distance
27.50
10484
City of Monticello
Animal Boarding
180.00
10485
NSP
Service
2,433.30
10486
Norwest
Fiscal Agent Fees
87.50
10487
PERA
9/27 - 10/11
343.73
10488
Steve's Lawn & Snow
Sept/Oct
282.50
10489
USCM MIdwest
Payroll Deduction
92.00
10490
Precision Auto Repair
Chevy Engine
2,819.06
10491
VOID
10492
VOID
Payroll Ending 10/25/96
P1697
Gary
997.01
P1698
Linda
832.40
P1699
Ken
897.01
October Council & Commissions
P1700
Sharon Anderson
161.61
P1681
Duane Berning
106.20
P1682
LeRoy Berning
18.47
P1683
Jim Brown
18.47
P1684
Rod Fraser
18.47
P1685
Howrd Larson
18.47
P1686
Curt Muyres
106.20
P1687
Mike Potter
170.85
P1688
Pete Scherer
18.47
P1689
Donatus Vetsch
18.47
P1690
John Vetsch
161.21
10493 Delta Dental Group Insurance 102.15
10494 Medica Group Insurance 829.25
10495 Minnegascc
10496 Monticello Animal Control
10497 PERA Life Insurance
10498 PERA
10499 PSG
10500 Sprint/United Telephone
10501 USCM Midwest
10502 Wr. Co. Sheriff
Service
98.71
September 96
51.00
Payroll Deduction
12.00
10/12 - 10/25
343.73
November 96
7 ,519.16
Service
312.17
Payroll Deduction
92.00
September
5,018.75
TOTAL
$26,908.64
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
BILLS TO BE PAID
November 4, 1996
Check
No. Vendor
Reason
Amount
10503
Affordable Sanitation
2 month service
351.45
10504
Barthel Masonry
Westwind Park
409.00
10505
Business Records Corp.
Coding Primary
544.00
10506
CarQuest
Supplies
49.87
10507
Crysteel
Plow Pin Assembly
23.51
10508
DJ's Heating & A/C
Fire Hall
144.06
10509
DJ's Total Home Care
Supplies
228.82
10510
Emergency Medical Prod.
Fire Dept. Supplies
185.42
10511
Fehn Excavating
Westwind Park
12,905.00
10512
First Trust
86 GO Sewer/Water
24,173.75
10513
Linda Houghton
Mileage
8.70
10514
LMCIT
Insurance Polices
21,499.00
10515
Larson Publications
Legal Notices
250.78
10516
LMC
Annual Membership
1,330.00
10517
Ken Lindsay
Mileage
27.76
10518
LMCIT
Workers' Comp
3,407.00
10519
Lyle Nagel Co., Inc.
Appraisals
3,000.00
10520
Minnegasco
Service
11.00
10521
Newman Traffic Signs
No Glass in Parks
53.25
10522
NAC, Inc.
Planning Services
1,940.92
10523
Norwest
90 G.O. Imp. Bond
47,008.75
10524
Office Max
Office Supplies
171.26
10525
City of Otsego
Grading
318.75
10526
Pat's 66
Gas
41.57
10527
Post Office
Postage for Machine
450.00
10528
Radzwill & Couri
October Legal
3,844.50
10529
Springsted
JMJ Properties
2,192.00
10530
Sunrise Plumbing
Unplug Drain
60.00
10531
Sunshine Lawn Service
Winterize Sprinkler
'75.00
10532
Vetsch Custom Cabinets
Tables
1,070.33
10533
Donatus Vetsch
Mileage - CMIF
56.84
10534
Weber Oil Company
Diesel Fuel
51.07
10535
Wr. Co. Preasurer
Tax Capacities
12.00
TOTAL BILLS $125,895.36
6,6
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
FOLLOW-UP SHEET
As of October 7, 1996
DATE ACTION TO BE TAKEN PERSON
5/95 Renumbering ordinance Staff
7/95 Personnel - Ordinance/Policies pdTurV
Ongoing OM-Azil
01/96 SAC Fee - Cash Flow Eng./
Ongoing Trunk Access Fees CMY11
04/96 JMJ Properties (Commercial) Staff
In Process
04/96 Comprehensive Park & Trail Plan P&Z/
In Process c3xxil
05/96 WWTF Planning Eng.
In Process
05/96 Sidewalk Repairs oaxxil
In Process IN Gtm.
07/96 Primary School Park/Drainage Plan Eng/
In Process Admin
8/96 CSAH 19/37 Intersection Realignment Project Staff/
In Process ctuxil
08/96 Barthel Industrial Lot (1.54 acres) EDA
08/96 N. Frontage Road Sanitary Sewer Project cbrril
In Process Eng
09/96 Secure title for water tower lot Atty/
On Hold Cbuxil
09/96 Obtain abstract and determine City costs involved Staff
In Proc. with Barthel Industrial Drive lot
09/96 Hockey Arena O�ur_il
In Process
09/96 Cedar Creek Golf Course (Center Oaks) Kenco/
In Process Comm
10/96 Peterson Property Title Atty/
In Process
9M
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 4, 1996
TO: City Council
FROM: Linda, Ken & Gary
SUBJ: City Department Report - October
The following represents work assignments status/update:
City Clerk -Treasurer
Financial Reporting Budget to Actual 1996 with reconciliation
to Bank Statement remains outstanding
Fee Ordinance based on city costs and a study of fees from the
League of Minnesota Cities and local research should be
considered. Finance Committee and administrator interested in
the City being cost effective for service delivery and
comparable cost of service for fees. Finance Committee to
review November 1996 for possible incorporation into 1997
budget
Ice arena as part of city budget
1997 Tax & Budget Levy Final
Finance Committee analyzes and recommends a plan to close
funds, transfer funds and utilize such funds.
Election 1996
Resolution for consolidating, transferring and closing funds
City Administrator/Zoning Officer
JMJ Properties (Minneapolis Factory Shoppes) has forwarded to
the City its response to the EAW. Developer and engineer
have all work completed.
Brittany Kay Estates - Developer has placed the project on
hold.
Parkside 4th Addition (Beatrice Roden property) 17 lot
subdivision concept passed preliminary plat stage. Project
will link Westwind with Parkside 3rd, provide parking spaces
for Westwind Park (at developer's cost), and eliminate
temporary lift station. Grading fall of 1996 with final work
spring 1997.
Center Oaks Development (south of Parkside 3rd) concept plan
has been revised and meets R-lA standards.
- Golf course committee has met. Results of the findings could
impact Center Oaks and Cedar Creek
Summerfield/Sylvester Kolles has prepared a concept plan.
Developers are working within concept plan requirements for
a plat.
Comprehensive Plan amendment is underway.
Senior housing - Feneis Brothers have developed a concept
plan.
D'Aigle/Balfany developments are working on final sewer/water
feasibility plan with the city engineer. Funds for the study
have been pre -deposited with the City.
MacIver Avenue may be prime candidate for closure.
Lambert, Lander and Lamont Avenues (old Hamburg Townsite)
appear to be prime candidates for turn back since use is only
to the adjacent property owners. Reserve only utility
easements. Note: CSAH 19/37 Intersection Realignment Project
has similar approach in mind.
Zoning 60th Street from R-3 to R-1 need to be completed.
- Vetsch Custom Cabinets project has been withdrawn. New
options in the works.
Cohen Companies still have no action on balance of Roden
property.
Darkenwalds want to develop but have not yet signed agreement
on CSAH 19/37 road project.
Comprehensive Parks and Trail Plan in early stages of process
Personnel Policies need to be completed and adopted by year
end 1996
P&Z Commission terms of office. Sharon Anderson is done
12/31/96 and Chair LeRoy Berning would like to retire. Need
to consider. Has been presented to P&Z on October 8th with no
action. Will be on the agenda again for November 12th.
Ordinance renumbering needs to be done
Culvert replacement has been arranged for the 70th Street
culvert.
Ditch cleaning - various locations
Public Works & Parks
- Park benches have been installed. Working on engraving.
- Snow plowing in process with a search for part-time
Maintenance Workers to operate plow and possibly help with
rink.
- Bail field ag lime scheduled for fall 1996 completion.
- City Park building needs one window replaced at a cost of
$i,100. No funds available.
- Otsego/Frankfort Road Maintenance Plan and Cooperative
Agreements
- Skateboarders continue to wax steps/curbs/benches.
- Winter maintenance - prep equipment and buildings
City Attorney
CSAH 19/37 Intersection Realignment
a) Appraisals approval and implementation
b) Bonding - action 4th Quarter 1996
c) Easements - 4th Quarter 1996 - 1st half 1997
Peterson lot title
Water tower lot title
EDA/Fire Hall lot title
Ice arena
a) Joint Powers Agreement
b) Funding Agreement
c) Operating Agreement
d) Other
Senior Housing TIF
City En ineer
- Drainage culvert under railroad tracks by Sunrise Piumbing has
received railroad permit.
- Frankfort drainage - Plan & easements for Greenhaven area
- Ice Arena - Utilities, drainage, etc.
- North Frontage Road Sanitary Sewer Project of 1996 complete
- Primary School Park - concept sketches
City Planner
Comprehensive Parks and Trails Plan -
survey/prepare/hearing/impl6mentation
Comprehensive Plan amendment for newly annexed land of
existing plan'dated 6/17/96 - prepare/hearings/implement
Developer Projects
a) Summerfield Addition review/nearing/recommendation
b) JMJ Properties
Ice arena planning/site review
City Council
- CSAH 19/37 Project - all aspects
- Resolution transferring, closing and reserving funds - needs
to be done
- 1997 Tax Levy & Budget Proposed - approval December
- Comprehensive Plan review and amendment for newly annexed
lands
Fees Schedule Ordinance - new includes review of otner city
fees as part of 1997 Tax Levy & Budget
Golf Course Committee
644
ALBERTVILLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Monthly Operations Report
September 1996
Executive Summary
Albertville met all of its NPDES permit requirements for the month of September. Average
Biochemical Oxygen Demand in the effluent was 5.3 mg/I and the average Total Suspended
Solids was 10.2 mg/l. Fecal Coliform were less than 10 MPN/100ml.
The effluent flow began to increase steadily on September 15, 1996, and returned to stable
conditions by about September 21, 1996. Professional Services Group, at its own expense,
retained investigative services on September 11, 1996, and a private investigator was placed on
surveillance the nights of September 14, 15, and 16, 1996. Nothing unusual was encountered
during this time, although interestingly flows also began to steadily increase at this time. There
have been no unusual flows since.
Operations
PSG staff, along with the City Engineer and representatives of SEH, met to discuss
phosphorous removal and how we might address the problems encountered in the Albertville
Wastewater Treatment Facility in the winter months. There was consensus about the likely
causes of the difficulty in removing phosphorous in the winter months. PSG has monitored the
dissolved oxygen level in the ponds in the past, and the dissolved oxygen level in Pond #3 drops
to 0.0 mg/I in the coldest months of ice cover. This would lend to the fact that the ice cover
prevents oxygen transfer from the atmosphere, in addition to the fact that there is no aeration
designed in the system for pond #3. The anaerobic/anoxic conditions cause phosphorous to be
released. Alum is added after the pond system, and reaction time in cold temperatures is much
slower for microorganisms and many chemicals.
Additional monitoring has been implemented to facilitate addressing the problem. Results from
the monitoring will be submitted with future reports.
Operations, in general, have been running smoothly. Effluent quality remains excellent.
Maintenance
The clarifier was pumped down for cleaning and a thorough check of all connections, nuts, bolts,
scraper clearance, large debris, and general condition of the rake mechanism and influent
baffle. All nuts and bolts were extremely loose. Parts in poor condition were replaced and
everything tightened down securely.
The aerators were serviced (greased motor, shaft, and amp readings taken).
The alum pump was rebuilt, the alum system cleaned and fittings tightened. Spare parts for the
alum pump were purchased.
The effluent flowmeter was calibrated.
The generator oil, oil filter, air filter, coolant, etc. were all changed.
Other routine maintenance work orders included servicing the sludge pump, refrigerated
samplers, control structures, and lift stations.
The influent flowmeter is still being repaired. Many calls have been made to the manufacturer
about the time it is taking to get it repaired. We were informed it was recently shipped, and we
should be receiving it to be installed mid -October.
Safe
Safety training on hearing protection was provided to staff. A safety meeting was also held to
discuss concerns and issues. It was agreed that we would conduct a training session in the
near future concerning confined space entry. A portable drinking water system will be arranged
for employee use when on -site.
RegulatoCommunications
NPDES Report.
An inspection by Del Haag of the MPCA was conducted on September 6, 1996, with Gary Hale
and the Facility Manager in attendance. A final report of the inspection has not yet been
received.
Client / Public Relations
PSG is dedicated to providing quality wastewater treatment facility operations and maintenance
to the City of Albertville. In an effort to provide for the security and integrity of the system, PSG
retained the services of a private investigations firm. At PSG's expense in the amount of $1,844,
surveillance was conducted for three consecutive nights in an effort to resolve the flow
tampering problem.
PSG donated to the Parks and Trails of the City of Albertville by sponsoring a Park Bench for
Westwind Park.
Regular communications have been maintained between PSG and Gary Hale concerning plant
operations and maintenance.
Regular contact with the City Engineer will also be maintained to facilitate planning for this
rapidly developing community and to discuss the progress with the phosphorous study.
City Council approved moving the flowmeters, hourmeters, and chart recorders to the
wastewater building. This is scheduled to be done shortly after October 14, 1996.
Financials
Financial Report reflects all activity in the budget year. The financial data does not reflect
September bills paid in October.
Appendices
NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report
Loadings Summary
Client Status Report
ALBERTVILLE WWTF LOADINGS
Contract Values & Triggers:
Ave- 0.1590 MGD
High- 0.1896 MGD
Low- 0.1264 MGD
Design: 0.3150 MGD
Ave- 307 #
High- 368 #
Low- 246 #
368 #
Ave- 197 #
High- 224 #
Low- 150 #
368 #
FLOW
12 mo
°% of
TSS
12 mo
°% of
C BOD
12 mo
°% of
.............«...
MGD
Avg.
Design
mgA
Lbs.
Avg.
Design
m A
Lbs.
Avg.Desi
n
.,...................................,
......«
g...
1995 Jan
0.151
384
483
240
302
....
Feb
0.143
285
339
194
219
Mar
0.164
288
394
191
261
Apr
0.177
99
145
92
136
May
0.172
274
392
148
212
Jun
0.163
232
315
133
181
Jul
0.152
222
281
154
195
Aug
0.174
288
418
136
197
Sep
0.165
234
322
100
138
Oct
0.161
294
395
122
164
Nov
0.163
78
106
68
92
Dec
0.156
405
527
234
304
1996 Jan
U61
0.1626
51_61%
250
336
331
89930%
175
235
195
52.87°%
Feb
0.158
0.1638
52.01 °%
433
571
350
95.16%
178
235
196
53.21 %
Mar
0.179
0.1651
52.41 %
312
466
356
96.79"%
221
330
202
54.79%
Apr
0.188
0.1660
52.70°%
336
527
388
105.43°%
131
205
207
56.36%
May
0.198
0.1682
53.39"%
388
641
409
111.05°%
169
279
213
57.87%
Jun
0.203
0.1715
54.44°%
354
599
432
117.48°%
151
256
219
59.57°%
Jul
0.161
0.1723
54.68°%
248
333
437
110.66 %
129
173
217
59.07°%
Aug
0.141
0.1695
53.81 °%
558
656
456
124.04°%
179
210
218
59.37°%
Sep "
0.141
OA675
. - 53.17%
625
735
491
133.40°%
145
171
221
60.11 °%
Oct
Nov
Dec
FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
This agreement made and entered into by and between the City of
Albertville, a municipal corporation of the County of Wright in the
State of Minnesota and the City of Otsego, in the County of Wright
in the State of Minnesota.
WHEREAS, Otsego desires the services of the fire department of
Albertville in case of fires occurring in Otsego as well as the
emergency medical services of Albertville in case of a medical
emergency, and
WHEREAS, Albertville maintains a volunteer fire department with
emergency medical response capability, which department is
available to provide fire protection and emergency medical response
services to properties located in Otsego, and
THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between said parties as follows:
1. Albertville, through its fire department, shall provide fire
protection and emergency medical response services to those
properties in Otsego lying within the areas outlined in red on
the attached map. Such fire protection and emergency medical
response services shall be provided from January 1 through
December 31, 1997.
2. Otsego shall agree to pay Albertville $12,243.47 in exchange
for the provision of fire protection and emergency medical
response services. Payment due for the year 1997 shall be
made in two installments of $6,121.74 on or before July 1,
1997, and $6,121.73 on or before December 31, 1997.
3. Albertville's obligation to provide fire protection service
and emergency medical response shall be subject to the
following:
a. If road and weather conditions at the time of the call
are such that the fire/medical run cannot be made with
reasonable safety to men and equipment, and the decision
of the Fire Chief or his Deputy in charge shall be final
in such matter, no obligation arises under this agreement
on the part of the City of Albertville to answer such
call.
1
b. In the event that a sufficient amount of the fire
fighting/medical equipment and number of volunteer
firemen, or both, are committed at the time of the fire
call, in sole judgement of the Fire Chief or his Deputy,
to fighting pre-existing fires or attending pre-existing
medical emergencies, so as to render the available
equipment and manpower inadequate to answer a fire or
medical call from Otsego, no obligation shall arise under
this agreement to answer such call, and no person or
party shall have recourse against the City of Albertville
for refusal to answer such call. A pre-existing
fire/medical emergency to which the fire department of
Albertville is called previous to receiving the call from
Otsego and which fire is still being fought or medical
emergency is still being attended to by the Albertville
fire department at the time the call from Otsego is
received.
c. In the event a fire call by Otsego is answered by
Albertville, but before the fire in question is
extinguished, the fire fighting equipment or volunteer
firemen, or both are needed to fight a fire in
Albertville or protect property in Albertville from a
fire, the Chief or his Deputy without liability therefore
to any person or to Otsego under this agreement, may in
their judgement recall the fire equipment and firemen to
Albertville for the purpose of fighting the fire in
Albertville. The judgement of the Fire Chief or his
Deputy shall be final and no person or party shall have
recourse against the City of Albertville for any damages
or losses resulting from such action or decision.
4. The parties acknowledge the fact that Albertville may enter
into similar contracts with other municipalities, and
acknowledge that Albertville has entered into mutual aid
contracts with -other fire departments in other municipalities,
and that a fire call under any such contract preceding a call
in Otsego could be a valid and reasonable basis for the
decision of the Fire Chief or his Deputy in refusing to answer
a fire call in Otsego.
5. Because the City of Albertville has heretofore entered into
mutual assistance fire fighting agreements with other
municipalities possessing fire fighting equipment and firemen,
which equipment and firemen could be called by the Chief or
his Deputy to a fire in Otsego, the City of Otsego agrees to
pay such additional cost as may be incurred thereby if in the
sole judgement of the Chief or his Deputy, such additional
fire fighting equipment and firemen are needed to fight a fire
in Otsego and are in fact called to such fire by the Chief or
his Deputy.
E
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have hereunto set their hands and
seals this day of 1996.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
By:
Michael Potter, Mayor
Attest:
Linda Houghton, City Clerk
CITY OF OTSEGO
By:
Norman Freske, Mayor
Attest:
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
3
TAX CAPACITIES FOR AREAS TO BE SERVED BY ALBERTVILLE FIRE DEPARTM
.OTSEGO
Township 121, Range 24
Section 14
Section 23
Section 24
Section 25
Section 26
Section 27
Section 34
Section 36
Total Range 24
Townships 121, Range 23
---r-ion .sv
section 31
section 32
section 33
$178,276.00
Total Range 23
$89,077.00
Total Otsego
$267 , 353. 00-
FRANKFORT
Township 120, Range 23
Section 4•
Section 5
Section 6
$120-354.00
$238,648.00
$5k an
Total Frankfort__________________________
City of Albert
ville
$1,487_,292. 00-
Albertville
Frankfort $1,487,292.
Otsego 00 0.6854120
$415,279.00 0.1913795 $68'110.7E,
-_$267,353.00 0.1232084 $19,017.77
----------------------- $12,243.47
$29169,924.00 -`--------------------
-------------- $99 , 372 .00
Part of 14-121-24
26-121-24
23-121-24
Part of 27-121-24
24-121-24
34-121-24
25-121-24
Part of,
TOTAL NET TAX CAPACITY 178,276
30-121-23
31-121-23
32-121-23
33-121-23
TOTAL NET TAX CAPACITY 89,077
TOTAL NET TAX CAPACITY 1,487,292
10/1 /96
FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
This agreement made and entered into by and between the City of
Albertville, a municipal corporation of the County of Wrighi--'in the
State of Minnesota and the City o St. Michael, in the County of
Wright in the State of Minnesota.
WHEREAS, St. Michael desires the services of the fire department of
Albertville in case of fires occurring in St. Michael as well as
the emergency medical services of Albertville in case of a medical
emergency, and
WHEREAS, Albertville maintains a volunteer fire department with
emergency medical response capability, which department is
available to provide fire protection and emergency medical response
services to properties located in St. Michael, and
THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between said parties as follows:
1. Albertville, through its fire department, shall provide fire
protection and emergency medical response services to those
properties in St. Michael. Such fire protection and emergency
medical response services shall be provided from January 1
through December 31, 1997.
2.' St. Michael shall agree to pay Albertville $19,017.77 in
exchange for the provision of fire protection and emergency
medical response services as described above. Payment due for
the year 1997 shall be made in two installments of $9,508.89
on or before July 1, 1997, and $9,508.88 on or before December
31, 1997.
3. Albertville's obligation to provide fire protection service
and emergency medical response shall be subject to the
following:
a. If road and weather conditions at the time of the call
are such that the fire/medical run cannot be made with
reasonable safety to men and equipment, and the decision
of the Fire Chief or his Deputy in charge shall be final
in such matter, no obligation arises under this agreement
on the part of the City of Albertville to answer such
call.
b. In the event that a sufficient amount of the fire
fighting/medical equipment and number of volunteer
firemen, or both, are committed at the time of the fire
call, in sole judgement of the Fire Chief or his Deputy,
to fighting pre-existing fires or attending pre-existing
medical emergencies, so as to render the available
equipment and manpower inadequate to answer a fire or
medical call from St. Michael, no obligation shall arise
under this agreement to answer such call, and no person
or party shall have recourse against the City of
Albertville for refusal to answer such call. A pre-
existing fire/medical emergency to which the fire
department of Albertville is called previous to receiving
the call from St. Michael and which fire is still being
fought or medical emergency is still being attended to by
the Albertville fire department at the time the call from
St. Michael is received.
C. In the event a fire call by St. Michael is answered by
Albertville, but before the fire in question is
extinguished, the fire fighting equipment or volunteer
firemen, or both are needed to fight a fire in
Albertville or protect property in Albertville from a
fire, the Chief or his Deputy without liability therefore
to any person or to Frankfort under this agreement, may
in their judgement recall the fire equipment and firemen
to Albertville for the purpose of fighting the fire in
Albertville. The judgement of the Fire Chief or his
Deputy shall be final and no person or party shall have
recourse against the City of Albertville for any damages
or losses resulting from such action or decision.
4. The parties acknowledge the fact that Albertville may enter
into similar contracts with other municipalities, and
acknowledge that Albertville has entered into mutual aid
contracts with other fire departments in other municipalities,
and that a fire call under any such contract preceding a call
in St. Michael could be a valid and reasonable basis for the
decision of the Fire Chief or his Deputy in refusing to answer
a fire call in St. Michael.
5. Because the City of Albertville has heretofore entered into
mutual assistance fire fighting agreements with other
municipalities possessing fire fighting equipment and firemen,
which equipment and firemen could be called by the Chief or
his Deputy to a fire in St. Michael, the City of St. Michael
agrees to pay such additional cost as may be incurred thereby
if in the sole judgement of the Chief or his Deputy, such
additional fire fighting equipment and firemen are needed to
fight a fire in St. Michael and are in fact called to such
fire by the Chief or his Deputy.
2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have hereunto set their hands and
seals this day of , 1996.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
By:
Michael Potter, Mayor
Attest:
Linda Houghton, City Clerk
CITY OF ST. MICHAEL
By:
Roxanne Packa, Mayor
Attest: _
Dawn Grossinger, uierk
3
TAX CAPACITIES FOR AREAS TO BE SERVED BY ALBERTVILLE FIRE DEPARTM
_OTSEGO
Township 121, Range 24
Section 14
Section 23
Section 24
Section 25
Section 26
Section 27
Section 34
Section 36
Total Range 24
Township) 121 u Range 23
arc; r:ion
.iv _
�
erection
31
erection
32
erection
33
Total Range 23
$178,276.00
$89,077.00
Total Otsego $267,353.00
FRANKFORT
Township 120, Range 23
Section 4-
Section 5
Section 6
$120,354.00
$238,648.00
$56,277.00
Total Frankfort $415,279.00
City of Albertville $1,487,292.00
Albertville $1,487,292.00 0.6854120 $68,110.76
Frankfort $415,279.00 0.1913795 $19,017.77
Otsego $267,353.00 0.1232084 $12,243.47
-------------------------------------
$2 ,169 , 924 .00 $99 , 372 .00
M
MIRING
4NLE>t AK•
�
cAGER
CAGE
—r,
it
GALL.ETT
•
GALLIVAN
oA11tiA41 A
'1i
!
GARRISON
0D
01
O/drrlON AWL
tp
ro
CARIYiOy AK m
o1Fs AT
D
pLBERT
7S
CILLARD
GOODRICH
HAUC
7\
N
I
ArS HALL
NALEEY AK
n1
HALSEY
HAANITON
N
NAMLIN
A
HAMLIN
HAMMOND
AtiL ,
HANSAC
HARDINGt
MAW AKIts
ISARAA AYE.
HARRINOTON
MARRA
AT%tSARRA
AK
ISSON
ICKLER
I
I
IDE
N
IDESON
N
pp
IAIRT AK
A u� T MR. �
Ion
_J
+�
7
ICEL
IHRIC
ILEfF
JA SER
JMDI AVE
JASON
JACKSCK90N
I
401I2ON
A
:i
(n WALIS
JJA
JAM1iCM O JAM sON
AVIL
JAMESAWSON
JANDEL
I
A
JAN
JANSENE
j
KApLJ01
KA►Q A
AK, KADLFR
Z
AYE.
KAEDINGKAGAN
�'
N
KAHL.
(A
Gd
con�
KAHItR K,
4h (A
�
KAHLFR
KAISER
0
co
KALENOA
I
m
KALLAND .
LA RAM
AK
KANE
C�
LA BEAUX
r
p
LAMBERT
AAt K
r—
LAMONT
RIVER
r
LANDER
_
41
N
W
LARGE
LANNON
cNll
LARABEE
WtASEE MACIM AYE.
LASAl1E
MAC10ft AYLI
MACAU
MACKENZIE
�,
S MARLOWE
MARSHALL
LA
'J
MASON
MAYEUN
o
MCAUJ3TER
MAYER
t It
TER
I
' �
MELLUM
N A
N AOS
-
NADALA
NAPI ER
NAPtER
On
NASHUA
NASON
NEED HTOR
NEEDHAM
I
NEWARK
�
OAKWOOD
O' BMAN
C
OCHOA
0' DAY
OD EAN
ODELL
OGREN
oHUND
PACKARD
Y
PADGETT
PAGE
�l1979
PALMGREN
1
PARE'w uPARK
t
O
E
PARNELL
PARRISH
i
PARSON
t
Y'
QUADAY
,1
�; }�
�
WALE
►`' 3 QUANTRELLE
i
QUAST
9 QUENROE
=
Rot QUILLEY
A
QUINCY
m
a
R i
"
�4
RADHELE
i'ORD
RAIN TELL
'
nP1
® ®
_
r
RAMWER
RAMSI.UND
RANDOLPH
in
09
}
RING
RAATH"
/
U)
/ RAWLJNGS
F
RIVER
REAGOR
�
01
cif
3t3NES iNTERCABi.=P.
...........................................................
October 9, 1996
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
City of Albertville
Attn: Linda Houghton
P.O. Box 131
Albertville, MN 55301
Re: Cable Television Franchise held by
Cable TV Fund 14-A, Ltd.
Our records indicate that the cable franchise operated by Cable TV
Fund 14-A, Ltd. ("Jones") for the City of Albertville, Minnesota (the "City") is
up for renewal September 14, 1999. Jones wishes to continue providing service
to the City for an additional renewal term. To that end, we would like to begin
informal negotiations with the City which we believe will lead to a mutually
beneficial agreement for franchise renewal.
The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 establishes ibrmal
cable television franchise renewal procedures which are to be followed in the
event a franchising authority and cable operator are unable to agree informally
upon franchise renewal. We, of course, strongly prefer to negotiate renewal
with you on an informal basis and fully believe such negotiations will be
successful. However, certain of the federal procedures must be formally
invoked by a cable operator, even if the operator expects to reach a satisfactory
renewal through informal discussions. This letter is simply intended to satisfy
that provision.
Accordingly, as provided for by Sections 626(a) through (g) of the
Cable Act, we hereby request the City commence renewal proceedings as
specified in the Cable Act. We would further agree with the City, however, to a
30 First Avenue N.E., Buffalo, MN 55313 612/682-5980
An Equal Opportunity Employer WF/HN
City of Albertville
October 9, 1996
Page 2
temporary delay of formal renewal procedures under Sections 626(a) through
(g), in order to promptly conclude our informal renewal discussions.
We look forward to meeting with you to continue our informal
discussions of franchise renewal, and to answer any questions you may have
concerning renewal.
Very truly yours,
Connie Ruth
General Manager
c: Mike Lovett
Dee Gillespie
(26187)
J,K'S Apphance D W c
8980 Jefferson Tr. W., Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077
Telephone (612) 454-9215 Fax (612) 454-8345
October 8, 1996
City of Albertville
5975 Main Ave., PO Box 9
Albertville, MN. 55301
RE: Major Appliance Recycling Statistics, 1996
Attn: Linda Houghton
City Clerk
Dear Linda,
Enclosed is the statistical data sheet showing the number of
appliances collected and processed for the 1996 Spring Cleanup
from your city.
A total of 105 appliances were recycled which represents 15,490
pounds, or (7.75)tons. Based upon the current tipping fees, this
represents a value of $515.00 in reclaimed/recycled ferrous and
non-ferrous metals. In addition, your residents saved over
$3,465.00 by utilizing the special fee rather than if they were
picked up individually at ($40.00) each. The total value of your
recycling program would then be approximately $3,980.00!!
We would like to congratulate you and your staff on a fine effort
for your community.
We would also like to personally thank you for the opportunity to
be of service. We enjoy working with you to assure you of
continued success with your white goods recycling program.
Please call (612) 454-9215, or our 1-800-358-6563 toll -free
number for assistance at any time throughout the year.
Personal regards,
rDut,��"
Ron Zeien Dutch Shults
Vice President Marketing Consultant
Encl.
pc: f ile
J-R'S .Appliance Disposal, Inc. y
89807efferson TraitWest, Inver Grove 96!grhts, MN 55077
Business (612) 454-9215 - Toff Free (800) 358-6563 - Fax (612) 454-8345
Statistical Data Showing Appliances Recycled For:
A(bertvAe City Haff
09/21 /96 To 09/21 /96
Appliances
# of Units
Pounds
Percentages
AC - Electric:
4
520
3.81%
AC - Gas:
0
0
0.00%
Dehumidifier:
5
200
4.76%
Dishwasher:
5
425
4.76%
Dryer:
16
2,080
15.24%
Freezer:
7
1,645
6.67%
Furnace:
5
875
4.76%
Garbage Disposal:
1
30
0.95%
Humidifier:
1
40
0.95%
Microwave:
16
960
15.24%
Miscellaneous:
4
360
3.81 %
Range:
5
875
4.76%
Refrigerator - Electric:
18
4,230
17.14%
Refrigerator Gas:
0
0
0.00%
Trash Compactor
0
0
0.00%
Washer:
13
2,600
12.38%
Water Heater:
5
650
4.76%
TOTALS:
105
15,490
100%
"&d . l ppfwnces
by stag
■ AC -Electric ■ AC -Gas ❑ Dehumidifier ® Dishwasher ■ Dryer
9 Freezer O Furnace ■ Garbage Disposal ■ Humidifier IN Microwave
3 Miscellaneous IN Refrigerator -Electric M Refrigerator -Gas B Ran ge ■ Trash Compactor
■ Washer ■ Water Heater
Report Run Date: 9/26/96
I
do
6J
Catellus Management Corporation
4105 Lexington Avenue N., Suite 200
Arden Hills, MN 55126
(612) 782-3003
(612) 782-3010 Fax
October 21, 1996
City of Albertville
P. O. Box 131
Albertville, MN 55301
RE: Burlington Northern Lease No. 545848
purpose: parking lot and city park
location: Albertville, MN
Dear Sir
This is in regard to the rental established for the above captioned lease.
It has been several years since the rental was reviewed or adjusted. To make a gradual transition to the
new rate, we will adjust the rent in two steps. Effective December 1, 1996, rental will be $1,200.00 per
year and effective December 1, 1997, rental will be $1,800.00 per year, payable annually in advance. You
will receive a statement with a return envelope before each date.
As a matter of clarification, quoting the rent for a specific period and payment in advance does not convert
the lease to a definite term.
This letter is a supplement to your lease, which will remain in effect except as hereby amended.
Sincerely,
Roger L. Schwinghammer
Regional Property Manager
6k
..__ �•.t : the third patjment
of the settlement reached with Piper
wi th
1 i tigation involving the Piper
in,tttjtional ernment
Income Portfolio Litigation.
=ri•= ;;ed di tribut.ion :—z*resents
Piper's payment of the Tax
i•]t.3. the n?;z distribution you
will receive will represent
?iper'= payment or' the second
installment on the promissory note.
That payment is due in August
1997 and the final installment
payment 7s due in August 1998.
uia are C ntinu:ng to pursue the
claims asserted against KPMG Peat
++"••a^�i; < //�-h w:;.11 keep you advised
of any significant developments
if ,,au h.ava any q-je:stions, please feel free to contact any of the
la yer= listed below.
R./chard Lockridge
Vernon J. Vander Weide
:=regg F'i shbein
Marianne E. Durkin
,Schatz Paquin Lockridge
Head, Seifert & Vander Weide,
Grindal & Holstein P. L. L. P.
/2220
a Professional Association
Washington Square
One Financial Plaza, Suite 2400
1i'-0 Washington Avenue South
120 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: (612)?39-6900
Tel: (612)339-1601
Your Va"fied Total Loss is $91, 083. 61 411252624
15, 713. 47 PRINCIPAL
371.62 INTEREST
16, 085. 09 TOTAL
C 1TY 0- r1i._ricRT. i}_1_
ATTM L l ^dJA HOUGHTON
5975 MA..?N AVE NE
PC LOX c
r',L-BERTVILLE, MIDI 55301
Please retain this payment voucher for your tax records.
MIDDLETON & ASSOCIATES INSURANCE AGENCY
Arlan M. Middleton, CIC
13 Central Avenue
P.O. Box 249
St. Michael, Minnesota 55376-0249
St. Michael: (612) 497-4420
October 23, 1996
City of Albertville
P. O. Box 9
Albertville, Minnesota 55301
Reference: City of Albertville -- Insurance
Dear Gary Hale,
With reference to the question by the council concerning coverage on:
Section III - General Liability
Item: Fire Damage Limit.
6,e
This is a liability coverage that applies if the City of Albertville "rents" and "occupies" a building,
and due to the city's negligence causes a fire that causes damage to the building.
The coverage has no relationship to the fire coverage on City "owned" property.
Hopefully, this will clear -up this matter.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Date: October 22, 1996
Motion by Commissioner Sawatzke
Resolution No. 96-54
Seconded by Commissioner
RESOLUTION
Jude
6.n
WHEREAS, Wright County owns and operates a Solid Waste Compost Facility as part of its waste management activities authorized by Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 400, and
WHEREAS, Section 5.02 of the Wright County Waste Collection, Processing and Disposal Ordinance authorizes the County Board to establish
and modify the Tipping Fee for said facility by resolution, after a public hearing, and
WHEREAS, the Wright County Board of Commissioners, on March 15, 1994, by Resolution No. 94-18, modified the Tipping Fee to $55.00 per
ton. and
WHEREAS, the Wright County Board of Commissioners has given notice of and has held a public hearing on October 15, 1996, regarding
modification of the Tipping Fee, and
WHEREAS, Section 5.02 of the Wright County Waste Collection, Processing and Disposal Ordinance also requires 15 day advance notice to the
Haulers of any decreased Tipping Fee;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Wright County Board of Commissioners hereby modifies the Tipping Fee for the Wright
County Compost Facility to $40.00 per ton, effective November 6, 1996. Miscellaneous and additional fees for the citizen drop-off area are
modified as follows:
$2.50 per 32 gallon bag or can;
Pickup loads or other loose waste: $15.00 minimum fee up to 500 pounds of waste;
$0.03 per pound for waste over 500 pounds.
YES NO
JUDE y_
JUDE
SAWATZKE y_
SAWATZKE
RUSSEK _y
RUSSEK
ROSE y_
ROSE
MATTSON _y
MATTSON
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss.
County of Wright
I, Richard W. Norman, duly appointed, qualified, and acting Clerk to the County Board for the County of Wright,
State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the forgoing copy of a resolution or motion with the original
minutes of the proceedings of the Board of Commissioners, Wright County, Minnesota, at their session held on the 22nd
day of October, 1996, now on file in my office, and have found the same to be a true and correct copy thereof.
Witness my hand and official seal at Buffalo, Minnesota, this 22nd day of October, 1996.
Count Coordinator
JNTY 0.
vo �Z
2
0
a� .4O
�68a
Wyman A. Nelson
County Attorney
Thomas N. Kelly
Chief • Criminal Division
Brian J. Asleson
Chief • Civil Division
WRIGHT COUNT Y
Office of County Attorney
Wright County Government Center
10 2nd Street N. W., Room 150
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313-1189
Phone: (612) 682-7340 Assistants
Toll Free: 1-800-362-3667 Fax: (612) 682-7700 Anne L. Mohaupt
Thomas C. Zins
Terry Frazier
Kathleen A. Mottl
Scott M. Sandberg
MEMO Mark A. Erickson
Victim/Witness
Assistance Coordinator
Barbara S. Johnson
TO: Cities, Townships, Waste Haulers and Waste Facilities
FROM: Brian Asleson, Assistant County Attorney M-/
DATE: October 24, 1996
RE: Reduced Tipping Fee at Compost Facility
On October 22, 1996, the Wright County Board of Commissioners
took action to reduce the tipping fee at the Wright County Solid
Waste Composting Facility to $40.00 per ton effective November 6,
1996. Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 96-54 detailing that
action.
If there are any questions about this change, feel free to
contact me at 682-7342 or Chuck Davis at 682-7331.
cc: Chuck Davis
Professional Services Group
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust
Group Self -Insured Workers' Compensation Plan
Admirtistretor
Berkley Administrators
e member of the Berkley Risk Management Services Group
P.O. Box 59143 Minneapolis, MN 55459-0143 Phone (612) 544-0311
Self -Insured Workers' Compensation Quotation
(RENEWAL of Agreement No. 02-000313-12)
ALBERTVILLE
12/01/1096
12/01/199-7
ESTIMATED
DEPOSIT
CODE RATE PAYROLL
PREMIUM
STREET CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE
5506 4.e6 39875.
1G3e.
FIREFIGHTERS (VOLUNTEER)
770e 44.1e POP 3691.
1631.
CLERICAL
Selo 0.44 80340.
353.
ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIALS
9411 0.47 1e200.
e6.
Manual Premium
4008.
Experience Modification 0.85
Standard Premium
3407.
Managed Care Credit 0%
0.
Deductible Credit 0%
0.
Premium Discount
0.
Discounted Standard Premium
3407.
LMC Insurance Trust Discount 0%
0.
Net Deposit Premium
3407.
The foregoing quotation is for a deposit premium based on your estimate of payroll. Your final actual
premium will be computed after an audit of payroll subsequent to the close of your agreement year and
will be subject to revisions in rates, payrolls and experience modification. While you are a member of
the LMCIT Workers' Compensation Plan, you will be eligible to participate in distributions from the
Trust based upon claims experience and earnings of the Trust.
If you desire the coverage offered above, please complete the enclosed "Application for Coverage" and
return it and your check for the deposit premium (made payable to the LMC Insurance Trust) to the Plan
Administrator, Berkley Administrators.
BA 441 CG (12/92)
OCT-29-1996 10:28 NAC 61.
NF,Nc
MEMORANDUM
TO -
FROM:
DATE. -
RE:
FILE NO:
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED Ct
COMMUNITY PLANNING - 0E9ION - MA.
Albertville Mayor and City Council
David Licht
29 October 1996
Albertville - Comprehensive Plan - 60th Street Area Housing
163.05 - 96.08
This memorandum is being written in response to a City Council request for an opinion
involving a possible approach to the rezoning of the 60th Street area. As we understand,
it has been suggested that the R-1 District text possibly be amended to provide for an
interim use which would allow the residential properties in question to evolve into
commercial use as has been suggested by the Comprehensive Plan.
We do not believe this approach to be advisable for two reasons:
The tong term objective, as now stated in the Comprehensive Plan, is for this area
to be commercial. As such, the direction as established by the zoning district which
is applied should convey the eventual use which is to be achieved.
2. The applicability of the B-4 interim residential use within lands zoned commercial
is limited. Therefore, little if any precedent is established for other properties within
the City. On the other hand, if the interim use concept was placed in the R-1
District text, the potential application of this zoning tool might become more
widespread and the change could be enacted by a simple majority of the Council
instead of a four -fifths vote which would be required as part of a rezoning.
7Q. ; 0.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
WRIQ3T COUNTY, MI11SSOTA
ORDIX NCE 140. 1996-23
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE #1988-12
(MAP AMENDMENT)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. The City of Albertville Zoning Map is hereby amended
as follows:
The property legally described below is zoned R-1
(Residential District - Single Family).
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Block A, Townsite of Hamburg
Lots 1 and 2, Block B, Townsite of Hamburg Minnesota.
Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Lot A
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
its passage and publication.
ADOPTED BY THE ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL THIS 21st DAY OF OCTOBER,
1996.
Michael Potter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Houghton, City Clerk
*North
City of Albertville.
60th Street Area Rezoning Study
Proposed Zoning
la. 3
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 1996 -22,__
AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING THE INTERIM (MORATORIUM) ORDINANCE AND ITS
EXTENSION (ORDINANCE 1995-12 AND 1996-8) CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT
AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS WITHIN THE R-3 ZONING
DISTRICT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. The interim ordinance (Ordinance No. 1995-12) and its extension
(Ordinance No. 1996-8) are hereby terminated and rescinded.
Section 2. The amendment shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its
passage and publication.
J Approved by the Albertville City Council this 9th Day of September 1996.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
BY:
Michael Potter, Mayor
ATTEST:
BY:
Linda Houghton, City Clerk
3202518760 SEH-ST CLOUD Page 1/2 Job 192 Oct-30 Wed 15:48 1998
74,ot:
113S. FIFTH AVtNUL. PQ BOX 1717. 5rCL000. A1N:-:^4).' 1;'1: :t.'Yi.tti1''1',! t:k?!,r; +r E76"1! a
'AaAse" aRCHITECrURE - ENGINEERING 1 NVIIIONAILNIAL TRAN!'(*1R1AIWIN -
TO: Garrison Hale
City Administrator
Albertville, MN
FROM: Peter J. Carlson, P.E.
City Engineer
DATE: October 26, 1996
RE: Grading Plan
Tom Schany Property
SEH No. A-AL13EV 9701.00
I have reviewed the grading plan for the above referenced property and found the plan to be
adequate. I recommend the City issue a grading permit for the proposed work -
dig
c: Linda Houghton, City Clerk
0:4u. MComoc-30B.96)
SHORTEU0rT
HENDRC SON ffi C. ST. PAtA, MN OWa A4N ChWVEWA FAI.I S, WI
EOIAAL OPFORTLANIrrewLOYER
MADISON, WI
LAKE COUNTY IN
Schany Enterprise
THOMAS J. SCHANY, President
(612) 428-4868
Fax (612)428-4997
October 24, 1996
Council Members
City of Albertville
5975 Main Avenue NE
Albertville, Minnesota 55301
REFERENCE: PID 364304
PID 361401
PID 364401
Dear Council Members:
14450 Northdale Boulevard
Rogers, MN 55374
Enclosed is a copy of the proposed cut and fill as well as general
cleanup of iron, etc. of the subject area to make it more appealing
for development.
If there are any questions, please call. I would like to commence
work as soon as possible.
Yours truly,
SCHANY TERPRISE
Tho J. Schany
TJS:ls
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Pete Carlson
SEH - St. Cloud, MN.
7b. z
TO: GARY HALE, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MIRE COURT, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: GRADING AGREEMENT FOR PARKSIDE 4TH ADDITION
DATE: OCTgBER 31, 1996
The attached grading agreement for Parkside 4th Addition
simply modifies the grading agreement for Parkside 3rd Addition to
include the 4'th addition. The same $50,000 letter of credit
remains in place and will be applied to the 4th addition grading
agreement. Except for the language contained on this modification,
all of the terms of the 3rd Addition grading agreement remain
unchanged and will now apply to the 4th Addition.
F4
TOTAL P.01
10-29-1996 02. 1 7PM FROM Pad zun 1 1 3 1--our i Law Off i TO 497 32100 P.02
I
DRAFf#
GRADING CONTRACT DATE
AGREEMENT dated July , 1996 by and between the CITY OF
ALBE;TVILLE, a municipal corporation ("City"), and SCHANY
ENTE PRISE a Minnesota corporation (the "Developer").
11. REQUEST FOR GRADING APPROVAL. The Developer has asked the
City 'to approve the grading of those properties currently assigned
prop rty ID numbers 101-500--364304, 101-500-361401, and 101-50o--
3644 1 (collectively, the "Property").
1
12. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The City hereby approves the
grading on the condition the Developer enter into this Contract,
abide by its terms and furnish the security required by it.
13. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN. The Property shall be graded
in accordance with the Grading and Drainage plan attached as
Exhibit A to this agreement.
j4. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The Developer shall complete the
grad' g and erosion control by December 15, 1996. The Developer
may,
,however, request an extension of time from the City. If an
extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the
secux ty posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the
exte ed completion date.
15. EROSION CONTROL. Developer shall implement all erosion
control measures detailed on the Grading and Drainage plan in the
order1 required by the City Engineer. Developer shall also
implement any additional erosion control measures required by the
City ,Engineer or the Wright County Soil and Water conservation
District. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfiling
operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the
work lin that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion
contrjol plan, seed shall be rye grass or other fast-growing seed
suitale to the existing soil to provide a temporary ground cover
as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be mulched and disc
anch ' ed as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize
that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the
Devel per does not comply with the erosion control plan and/or the
requirements of the City Engineer or Wright County Soil and Water
conservation District, the City may take such action as it deems
appro riate to control erosion. The City will endeavor to notify
the D veloper in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the
City o do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or
oblig tions hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the
City for any cost the City incurred. for such work within thirty
(30) ays, the City may draw down the letter of credit to pay any
costs. No development will be allowed and no building permits will
be issued unless the Property is in full compliance with the
eroszpn control requirements.
6. GRADING PLAN. The Property shall be graded in accordance
with the Grading and Drainage Plan. Within thirty (30) days after
10-28-1996 02:12PM FROM RadzwiII & Cour1 Law Off T 49732100 P.03
AFT
i
DATE �� Z"� . �.
completion of the grading and before the City 'releases—
�� tie
secu ity, the Developer shall provide the City with an "as
constructed" grading plan.
7. CLEAN UP. The Developer shall promptly clean dirt and
debrs from streets that has resulted from construction work by the
Developer, its agents or assigns.
8. SECURITY. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this
Permit and to reimburse the City for any damage to public property
as a result of the grading permitted herein, the; Developer shall
furnish the City with a cash escrow or irrevocable' letter of credit
from bank ("security") for $ The. bank and form of
the etter of credit shall be subject to the approval of the City
Atto ney.The letter of credit shall be for a term ending October
31, i997, and shall be renewed annually by the Developer until all
grading is complete as specified herein. The City reserves the
righ to draw on the letter of credit anytime within 45 days of its
expi ation if the Developer does not provide the City with a
rene al or an acceptable substitute letter of credit.
19. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS.
A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer
shal pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with
thefe
ading and erosion control, including but not limited to Soil
andater Conservation District charges, legal, planning,
engiering and inspection expenses incurred in'connection with
appr val and acceptance of the permit, the preparation of this
Permit, and all costs and expenses incurred by the City in
monit oring and inspecting the grading and erosion control.
B. The Developer shall hold the City ;and its officers
and a ployees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties
for amages sustained or costs incurred resulting form permit
appr al and work done in conjunction with it. The Developer shall
inde nify the City and its officers and employees for all costs,
dama es and expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence
of s Ich claims, including attorneys fees.
J C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs
incu�red in the enforcement of this permit, including engineering
and ajttorney ' s fees.
D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted
to it by the City for obligations incurred under this permit within
thir (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time,
the ity may halt all work and construction.
10. DEVELOPER'S DEFAULT. In the event of default by the
Devel per as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder,
the ity may, at its option, perform the work and. Developer shall
Promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City,
proviIded the Developer is first given notice of the work in default
10-2e-1996 02:19PM FROM Radzw111 & Couri Law Offi TO
497132100 P.04
i
not less than 48 hours in advance. This permit is a license for
the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek
a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does
any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies,
assess the cost in whole or in part.
PLAT APPROVAL. The City's approval to grade the property
is g�11-
ven without prejudice to the City's right to approve or deny
future plat requests.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
BY:
Michael Potter, Mayor
AND
Linda Houghton, City Clerk
DEVELOPER:
SCHANY ENTERPRISE
BY;
Thomas J. Schany
Its President
STATb OF MINNESOTA
OF WRIGHT
;The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
f day of , 1996, by Michael Potter as
Maycil of the City of Albertville, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the city and pursuant to the authority of
the ,ity Council.
Notary Public
STATF OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUN'y OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of 1996, by Linda Houghton, as
Clerk of the City of Albertville, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the city and pursuant to the authority of
the City Council.
i
Notary Public
10-29-1996 02:19PM FROM Radzwill a Couri Law Offi TO 49732100 P.05
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) as.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
I
1 iThe 'foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1996, by 'Thomas J. Schany
as Piesiftnt of Schany Enterprise, Inc.
This
P.O.
705.
St.
instrument drafted by:
el. C. Couri
ill & Couri
Box .569
antral Ave. E.
ichael, MN 55376
Notary Public
D��p
. 1
3202518760 SEH-ST CLOUD Page 2/2 Job 192 Oct-30 Wed 15:49 f
4
h.
• '
�' F
C'
r
113 S FIFTH AYFNIIF P 0 BOX 1717 ST CLOULI. MN avU.' , .1. (:.. • !' ;,) H/k;
ARCHITECTURE . ENGINEERING LAll. O iNA7IN1:11
'r0: Garrison Hale
City Administrator
Albertville, MN
FROM: Peter J. Carlson, P.E.
City Engineer
DATE: October 26, 1996
RE: EAW Findings of Fact
Minneapolis Factory Shoppes
SE] I No. A-ALBEV 9701.00
I have reviewed the findings of fact as prepared by Svoboda Ecological Resources and recommend
the City Council approve the findings of fact as written.
You should be aware that the EAW and continents received from the Mn/DOT suggests we will have
Y traffic problems along CSAH 37, especially at Main Street and at the west -bound 1-94 off -ramp.
Based on comments received from Mn/DOT, it appears their position will he that future traffic
problems created locally will have to be resolved locally, with local dollars,�#�i
Please call me if you have any questions. f-
dig
C: Linda Houghton, City Clerk
Elizabeth Stockman, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
Mike Couri, City Attorney E.
l (J:1AL$EV1C0ltR10C-70A.46)
SHORTEUIOTT "
INC• 5r PAUL. MN MMEA/1OLAS• W CHNIPEWA FAt 1.,;. W/ MADISON, W1 LAKE COuNt
�h EOLAL OPPUI7TL►WTYEMPLOYER S i�
(612) 497-3384
Fax: (612) 497421C
Response to Comments and Findings of Fact
Minneapolis Factory Shoppes Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
In accordance with the standards and procedures of Minnesota Rules, Part 4410.1700 the City of
Albertville has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required for the
Minneapolis Factory Shoppes project. The City of Albertville makes a "Negative Declaration"
on the need for any such EIS. This decision is based upon the findings of fact stated below.
A. Type, Extent and Reversibility of Effects:
1. The City of Albertville finds that the proposed Minneapolis Factory
Shoppes project is within the Ostego Creek Watershed. The Ostego Creek
Authority has the local responsibility to protect water resources within this
watershed. Based on studies completed by John Oliver and Associates, the north -
south ditch which flows south into the north side of the Factory Shoppes site will
be replaced by a twin 36" pipe system to convey water through the site. Prior to
entering the site this ditch flows through a system of wetlands. A TR20 model to
represent the existing and proposed conditions utilizing the wetlands as reservoirs
was constructed. The pipe system proposed through the site will accommodate
the flow from the existing 100-year, 24-hour event. The pipe does not connect
with the proposed ponds around Town Square.
The ditch entering the Factory Shoppes site from the west flows through existing
wetlands, which are proposed to be enlarged as part of the wetlands mitigation.
The twin 36" pipe outlet for the ditch system located in the southwest comer of
the Factory Shoppes parking lot, is sized to allow the existing downstream
wetland and the existing proposed wetland mitigation areas to the west of the site,
to work in combination for storm water storage.
The proposed ponds around Town Square are designed to control the rate of
discharge from the Factory Shoppes site to the 100-year, 24-hour historic storm
event. All rates of discharge are in accordance with the ultimate drainage plan for
the Ostego Creek Watershed.
The existing culvert under County Road 19, is a 30 inch RCP culvert. This culvert
controls the storm water flows to School Lake, for the entire tributary area west of
County Road 19, including the Factory Shoppes Site. No change is proposed for
this culvert.
According to the John Oliver and Associates analysis, the net effect of the
proposed ponds and pipes is that there will be no increase in the existing 100-year
24-hour storm event discharge at the upstream end of the existing 30 inch culvert
under County Road 19 as defined by the ultimate drainage plan for Ostego Creek.
This finding addresses a of the concerns raised by the Ostego City Council.
2. The City of Albertville finds that the proposed development would comply
with Best Management Practice requirements for treating storm water runoff.
Analysis by John Oliver and Associates shows that the proposed onsite water
quality ponds adjacent to Town Square were designed in accordance with the
guidelines in Section 4.1 of "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas: Best
Management Practices of Minnesota", by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency Division of Water Quality. The ponds should provide the following
water treatment as given in Figure 4.1 of the Best Management Practices Manual:
Target Pollutant
Percent Removal
Suspended Solids
85-95
Oxygen Demand
50-90
Total Phosphorous
40-70
Dissolved Phosphorous
40-70
Nitrate Nitrogen
60-80
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
20-40
Copper
60-80
Lead
80-95
Zinc
40-80
The runoff discharged from the water quality ponds will be additionally treated by
the existing wetland south of the Factory Shoppes development. Wetland
treatment in Section 4.5 states "wetland treatment is very effective for removing
sediment and pollutants associated with it (such as trace metals, nutrients, and
hydrocarbons), oxygen demanding substances and bacteria from urban runoff'.
The runoff from the site will therefore be treated twice before reaching School
Lake.
The guidelines set forth in the Best Management Practices Manual represents the
current standards for storm water quality treatment in the Twin City Metropolitan
area. There are no special water quality issues associated with the proposed
Factory Shoppes development that would not be addressed by the Best
Management Practices Manual requirements. This finding addresses a concern of
the Ostego City Council.
3. The City of Albertville finds that open space land use on the property is
currently agricultural (pasture and cropland). The proposed project would
permanently change the land use from agricultural to retail. Retail land use
includes restaurant, retail center and parking lot.
4. The City of Albertville finds that the project will not cause impacts to
current cultural resources. This finding is in agreement with the review of the
EAW completed by the Minnesota Historical Society.
B. Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects:
1. The City of Albertville finds that the proposed Minneapolis Factory
Shoppes project will not require the addition of an off ramp from westbound I-94
to CSAH 19. A traffic study completed by Benshoof and Associates concluded
that the existing access to and from I-94 sufficiently accommodates the future
traffic volumes. This addresses one of the concerns of the Minnesota Department
of Transportation.
C. Extent to Which Effects Can be Mitigated by Ongoing Public Regulatory
Authorities:
1. The City of Albertville finds that the project will be available for review
by the joint Ostego Creek Authority. A formal review and approval process
currently does not exist for this watershed and a permit is not required. This
addresses a concern raised by the Ostego City Council.
2. The City of Albertville finds that all wetland impacts and the mitigation of
wetland impacts are subject to the review by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (protected waters only), the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(including comment and review by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency), and
the Wright County Soil and Water Conservation District (the LGU for this
project). Concerns with the impact and replacement of wetlands for the project
will be addressed during the permitting process. This addresses concerns raised
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources.
D. Extent to Which Effects Can Be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of
Other Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, or of
Previous EISs:
l . The City of Albertville finds that further analysis is needed before traffic
signals are justified at the intersection of CSAH 37 and the I-94 westbound ramp,
and the intersection of CSAH 37 and CSAH 19. Close monitoring of the volumes
at these intersections after the development is built should occur to determine
when the signals would be needed. This finding addresses the concerns of the
Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Summary of Findings
The proposed development, Minneapolis Factory Shoppes, conforms to current comprehensive
plans. Environmental impacts are consistent with developments of this type, and mitigation
measures will be incorporated into the construction process. Therefore, the City of Albertville
finds that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the project, and makes a
Negative Declaration.
DENNIS FEHN. GRAVEL. & EXC
Ditch Maintenance - Quote
P.02
Phone (612) 497-2428
Fax (612) 497-3893
�4%4VEL - EXCAVAl }}' -
INC.
TO: CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
5975 MAIN AVE NE
ALBERTVILLE, MN 55301
ATTN: GARRISON L. HALE
7,0
P.O. Box 256
11900 50th Street N.E.
Albertvillc, MN 55301
DATE: OCTOBER 31, 1996
PROJECT: DITCH CLEANING
LOCATION: 70TH ST & CTY RD 19
**####�M**�k+k**#�k�M#�k�R�R##*ile�k�kAc�k*##�k�►#�k�k*#**+k�k#�k**�k7��kric�lc###�M****##°k�N�k�k#**�R�MM#####�M�k�N�k*##�k*�MiF
PROPOSAL
DITCH CLEANING SERVICES AS FOLLOWS:
-70TH STREET
NORTH SIDE APPROX. 100 LF
SOUTH SIDE APPROX. 200 LF
-CTY RD 19
EAST TO LAKE APPROX. 600 LF
-DITCH BETWEEN LAKES
APPROX, 100 LF
325 BACKHOE (3 CY BUCKET)
APPROX. 12 HOURS X $120.00 = $1,440.00
EXPORT SOIL FROM DITCHES = $40.00/LOAD
TREE REMOVAL = $100.00/LO.AD
*EXCLUDES FENCE REMOVAL
�LLv�
COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL STTEWORK ' ROADBUILDING
SAND & GRAVEL • DECORATIVE MATERIALS
EguAL oppoRTUNTr'Y EMPLOYER
19 N.E.
toz 9
$301
(612) 497-3384
Fiv (612) 497-3210
L
Date of Calv/4/ � Time bf Call X "00
Name of Caller ��% ) �Ly✓� _
Address �/ J7 %�S J �r�J�% /L /� Jf�Gl-=ie'ly/Gym
Telephone Number -r> % G S
Nature of Complaints
on Wednesday October 9, 1996 while driving to my homy I
noticed the tiro hydrant on 54th Street and 54th Place w,ir,
t�eir�g t lu,.hed by t-he Joint Powers. the weatea from this
hydrant was Mowing at a very high velocity coveting 60% c:It
thLi width of the street with water as much as a foot high in
>um<� ai t as of the intersection, maki m.1 it alrnost impossible
to pass sateiy.
I approached the pereson that was doing the
t lushi ng and asked him if he had sorn(-3 sort of a bai t le to
restrict the flow, he .said he did. I than asked why he
wasn't using it and he said "maybe Z would like to do his
Job" . I said maybe we could Find another coriii.)any to do they
lot.) in place of hip company. With that. he walked away and
nothing eise was said.
James r1 . Wa i tih
Action Performed By Date
1
7j
Extract of Minutes of Meeting s
f
of the City of Albertville, s
Wright County, Minnesota Oro
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Albertville, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, November 4,
1996,.commencing at 7:00 o'clock P.M.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
The following resolution was presented by Councilmember who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 1996-63
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
TO NEGOTIATE THE SALE OF APPROXIMATELY
$400,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX
INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1996A
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Albertville, Wright County,
Minnesota (City) as follows:
1. The City Council has determined that it is necessary to finance public development
and redevelopment costs in Tax Increment District No. 5. These costs are presently estimated
to be $400,000.
2. The City will, therefore, issue and sell its $400,000 General Obligation Tax
Increment Bonds, Series 1996A (Bonds) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.179,
Subdivision 2 and Chapter 475 (collectively, the Act).
D, X112376
AL141-22
Z d N3AUaD '8 AUNN3N 9E:bZ 96, 0E 1,n0
3. Pursuant to the Act, the City is authorized to negotiate the sale of the Bonds in
accordance with the Temas of Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A.
4. Springsted Incorporated, St. Paul, Minnesota, is authorized and directed to obtain
offers for the purchase of the Bonds and present those offers to the Council at a time and place
directed by the Council.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk -Treasurer
WK112376
AL141-22
E . d N3t\dZ19 I Aa3NN3A LE : b Z 96, OE 130
Recommendations
For
City of Albertville, Minnesota
$400,000
General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996A
Presented to:
Mayor Michael Potter
Members, City Council
Mr. Garrison Hale, City Administrator
City of Albertville
5975 Main Street Northeast
Albertville, MN 55301
SPRINGSTED
Public Finance Advisors
Study No.: A0116T1
SPRINGSTED Incorporated
October 29, 1996
10
f
RECOMMENDATIONS
Re: Recommendations for the Issuance of: $400,000 General Obligation Tax Increment
Bonds, Series 1996A
The proceeds from the Series 1996A Bonds will be used to finance the construction of
improvements to Highways 19 and 37.
We recommend the following for the issue:
2
3
4.
5
0
7
0
Action Requested
To establish the sale of the Issue and establish
the terms and conditions of the offering.
Sale Date and Time
Prior to the Council meeting on Monday,
November 18, 1996, or Monday, November 25,
1996 with award by the City Council at 7:00 P.M.
on the same day.
Authority for the Bond Issue
The Bonds are being issued pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469. The Bonds
are additionally being issued under Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 475.
Principal Amount of Offering
$400,000
Repayment Term
Semi-annual interest payments will be made
beginning August 1, 1997 and every February 1
and August 1 thereafter for the life of the Bonds.
The Series 1996A Bonds will mature February 1,
1998 through 2008.
Prepayment Provisions
The February 1, 2005 through 2007 maturities of
the Bonds will be callable on February 1, 2004,
and any day thereafter, at a price of par plus
accrued interest.
Source of Payment
The Series 1996A Bonds will be paid through a
combination of tax increment revenue, special
assessments and an ad valorem tax levy.
Projected tax increment income of $140,000
from Tax Increment District No. 5 will be used to
pay principal and interest on the Bonds. Tax
increment revenues will be received in 1997 and
1998 and will be available for payment of a
portion of the principal and interest on the Bonds
due the subsequent year. Special assessment
income totaling $290,431 will be available to pay
principal and interest for the 1999 through 2008
maturities. In addition, a tax levy averaging
$9,263 a year will be used for repayment of
principal and interest on the Bonds.
Credit Rating Comments
We recommend the City not apply for a rating on
the Series 1996A Bonds.
City of Albertville, Minnesota
October 29, 1996
9. Rebate Requirements All tax-exempt issues are subject to the federal
arbitrage requirements. However, since the City
will issue less than $5,000,000 in tax-exempt
debt in 1996, it may exempt itself from rebating
arbitrage earnings to the federal government.
10. Federal Reimbursement Regulations
11. Economic Life
Federal reimbursement regulations require the
City to make a declaration, within 60 days of the
actual payment, of its intent to reimburse itself
from expenses paid prior to the receipt of bond
proceeds. It is our understanding the City has
taken whatever actions are necessary to comply
with the federal reimbursement regulations.
The average life of the issue cannot exceed
120% of the economic life of the projects to be
financed. Improvements have an economic life
of 20 years so this issue is within the economic
life requirement.
12. Continuing Disclosure This issue is not subject to the new SEC
continuing disclosure rules because the size of
the issue is less than $1,000,000. A summary of
the disclosure rules has been provided to City
staff, detailing the City's continuing disclosure
responsibilities.
13. Attachments
Debt Service Schedule
Assessment Income Schedule
Terms of Proposal
DISCUSSION
The projected debt service for the Series 1996A Bonds is shown on page 4 of these
recommendations. Column 6 details the amount of principal and interest coming due each
year. Special assessments are expected to be filed in the fall of 1997 for collection in 1998.
The projected assessment income is displayed on page 5 of these recommendations. Tax
increment revenue of $140,000 is expected from the City's Tax Increment District No. 5;
$70,000 will be available for principal and interest payments in both 1998 and 1999. The
remaining requirement for repayment of the bonds will come from an ad valorem tax levy
certified by the City in 1996. The sale of the Series 1996A Bonds will be negotiated with
Highland Bank of St. Michael by either November 18 or November 25, 1996 and will be
considered by the City Council that evening.
The term of the proposed bond is ten years. Although a five-year term was discussed the last
time this issue was before the City Council, a ten-year term is recommended since the
proposed land donation agreement with John George, Inc. calls for a ten-year assessment
period. In addition, past City policy has been to assess non -developer driven improvements
Page 2
City of Albertville, Minnesota
October 29, 1996
over an eight to ten-year period since each landowner (including Savitski and Vinge) has the
option to prepay the assessment at any time should the landowner desire to avoid the interest
charges of a longer assessment.
Respectfully submitted,
� � I J C' Cam" 4 to,
SPRINGSTED Incorporated
kmk
Page 3
City of Albertville, Minnesota
G.O. Tax Increment Bonds
Dated: 12- 1-1996
Mature: 2-1
First Interest: 8- 1-1997
Prepared October 22, 1996
By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
Total
Tax
Projected
Projected
(ear of Year of Principal
105% Increment
Assessment
Tax Total
Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest & Interest
of Total Income
Income
Levy Income
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
(7) (8)
(9)
(10) (11)
1996
1998
$50,000
4.55%
$23,263
$73,263
$76,926
$70,000
$0
$6,926
$76,926
1997
1999
95,000
4.70%
17,665
112,665
118,298
70,000
37,162
11,136
118,298
1998
2000
30,000
4.80%
13,200
43,200
45,360
0
34,281
11,079
45,360
1999
2001
30,000
4.90%
11,760
41,760
43,848
0
32,746
11,102
43,848
2000
2002
30,000
5.00%
10,290
40,290
42,305
0
31,211
11,094
42,305
2001
2003
30,000
5.10%
8,790
38,790
40,730
0
29,676
11,054
40,730
2002
2004
30,000
5.20%
7,260
37,260
39,123
0
28,141
10,982
39,123
2003
2005
25,000
5.30%
5,700
30,700
32,235
0
26,606
5,629
32,235
2004
2006
25,000
5.40%
4,375
29,375
30,844
0
25,071
5,773
30,844
2005
2007
25,000
5.50%
3,025
28,025
29,426
0
23,536
5,890
29,426
2006
2008
30,000
5.50%
1,650
31,650
33,233
0
22,001
11,232
33,233
TOTALS:
$400,000
$106,978
$506,978
$532,328
$140,000
$290,431
$101,897
$532,328
Bond Years:
2,061.67
Annual Interest:
Avg. Maturity:
5.15
Plus Discount:
Avg. Annual Rat
5.189%
Net Interest:
T.I.C. Rate:
5.399%
N.I.C. Rate:
Average Tax Levy Required: $9,263
106,978
4,000
110,978
5.383%
Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule.
The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary.
Composition of this Issue
Construction Cost
$200,000
Right of Way
185,000
Engineering
25,000
Bond Discount
4,000
Issuance Costs
20,000
Contingency
15,500
Less: Funds on hand
(49,500)
Total Bond Issue
$400,000
Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (10/23/96) ALB30K.XLS
P 4
i
(D M i r t\ CT O f,- M O
M
cC
rNf,N(DTUOui0
�
I
+J 1
w
'D
O'
N r M CO (D (n M N
O
(D O
F-
M M M M N N N N N N
M
M +�
N
r L
0
w Q.
r L.
1
+.J 1
0 0 O 0 O u7 O 0 O LO
r
N O
to
M r M et rr*-"T 0 r- M
fl-
U
J
O'
0 M N
L. C
L I
w
C) ►
Q
O
(D M N O M f� U M r
In
in
4d 1
r T r r
co
00
F-
C '
+J LU
(.) F—
O
O (A
C7
F-
Z
.-1
(D U U O (D (D O (D (D (D
0
Cl) "
1
'
M U U U U M M M U U
M
L. CC
Q '
� � IT st tt "t It
(D
M a
1
-4 '
CL 0)
U
ooCT0000000
�7
O
'
C
N N N N N N N N N N
O
L. >.
-4 '
N
CL CO
'
L '
fL '
M000000000
(P)
0)
.•a
M(n0u70u)0LO0LO
et
C
m '
M O (D r N N 00 M M
r
•.-I
N
0'
O O M M M M t\ P- M (D
(A
.1" I
M
F- '
r r
CO
4-
M
T
\
0
O O
L.
LU
Cn M
M\
++a1P
(f)000000000
u)
M
O
+rr
(AO
0)LO0Ln0u70ln0LO
V
+'+M
U
Cr
CD
00a(DrNNCOMM�
r
(AM
Z
O
L u7
C) r
-�
L.
(D
M M N N T r
ui
L\
LL.
4-0
N
C) r
F-
O
C
+-+ M
Z
++
�- 4
C --
LU
M
•14 N
VI
Z
(n
L)
1--I '
0000000000
O
O 0
LU
C
cz
0000000000
O
'0 4•
to
'+
Cl '
0000000000
0
7
co
-4
.1..1
ri O
Q
-4
U'
M U U U 0 M (D M (D (D
O
(.) +-j
LL
C '
(D
C cz
0
•1'+ '
HI
LU
L. 1
F-
CL '
U
�
LL!
7
O
0=
O_
N r (D r (D r (D r (D r
(D
(3)
4 '
(D M y (D N M O N M u)
co
C
(C '
N N r O M M M f' (D (n
N
• 4
{.+
1-4
ti
0
0 VMNOMMNCDO
u')
•1•4
O
4-
M
N
T
CC
G
\
0
O
L
N M
cz
4-
M\
+-0aPP
—000aLO0LO0Ln
(D
CO
T
(A O'
O (D CO M T N V LO i\ 00
N
4+ M
ofyr
a)0 '
Mr- OLOu)ctMNra
(D
(AM
L L 1
w
O T
M
C)
TM COf1(DIn�;MNr
O
L.
T • •
+J f` '
r
(D
O T
N
C
4- CO
>, +j
H u
C \
3 co
•4 N
= 0
r
N
cz
CA
-4
(D O (D O (D O CO (D (D 0
O
(2) 0
+•+
C
(C
(D 0 (D (D (D 0 co (D (D (D
(D
•a +j
0
Cl. '
v v � It st v Itr
to
7
U +•+
C
LL
C '
T T r T T r T T T T
C cz
C
• 4 1
r
M CS
•rl
L '
C '
cV
C)
-4
1--I
>
4-J
+j(A
O L 1
COMOrNM�(()Ut`
L. 10
O cC '
M M O O O O O O O O
O C
-I C) '
MM00000000
Y 0
'
T T N N N N N N N N
r-4 co
O
CO
Q
O
LL
Q
O
O
N co M O r N M V Lf) (D
F-
4-, o
M M M o 0 0 0 0 0 0
.�
•.•� } 1
r r r N N N N N N N
U (�
LL.
Page 5
TERMS OF PROPOSAL
$400,000
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS,
SERIES 1996A
DETAILS OF THE BONDS
The Bonds will be dated December 1, 1996, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest
payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1997. Interest will
be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months.
The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows:
1998 $50,000 2001 $30,000 2004 $30,000 2007 $25,000
1999 $95,000 2002 $30,000 2005 $25,000 2008 $30,000
2000 $30,000 2003 $30,000 2006 $25,000
OPTIONAL REDEMPTION
The City may elect on February 1, 2004, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or
after February 1, 2005. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of
the City and in such order as the City shall determine and within a maturity by lot as selected by
the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest.
SECURITY
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and
credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition, the City will pledge tax
increment revenues from the City's Tax Increment Financing District No. 5.
TYPE OF PROPOSALS
Proposals shall be for not less than $396,000 and accrued interest on the total principal amount
of the Bonds. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in
ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the
Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted.
SETTLEMENT
On or about 30 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost
to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be
subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven of
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Page 6
ERHIBIT A
TERMS OF PROPOSAL
$400,000
CITY OF ALB@RTVILLE, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIG sTIIONIN ES TAXS INAE
CRMENT BONDS,
OF -TAILS OF THE BONDS
The Bonds will be dated December ; , f9aa� s yeadate of r, commencing �aAissue,
ugust 1�1997! alnterestar rw II
payable on February I and August
be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-clay months.
The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows:
2007 $25,000
1998 $50,000 2001 $30,000 2004 $30.Q00 2008 $30,000
1999 $96,000 2002 $30,000 2005 $25,000
2000 $30,000 2003 $30,000 2006 $25,000
OPTIONAL. REDI=MPTION
The City may elect on February 1, 2004, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on Of
after February 1, 2005. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in partturity at the option Of as by
the City and in such order as s sita City
be aaladetermine
f par pluswithin
accruedanterest.
the registrar. All prepayment
SECURITY
l faith and
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City �° Wes. In additionCity l� thledge its e City will Ipledge tax
credit and power to levy direct general ad
increment revenues from the City's Tax Increment Financing District No. S.
TYPE OF PROPOSALS
Proposals shall be for not less than $398,000 to da S accrued in ere 1 /8 of trst an a total grin maust be amount
n
Of the Bonds. Rates shall be in integral rnu p
me maturi oposai will be accepted from the date of the
ascending order. Bonds of the sa
Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditions p Ao
SETTLEMENT
On or about 30 days following the date of their to the C,ty and the will
purchaserered Dgl Delivery will be
hout cost
to the purchaser at a Place mutually satisfactory
subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven of
Minneapolis, Minnesota -
IV .
b ' d N3AU69 '8 ),G3NN3A LE : b Z 96, 0E 130
ARBITRAGE AND REBATE PRIMER
Background
The following information entitled "Arbitrage and Rebate Primer" is a general description of the
arbitrage and rebate requirements under existing laws and regulations. In June 1993, the
Treasury issued its final arbitrage regulations, which we have attempted to address in this
discussion. This material is being furnished by Springsted Incorporated in order to provide
issuers with general information relating to the arbitrage regulations. It does not purport to be
a definitive set of instructions, and it should not be construed as legal advice. While this
description represents a consensus among nationally recognized bond counsel firms on the
issues discussed, issuers should be aware that different bond counsels may have differing
opinions.
It should further be noted that this description may not reflect changes in law that may occur,
or certain Treasury regulations and administrative and judicial rulings that may have been
promulgated, subsequent to the date of its preparation. Any such changes in law or new
rulings and regulations may have a material effect on the issuer's duties.
Concept
What is the general concept behind the arbitrage laws? The arbitrage laws minimize the
benefits that can be obtained through the investment of proceeds from the issuance of tax-
exempt obligations. These laws remove the incentive to issue more obligations, issue
obligations earlier, or to leave obligations outstanding longer than necessary to carry out the
governmental purpose of the issue.
Definition
The general definition of an arbitrage obligation is any obligation which attempts to exploit the
difference between tax-exempt and taxable interest rates by investing in a materially higher
yield (except under certain permitted temporary periods) or to increase the burden on the tax-
exempt market through early issuance or over issuance. An arbitrage obligation cannot be
issued as a tax-exempt obligation. The arbitrage rules set forth certain exemptions or "safe
harbor" provisions for permitting the issuance of tax-exempt obligations. With each issue, the
issuer must reasonably expect to expend not less than 5% of obligation proceeds, including
investment earnings but exclusive of any reserve, within six months of receipt and 85% within
three years. In addition to the 5%, the issuer must continue with due diligence to complete the
project and expend the proceeds.
In General
The arbitrage laws can be broken into two sections. The first section has roots which began in
the provisions enacted by congress in the Tax Reform Act of 1969. These rules set forth the
criteria by which the proceeds of the tax-exempt obligations can be invested. The second
section calls for arbitrage profits to be rebated back to the IRS. The second portion originated
in 1981 when congress imposed a rebate requirement on mortgage revenue bonds. The
rebate extended to industrial development bonds in 1985 and generally to most other tax-
exempt obligations in 1986.
SPRINGSTED - i - January 24, 1996
Since the Tax Code of 1986, regulations of 1989, 1992, 1993 and 1994 have been written.
The most important of these are the comprehensive revised regulations of 1993 which are
effective for tax-exempt obligations issued after June 30, 1993.
Funds Subject to Arbitrage and Rebate
Gross Proceeds of an issue are subject to
provisions. Gross proceeds, as defined in th
issuance of tax-exempt obligations, investmen
provided for payment of debt service on the
obligations, regardless of source.
Yield on Tax -Exempt Obligations
e
the arbitrage restriction and arbitrage rebate
Tax Code, include original proceeds from the
t earnings on those proceeds, and any money
obligations or as security or a reserve for the
The arbitrage laws limit allowable earnings and determine rebate by using "yield" as a
measurement. The yield on a fixed rate issue is the discount rate that, when computing the
present value as of the issue date of all payments of principal, interest and fees for qualified
guarantees on the issue (i.e. insurance premium) produces an amount equal to the present
value, using the same discount rate, of the aggregate issue price of the tax-exempt obligation
as of the issue date. The yield on a variable rate issue is the discount rate that, when used in
computing the present value as of the first date of a computation period of all payments
attributable to the computation period, produces an amount equal to the present value of the
aggregate issue price (or deemed issue price for the computation period) as of the first date of
the computation period.
Restricted Yields and Temporary Periods
In addition to the rebate provisions under certain circumstances, investments of the proceeds
from the issuance of tax-exempt obligations are restricted to a yield not to exceed one -eighth
of one percent of the yield on the obligations. This concept is referred to in the regulations as
"materially higher yield." Restricted yield is required for (i) proceeds, including investment
earnings but excluding reserve funds not expended within the three-year period; (ii) that
portion of proceeds in a reserve fund in excess of 10% of the issue amount; (iii) funds from any
source in a reserve fund in excess of 10% of the issue amount; and (iv) amounts in a debt
service fund in excess of a bona fide debt service fund amount plus the minor portion.
Proceeds not subject to these restricted yield requirements qualify for temporary periods and
are eligible to be invested at an unrestricted yield.
Rebate Exemptions
The Code and regulations provide some exceptions to the rebate requirements. They are as
follows:
a) small issuer exception;
b) exception for investments in tax-exempt securities;
c) six-month spending exception;
d) 18-month spending exception;
e) 24-month spending exception;
f) six-month tax and revenue anticipation note (TRANs) spending exception; and
g) bona fide debt service fund exception.
2 SPRINGSTED - ii - January 24, 1996
Although these exceptions exempt an issuer from being subject to various rebate
requirements, an issuer must comply with the arbitrage provisions.
Small Issuer Exception
According to the 1993 regulations, an issue (other than a refunding issue) qualifies for the
small issuer exception only if the issuer reasonably expects, as of the issue date, that the
aggregate face amount of all tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds) issued
during that calendar year does not exceed $5,000,000. Unlike other arbitrage and rebate
tests, actual events prevail over reasonable expectations. If additional unexpected obligations
are issued, so the total amount exceeds $5,000,000 during the calendar year, the small issuer
exception will no longer apply.
Obligations issued by a subordinate entity must be included in the aggregate face amount of
any obligations issued by an entity.
Only the portion of a current refunding tax-exempt obligation that exceeds the face amount of
the obligation being refunded is included in the total aggregate face amount issued.
Advance refunding obligations are subject to rebate unless all the following criteria are met:
a) the face amount of all tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds)
issued during the calendar year does not exceed $5,000,000;
b) the refunded issues were exempted from rebate when issued or, if issued prior
to 1986, they were issued in a year when the issuer did not issue more than
$5,000,000 of governmental obligations;
c) the average maturity date of the refunding issues is not later than the average
maturity date of the obligations to be refunded; and
d) no refunding bond has a maturity date later than 30 years after the date the
original bond was issued.
The 1993 regulations also set forth special provisions if any original issue discount or original
issue premium is not a "de minimis" amount. If either is not a " de minimis" amount, the total
aggregate face amount of the issue may be different than the par amount of tax-exempt
obligations issued.
Exception for Investments in Tax -Exempt Securities
The regulations provide an exemption from rebate if the gross proceeds of an issue are
invested in certain tax-exempt securities. The tax-exempt securities must not be subject to the
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) for their earnings to be exempt. For obligations issued after
March 31, 1988, whose proceeds are invested in tax-exempt obligations subject to the AMT,
the earnings from the AMT investments will be subject to the rebate requirements.
Spending Exceptions
Issuers are not required to rebate excess earnings on project funds if they meet either the six-
month, 18-month or 24-month spending exceptions. For all three spending exceptions, rebate
will still be due on any reserve funds, debt service funds and sinking funds. Expenditures of
tax-exempt proceeds to redeem bonds do not qualify toward the various expenditure targets.
2 SPRINGSTED - iii - January 24, 1996
The six-month and 18-month exceptions can apply to any type of tax-exempt obligations,
including industrial development bonds or mortgage revenue bonds. The 24-month exception
applies only to "construction issues." See discussion under "24-Month Spending Exception"
for details on this exception.
Eatpe�dct
Yttiii
!=x enditure Testods
Six -Month
?too
Month
6 months
100%
15%
10%
12 months
60%
45%
18 months
100%
75%
24 months
100%
Six -Month Spending Exception
Issuers can qualify for the six-month exception if 100% of the proceeds are expended within
six months. This law allows issuers of governmental use bonds or 501(c)(3) bonds an
additional six months to spend proceeds, provided the unspent amount after the first six
months did not exceed the lesser of 5% of proceeds or $100,000.
18-Month Spending Exception
Issuers can qualify for the 18-month exception if 100% of the gross proceeds are spent within
18 months according to the following schedule:
a) at least 15% of the gross proceeds were spent within six months after the date
of the issuance of the bonds;
b) 60% of such proceeds were spent within one year;
c) 100% of such proceeds were spent within 18 months.
Failure to spend down a "de minimis" amount at the final payment date is disregarded for the
18-month exception if:
a) the amount does not exceed the lesser of 3% of the issue price or $250,000;
b) the issuer exercises due diligence to complete the project; and
c) if, after 18 months a "reasonable retainage," limited to 5% of construction
proceeds is spent within the next twelve months.
24-Month Spending Exception
The 24-month spending exception provides an exception from the rebate requirements for
construction proceeds if at least 75% of the proceeds of the issue are for construction
purposes and if the following spending criteria are met:
a) at least 10% of the "available construction proceeds" were spent within six
months after the date of issuance of the bonds;
b) 45% of such proceeds were spent within one year;
c) 75% of such proceeds were spent within 18 months; and
d) 100% of such proceeds were spent within two years.
® SPRINGSTED - iv - January 24, 1996
The same rules that define failure to spend down a "de minimis" amount at the final payment
date for the 18-month spending exception also apply to the 24-month spending exception.
The term "available construction proceeds" means an amount equal to the "issue price" (the
principal amount plus accrued interest less discount) of the obligations, increased by the
earnings on the issue price, and decreased by both the amount of the issue price in a
reasonably required reserve fund and the issuance costs of the issue.
At the time of issuance, the issuer may elect that shortfalls in meeting the expenditure tests will
be subject to 1.5% penalty each six months, instead of subjecting the entire issue to rebate.
Under the 24-month spending exception the issuer can elect the following provisions
a) to apply provisions based on actual facts in lieu of reasonable expectations;
b) to exclude earnings on a reasonably required reserve or replacement fund from
available construction proceeds;
c) to treat a portion of an issue used for construction as a separate issue
(bifurcation); and
d) to terminate the 1.5% penalty and subject the issue to rebate.
TRANs Six -Month Spending Exception
Issuers can qualify for this six-month exception if, within the first six -months of issuance, the
actual cash position, including the TRANS proceeds, reduces to no more than 10% of the size
of the TRANs borrowing.
Bona Fide Debt Service Exception
Amounts deposited into a bona fide debt service fund (BDSF) are exempt from rebate for long-
term fixed rate issues and for short-term or variable rate issues if the BDSF earned less than
$100,000 during each bond year. A BDSF is defined as a fund which equally matches the
revenues to the debt service within each bond year, with a permitted carryover of the greater of
the actual earnings in the fund in the preceding bond year or 1/12th of the debt service. See
discussion under "Other Topics of Interest" for more information regarding debt service funds.
Rebate
If an issue or fund does not meet any of the above mentioned exceptions, it is subject to the
rebate requirements and any arbitrage earnings will have to be rebated to the Internal
Revenue Service.
Rebate Computation Periods and Payments
At the time the bond issue is sold, an anniversary date is established by the issuer. This is
usually the dated date of the bonds, but can be any reasonable date within that year. Not less
than every five years from the anniversary date, the issuer must compute the rebatable
amount and send at least 90% of the amount to the Treasury. Within 60 days of the final debt
service payment, regardless of the length of the issue, the final computations must be
completed and all remaining rebatable funds sent to the Treasury. An issuer may recover an
2 SPRINGSTED - v - January 24, 1996
overpayment for an issue of tax-exempt obligations by establishing to the satisfaction of the
Commissioner that the overpayment occurred.
Annual vs. Fifth Year
Although rebate reporting is not required by federal regulations until each fifth year interval, we
have long maintained the position that the issuer is best served by annual calculations. Debt
management and recognition of financial obligations are better served by annual
computations, particularly during the period of time when the project funds remain available or
if rebatable earnings are anticipated.
Information Necessary to Generate a Rebate Calculation
In order to properly comply with the arbitrage and rebate provisions, careful records have to be
maintained by the issuer for all funds subject to rebate. The information needed to produce a
rebate calculation consists of all investment cash flow transactions (receipts and
disbursements) into and out of the funds subject to rebate as summarized as follows:
1) Deposits of proceeds or funds from other sources into each fund.
2) Investments of moneys in the fund (i.e. purchase price, purchase date, accrued
interest, etc.).
3) Dates and amounts of receipts of interest and principal from investment
balances.
4) Fund and investment balances as of the computation date.
Calculating Rebate on TRANS
If the issuer does not qualify for the available six-month exception, the regulations require that
cash on hand is expended first, then future revenues received before the deficit, and finally the
TRANs proceeds. Issuers beware. Under this method of use of funds, it becomes very
unlikely that short-term borrowing proceeds will be expended quickly. Thus, most of your
short-term borrowing proceeds will be assumed to be available for a period of time and could
generate a rebate liability.
Other Topics of Interest
Arbitrage Requirements
An issue that is exempt from the rebate requirements is not exempt from the arbitrage
requirements.
Private Activitv Bonds
Private activity bonds are generally those for which (i) more than 10% of the bond proceeds
will be used for private business and more than 10% of debt service payments will be paid or
secured, either directly or indirectly, by a private business interest; or (ii) a loan of more than
5% of the bond proceeds (or $5,000,000, if less) will be made to a "non -governmental person."
A special category of private activity bonds exist for 501(c)(3) organizations, primarily not -for -
profit educational and healthcare facilities.
® SPRINGSTED - vi - January 24, 1996
Governmental Purpose Bonds
Governmental purpose bonds are bonds that are not private activity bonds
Application of the 1993 Regulations
The 1993 regulations are generally effective for bonds issued after June 30, 1993. Issuers
also may elect to apply 1993 regulations, except for the 18-month spending exception from
rebate, to bonds issued on or before June 30, 1993 that are still outstanding on that date.
Reimbursement Bonds
A reimbursement bond is a portion of a bond issue used to pay an expenditure that was paid
prior to the date the bond was issued. A reimbursement bond cannot be issued as tax-exempt
unless the issuer meets the following requirements:
If an issuer wishes to reimburse itself with proceeds from tax-exempt bonds to be issued after
the expenditure is actually made, it must declare its intent to do so within 60 days after the
expenditure has been made. The declaration must contain (i) a description of the project or
identify the fund or account used to pay the expenditure and (ii) state the maximum amount of
bonds expected to be issued for the project.
Preliminary expenditures in an amount not greater than 20% of the bond issue may be paid
without the declaration of intent. These expenditures include architectural, engineering,
testing, surveying, bond issuance costs and other incidental costs incurred prior to
commencement of the project. Eligible costs do not include land acquisition or site
preparation. A "de minimis" amount equal to the lesser of $100,000 or 5% of the proceeds is
also available.
Reimbursement must take place not later than 18 months after the later of (i) the date the
expenditure was made or (ii) the date the financed property is placed in service or abandoned,
but in no event later than three years after the expenditure is made. Small issuers
(governmental units that issue $5,000,000 or less of tax-exempt bonds during the calendar
year) get a three-year period instead of 18 months.
Useful Life
To assure tax-exempt obligations are not outstanding too long, safe harbors should be
adhered to. A safe harbor maturity limits the average maturity of the issue to 120% of the
useful life of the capital project being financed with the proceeds from the tax-exempt
obligation. The IRS has provided some guidelines as to expected useful life calculations which
can be taken into account in the structuring of each bond issue.
Yield Reduction Payments on Non Bona Fide Portion of Debt Service Fund
With the demise of the ten-year temporary period for debt service funds for tax-exempt
obligations issued after June 30, 1993, amounts in excess of the bona fide portion of a debt
service fund must be yield restricted. Because yield restricting debt service funds can be a
complicated and cumbersome process, the IRS allows issuers to make yield reduction
payments (similar to rebate) on non bona fide amounts of up to 15% of the original stated
principal amount of the issue. Once the non bona fide portion exceeds 15% the fund must be
yield restricted. Small issuers as well as those subject to rebate can use yield reduction
payments instead of making restricted investments.
Note: Being a small issuer does not exempt an issuer from being subject to yield restriction
2 SPRINGSTED - vii - January 24, 1996
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
Following are the fundamental ideas of the Continuing Disclosure requirements set forth by the Securities
Exchange Commission under SEC regulation 15(c)2-12. This material is not meant to be definitive set of
instructions, but merely a helpful guide to understanding the topic.
Background
The Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 exempted most municipal securities from registration
with and regulation by the Securities Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). Antifraud provisions
of those Acts are not exempted however, and the SEC is using those provisions to ensure
there is full and accurate information available to the holders of municipal bonds. The
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the WSRB") was established in the 1970's and has
set standards for "Official Statements" and other disclosure documents to assist issuers and
underwriters in the preparation of adequate disclosure documents.
Effective January 1, 1990, the SEC promulgated Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) ("the Rule") which
requires underwriters of municipal securities to make a professional review of the Official
Statement prepared for the offering before making a recommendation to an investor to
purchase. The Rule thus requires issuers to prepare Official Statements and make them
available to underwriters prior to soliciting bids and to provide a reasonable number of "final"
Official Statements to investors.
In 1995 the Rule was amended to also require issuers of municipal securities to continue to
update the information in the final official statement throughout the life of the issue. The
amended Rule makes it unlawful for an underwriter to participate in the primary offering of
municipal securities unless, prior to submitting a bid or entering into a contract to purchase the
securities, it has reasonably determined that the issuer or an obligated person has undertaken
in writing (the "Undertaking"), for the benefit of the holders, to provide continuing disclosure
information to specific repositories. The Rule is issue specific, meaning that each offering is
viewed as a separate obligation of the issuer. There are some exceptions to these
requirements.
Exemptions From The Rule
There are two exemptions that completely exempt an issue from any continuing disclosure
requirements of the Rule:
A. If the issue amount is less than $1,000,000. Breaking up an offering into
multiple issues of the same class and purpose of less than $1 million is
prohibited and the aggregate amount will be controlling.
B. If the bonds are issued in minimum denominations of $100,000 and are sold in
limited private placements or mature in less than nine months or are subject to
optional tender to the issuer at least as frequently as nine months.
There are two partial conditional exemptions that are also available:
A. If an issue has a stated maturity of 18 months or less, the requirements for an
annual report of financial information and operating data are not required. The
issuer must still undertake in an agreement enforceable by the holders to
provide timely notice of any occurrence of certain specified material events.
2 SPRINGSTED - 1 - April 18, 1996
B. If each obligated person with respect to the issue has less than $10,000,000 of
municipal securities outstanding, including the proposed issue, as to which it is
an obligated person, the financial information and operating data requirements
are generally limited to information which is customarily prepared by the
obligated person and available to the public. Notice of any occurrence of
certain specified material events is also required. The issuer must in the final
official statement identify by name, address and telephone number from whom
the information may be obtained, if not from the issuer itself.
Obligated Persons
An obligated person is any "person" who is committed by contract or other arrangement to
support all or a portion of the debt payments. This could be an enterprise fund, another
governmental unit, or a private party. The issuer may not necessarily be an obligated person,
such as with a conduit financing for a 501(c)(3) corporation or an industrial development bond.
Each obligated person is responsible for its obligations under the Rule. The final official
statement will identify who is deemed a material obligated person. The issuer has some
potential liability if the obligated person does not perform as pledged in the Undertaking. If
there is a history of persistent and material breaches of undertakings, they may preclude
underwriters from being able to rely on the issuer's Undertaking for a future issue, therefore
precluding underwriters from purchasing the issue. This is an area of the new Rule that will be
closely watched and hopefully clarified as examples of noncompliance unfold.
Continuing Disclosure Commitment
To facilitate compliance with the Rule, except for the exceptions listed above, each offering will
require the issuer to undertake to provide continuing disclosure throughout the term of the
issue. In order for the underwriter to be assured the issuer will comply with the Rule, the
Notice of Sale (if a public sale) will include a statement of intent to undertake or a statement of
exemption from the Rule. If the sale is negotiated the Purchase Agreement will contain the
language. The preliminary and final official statements will describe the terms and details of
the Undertaking. The issuer will furnish the purchaser a copy of the Undertaking at closing
setting forth its details and terms, and that such Undertaking is a condition of closing. This
Undertaking can be a separate document or can be incorporated into the resolution awarding
the issue. If there have been past compliance failures, the official statement must specify each
instance.
There are two parts to the disclosure process. The first is the Annual Report, which includes
updated financial and operating data with respect to the issuer or other obligated persons,
provided at least annually, including audited financial statements prepared in accordance with
a specified standard (GAAP etc.). Information provided in the final official statement that has
been specifically deemed material must be updated annually. The Undertaking will specify a
time each year by when the information will be provided. The Annual Report must be filed with
each of the Nationally Recognized Municipal Securities Information Repositories ("NRMSIR"),
of which there are currently six, and the State Depository, if there is one.
"Significant Events" has been a concern of many issuers because of the uncertainty of
interpretation as to materiality. The SEC has clarified this by listing eleven material events
("Significant Events") which must be considered with every issue.
Principal and interest payment delinquencies;
2. Non-payment related defaults;
H SPRINGSTED - 2 - April 18, 1996
3. Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties;
4. Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties;
5. Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform;
6. Adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax exempt status of the issue;
7. Modification of rights of bondholders;
8. Bond Calls;
9. Defeasances;
10. Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the bonds; and
11. Rating changes.
In addition, the failure of the issuer to provide the annual report disclosure information at the
time specified is also an event requiring disclosure.
Whenever the issuer obtains knowledge of the occurrence of a Significant Event, the issuer
shall as soon as possible determine under applicable legal standards if such event would
constitute material information for holders of the bonds. Items (8), (9) and (11) will always be
deemed to be material.
If the issuer determines that knowledge of the occurrence of a Significant Event would be
material, notice must be provided to the MSRB and the State Depository, if any.
Failure to Comply With the Undertaking
The SEC has initiated the Rule under the anti -fraud provisions of the Securities Acts of 1933
and 1934.
The emphasis on enforcing compliance falls on the underwriters who trade the securities, both
in the primary market and the secondary market. If the underwriter cannot be assured that the
issuer will comply in the future, based on historical experience, they may not bid on the new
issue or buy or sell the issuer's securities in the secondary market. A holder of a bond in the
secondary market may find it difficult or costly to sell the security if no current information is
available since the underwriter cannot assure the adequacy of the information necessary to
recommend purchase of the security. The Undertaking specifies that the bondholders can sue
for compliance, and possibly monetary damages.
The rating agencies have also stated that failure to comply may cause the rating on the bonds
to be dropped or lowered.
2 SPRINGSTED - 3 - April 18, 1996
Highway 19 & 37
Property acquisition costs
Based upon appraised values
Parcel
Appraised
Owner No.
Value
Barthel 25
$13,450
Barthel 26
$3,725
Center Oaks 20
$2,600
Dj's 36
$10,370
Kenco 21
$11,000
Marx 24
$15,350
Roden 22
$3,900
Savitski 34
$10,470
Savitski 35
$21,850
Vinge
$64,835
Peterson
$38,417
Total
$195,967
REVISED ESTIMATED HWY 19 &
37 COSTS
Estimated City Construction Cost
$200,000
Estimated Engineering Cost
$25,000
$20,000
Contingencies
$20,000
Legal
$7,500
Financing
3000
Bond Consel
$5,850
Bond Discount
Estimated Right of Way Cost
$12,000
Appraisal Cost
$195,967
Land Acquisition
Total Estimated 19 & 37 Costs
$489,317
Less: $100,000
city cash on hand
Estimated bonding needs for 19 & 37 $
389,317
Add N.W. Frontage Sewer Costs
$60,000
Total Bonding Needs
$449,317
Sources of Funding for Bond Principal
144,660
Estimated 19 & 37 Assessments $,000
N.W. Frontage Assessments $$16060,000
TIF Funds � $56,657
City Levy (not including interest)
$449,317
CITY OF
TSEGO
8899 Nashua Avenue N.E. ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD (612) 441-4414
Elk River, MN 55330 Fax: (612) 441-8823
October 24, 1996
Mr Gary Fehn
Dennis Fehn Sand and Gravel, Inc.
11900 - 50TH Street NE
Albertville, Minnesota 55301
RE: CULVERT REPLACEMENT
Dear Gary:
The City of Otsego has authorized your firm to proceed with the construction of the
culvert replacement on 70TH Street between McGiver Avenue and CSAH19.
The City of Albertville has agreed to pay one-half the cost of the culvert replacement.
The replacement will be a 40 LF of new 36" RCP with tied joint and flared end sections.
The pipe will be placed in the same location and elevation as the previous pipe.
Your quote of $5,432.00 includes the furnishing and installation of the new 36" RCP.
The City of Otsego agrees to pay one-half the cost and Albertville the other portion at
$2,716.00 each. This does not include gravel replacement or bedding rock if needed.
Albertville will send a similar letter to you confirming their commitment to pay the
shared amount. If you Have questions, please contact myself or Larry KOshak, The City
Engineer:
Sincerely,
CITY OF OTSEGO
tic 2�
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning A
CC: Lawrence G. Ifoshak, PE
A, --"Gary Hale, Albertville Administrator
Otsego Mayor and Council
Phyllis Cokley
Judy Hudson
5975 Main Avenue N.E.
P.O. Box 9
Albertville, MN 55301
October 28, 1996
Mr. Gary Fehn
Dennis Fehn Sand & Gravel, Inc.
11900 50th Street NE
Albertville, MN 55301
Dear Gary:
The City of Albertville has authorized your firm to proceed
with the construction of the culvert replacement on 70th Street NE
between MacIver Avenue and CSAH 19.
The City of Otsego has agreed to pay one-half the cost of the
culvert replacement. The replacement will be 40 LF of new 36" RCP
with tied joint and flared end sections. The pipe will be placed
in the same location and elevation as the previous pipe.
Your quote of $5,432.00 included the furnishing and
installation of the new 36" RCP. The City of Albertville agrees to
pay one-half the cost and Otsego the other portion at $2,716.00
each. This does not include gravel replacement or bedding rock if
needed.
Further, the City of Albertville is requesting a estimate from
your firm for cleaning this ditch from the replaced culvert to the
lake.
sincerely,
Garrison L. Hale
City Administrator
Le'l,
^ d cC
D�-s /l0 q�opro de
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October 16, 1996
�C _�� 3��
TO:
City Council
FROM:
Gary
SMJ:
Consultant /utilization
/— Projects
/ r
C
sz�e�1'
�U
!o/`�yl/ny Gi C�/►�Pjc_K Me, r^ tl GGIG`GJ�CI f1� �c�,p� �E?�l i1�'NJJfGiiS LkecK
L J ! V �� /a �" `'��G� lG P �( �S / VG Gi "e._ ZitGti .
\V
The
�/
following
th"`� o lsi tan�ding consultant projects
represent
after the
establishment of
consultant utilization guidelines.
City
Planner
2j2�/�-
Comprehensive Parks & Trail Plan
-
Mapping
.�
a) Addresses - small for selling and large maps for Council
chambers
b) Zoning Map - Large scale zoning and land use maps for
Council chambers
-
Subdivision Ordinance
_
a) Storm Water Management guidelines
b) Lot Improvement Standards to enhance value, i.e., tree
planting, roadway buffering, size of lot
— —
c) Park dedication fee review
-
d) Trail standards for easement, construction, and
_
2.-, C-76.,�
establishment of dedication fees
e) Street construction standards, including utilities
P,�D«ss
f) Requirement of Preliminary Plat of entire property
-
Sign Ordinance redraft to a more user-friendly basis with
reference to readability and to review/survey other cities
for reference in use for standards update. NOTE:
Institutional signs and billboard sections considered
acceptable as written by Council.
-
Zoning Ordinance Update
a) Lot area definition (exclusive of wetlands, steep slopes,
etc.)
b) Structure setbacks from wetlands (also related to lot
size and front setbacks, impervious surface coverage
rather than building coverage as a percentage of lot
area)
c) Screening of all parking lots, not just those adjacent to
residential districts
d) Establish a regionally oriented zoning district to
accommodate uses such as the JMJ Outlet, possibly revise
the B-1 or B-2 districts
w �
v �
e) Research commercial building standards; increase
standards over those required for industrial
developments, prohibit metal buildings in commercial
districts
_
f) Update interim uses, day care, and antenna sections
g) Residential design standards, i.e. plan for third stall
garage and deck/home addition areas at time of
application. House square foot size, siding, brick
City
Engineer
-- -
Frankfort Drainage (Greenhaven Estates)
11s;'p2�C -
ISD #885 Primary School Park Concept/Drainage
North Frontage Road Sanitary Sewer Extension (62nd Street)
-
WWTF Expansion/Upgrade 1998
WWTF Phosphorus Study with PSG
Lti i'9a"E56 -
Sewer Rates/SAC/WAC/TAC charges
-
Urban Service Area definition
1�.PP/1 -
Marx Drainage
L �SSCity
Attorney
Parkside 4th Addition Developer's Agreement
,4-Lp/Zcl
CSAH 37/19 Intersection Realignment Project
a) Appraisals/R/W Purchase/Easements
b) Darkenwald Agreement
c) Bonding
1) North Frontage Road Sanitary Sewer Extension
2) CSAH 37/19
.�.
Marx Drainage Agreement
-
Frankfort Drainage Easements
_
-
Senior Housing Project TIF n
-
Ice Arena
Brittany Kay Estates Developer's Agreement
-
Property titles
_
a) Peterson title issue
b) Water Tower Lot
_
c) EDA/Fire Hall Lot
_ -
Trunk Charges Ordinance
"k, -ICES5 -
JMJ Properties - Minneapolis Factory Shoppes
LLfc0M5 -
Return of TIF funds to County
Summary of Zoning District Classifications & Requirements
Zoning
District
District Classification
Min. Lot
Size
Min. Lot
Width
(interior)
Setbacks
Principal
Building
Height
Max.
Bldg.
Lot
Cover
Max. #
Units
Per
Acre
F S-1 S-C R
A-1
Agricultural Rural
10 acres
300 feet
100 20 75 50
35 feet
10%
1/10
A-2
Agricultural Transitional
2'h acres
300 feet
100 20 75 50
35 feet
10%
112.5
R-1A
Low Density Single Family
15,000 sf
100 feet
30 15 30 25
35 feet
25%
2.9
R-1
Single Family
12,500 sf
90 feet
30 10 20 25
35 feet
25%
3.5
R-2
Single & Two -Family
15,000 sf
100 feet
35 10 30 25
35 feet
30%
<5
R-3
Single & Two -Family
12,500 sf
90 feet
35 10 20 25
25 feet
30%
<5
R-4
Twin Home, Townhouse,
Quadraminium, & Low
Density Multiple Family
15,000 sf
100 feet
35 10 20 30
35 feet
40%
<10
R-5
Medium Density Multiple
Family
15,000 sf
100 feet
35 15 30 30
35 feet
50%
<10
R-6
High Density Residential
15,000 sf
100 feet
35 15 20 30
35 feet
60%
10+
R-7
Special Purpose, High
Density
15,000 sf
100 feet
35 15 30 30
35 feet
60%
10+
R-8
Mixed Housing
12.500 sf
90 feet
35 10 20 25
35 feet
60%
10+
B-1
Neighborhood, Low
Intensity Business
8,000 sf
75 feet
35 15 20 25
35 feet
60%
-
B-2
Limited Business
10,000 sf
100 feet
35 10 20 20
35 feet
50%
-
B-3
Highway Commercial
(min. district size is 5 acres
& 200' frontage)
None
100 feet
35 20 35' 20
35 feet
30%
-
B-4
General Business
None
None
None 20' -- 20
35 feet
85%
-
B-W
Business Warehouse
20,000 sf
100 feet
30 302 302 30
35 feet
None
-
1-1
Light Industrial
(min. district size is 5 acres
& 300' frontage)
None
100 feet
35 10 35 20
35 feet
30%
-
I-1A
Limited Industrial
(min. district size is 5 acres
& 300' frontage)
None
100 feet
35 10 35 20
35 feet
30%
-
1-2
Heavy Industrial
20,000 sf
100 feet
35 20 20 25
35 feet
50%
-
F = Front yard setback as measured from the property line
S-1 = Side yard setback on interior lots
S-C = Side yard setback on corner lots
R - Rear yard setback
' Abutting a residential district
2 Maximum setback, refer to specific ordinance requirements
Prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
1 a34-96
1.
2.
W
ALBERTVILLE STAFF MEETING
October 23, 1996
9:00 AM
Cam.`" a i&XI);151; i
SPECIAL ORDER
a. 9:00 AM - Feneis Brothers/Marx Property
b. 10:00 AM - Summerfield
C. 11:00 AM - Balfany Development(Harold Swanson)
d. 12:00 PM - Other (Urban Service Area, Comp Plan
Amendment, etc.)
� • J; �I,r���My
STAFF TO ATTEND:
NOTE:
Garrison Hale
Liz Stockman
Pete Carlson
Mike Couri
Due to time constraints, agenda items may be
carried forward to future staff meetings.