Loading...
1987-09-21 CC Agenda/PacketCOUNCIL AGENDA SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA *III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. COMMUNITY FORUM 7:05 Val Donahue - Wright County Recycling 7:30 Joint Power's Update V. DEPARTMENT BUSINESS a. Legal -Health Central Issue -T.I.F. District Fund Balance -LaTour Contract 8:00 -Public Hearingoo❑ Sign Ordinance b. Administration -Income Received and Bills to be Paid -Rental of Farmland -Barthel Agreement Regardaing Draingield -Motion to Approve Reclassification needed for Auditing -Motion to Transfer 1960 Special Assessment Funds -Scheduling Budget Meetings -Set Date Budget Hearing for October 5, 1987 at 8:00 p.m. -Review Regional Meeting Outcome -Administrator's Report c. Maintenance -Other Business d. Engineering -Other Business V I . M EMBER' S REPORT VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. MOTION TO ADJOURN r COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 The regular meeting of the Albertville City Council was called to order by Mayor Loretta Roden. Members present included Gary Schwenzfeier, Donatus Vetsch, Don Cornelius, and Bob Braun. Others present included Bob Miller, Thore Meyer, and Maureen Andrews. There was a motion to approve the agenda. The motion was made by Bob Braun which was then seconded by Don Cornelius. All were in favor and the motion carried. There was a motion to approve the minutes of the September 8th Council meeting. The motion was made by Don Cornelius and seconded by Donatus Vetsch. All were in favor and the motion carried. Val Donahue of the Wright County Recycling Program was present to discuss with the Council the possibility of doing some type of solid waste abatement program in the City of Albertville. A slide -tape presentation regarding some possible alternatives to using landfills was shown. There was some discussion regarding the Wright County recycling program. A question was raised regarding the Elk River plant and whether or not the county was going to be involved with it. The next item discussed by the Council focused on Joint Powers. There was limited discussion regarding the problem with the water lines in St. Michael. Gary said that there was going to be a meeting regarding the problem later in the week. Gary was also requested to let the Joint Powers know that the City is having problems with rusty water and question how the flushing is being done. More discussion will take place in this issue once more information has been obtained from Munitec. Bob Miller next reviewed with the Council the issue regarding Health Central and the interest payment on the Clinic Bond. Bob told the Council that he was still looking into the matter but would like to send a letter to Health Central/Buffalo Memorial Hospital regarding the problem referencing the Audit Report. There was a motion made by Gary Schwenzfeier and a second by Bob Braun allowing Bob Miller to proceed with the letter. All were in favor and the motion carried. Bob asked if the Tax Increment Financing issue could be deferred to the next meeting. Everyone agreed. COUNCIL MINUTES PAGE 2 The LaTour Construction contract was reviewed and Bob said that the City should go ahead and sign it. The last issue discussed by Bob regarded renting the farm land out at the Wastewater Treatment Facility. Bob stated that normally the City would not have to advertise the rental of the land but was not sure what impact the fact we had previously advertised would have now that the City is looking to rent the land again. No action was taken on this issue but will be brought up at the mext meeting. The income received and bills to be paid were reviewed by the Council. A motion was made by Donatus Vetsch and seconded by Don Cornelius to approve the bills. All were in favor and checks B187 through 8210 were approved. The Council reviewed the information pertaining to the drainfield located in the Barthel Industrial Park. The Developer's Agreement states that once the City Waste Water System is up and operating the land would revert back to Barthel Construction and the Albertville Industrial Development Company. Maureen was asked to notify Ken Barthel letting him know that the land was no longer needed for the drainfield. The next order of business was to approve the reclassifications recommended by the auditors report. The motion was made by Donatus Vetsch and seconded by don Cornelius to approve the reclassifications retroactive to 1986 so as not to have effect on the 1987 audit. All were in favor and the motion carried. There was a motion to transfer the balance of the 1960 Special assessment fund over to the General fund. The amount of the transfer is to be The motion was made by Bob Braun and seconded by Donatus Vetsch. All were in favor and the motion carried. The first budget meeting for 1987 was scheduled Tuesday September 22nd, at 7:00 p.m. and the second was scheduled for Monday, September 28th, at 7:00 p.m. There was a motion to set the Public Hearing on the 1988 Budget for October 5, 1987 at 8:00 p.m. The motion was made by Bob Braun and seconded by Don Cornelius. All were in favor and the motion carried. The pubilc hearing on the sign ordinance was reconvened. There was then a motion to continue the hearing until October 5, 1987, at 7:15. The motion was made by Don Cornelius and seconded by Donatus Vetsch. All were in favor and the motion carried. There was some discussion regarding the topics covered by the league's Regional meeting held her in Albertville. Topics discussed included: Snow and Ice Removal. The City is only responsible for removing snow and ice from in front of public buildings and from City owned parking lots. Sidewalks. Maintenance departments should check sidewalks on a regular basis noting the conditions and any repairs that might be needed. This information should be documented noting the date and time of the inspection. Sewer Backups. Cities currently fall under an immunity for sewer backups. There is currently some discussion that this may be charged and cities ould then be hald liable for sewer problems that are deemed to be found COUNCIL MINUTES PAGE 3 the fault of the City's sewage system. Voluntary Labor. The League recommends using as much volunteer labor as possible bacause it keeps costs down for a city working on a fixed budget. Worker's Compensation. If a City requires that employers wear safety glasses and shoes the City will be required to pay some share of the expense of providing them. Wastewater Treatment. There was a variety of issues discussed which included funding and sewer charges. Loretta noted that Albertville's sewer rates are cheap compared to other cities and that in many cities they use a surcharge to encourage pretreatment of waste by industry. Some one mentioned that the deaf child sign on 54th Street can be removed since the family has moved. Thore Meyer of Meyer-Rohlin was present at the Council meeting. He informed the Council that Chuck Eberhard was leaving them on October 1, 1987 to take a new job in St. Cloud as the Office Manager of a new engineering firm. Thore will be attending the Council meetings and will be the contact person for the City. Norm will be out at the construction site during the work in Barthel's Manor 2nd Addition. Donatus Vetsch asked about the railroad crossing on Co. Rd. 19. Maureen informed him that Wayne Fingleson was looking into the matter and would get back to the City. The Council also discussed the need for a light at the intersection of Co. Rd. 19 and Co. Rd. 35. The County said that if the City wants a light at that intersection it would be the responsibility of the City to have it installed and maintained. The Council decided that the City should wait on the light because the problems may be reduced since a new turn lane has been installed on that corner. The next item discussed by the Council was contract garbage hauling and recycling. It was agreed that the Council should get citizen input on the matter so a public information meeting was scheduled for October 19, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. on a motion made by Don Cornelius and seconded by Donatus Vetsch. All were in favor and the motion carried. In addition it was agreed to try to get a representative of Polk -a -Dot Pick up present to discuss recycling alternatives for the City. Another item discussed was a community composing site. All in all there appeared to be lots of interest in the recycling issue. There was no other new business so there was a motion to adjourn. The motion was made by Don Cornelius and seconded by Donatus Vetsch. All were in favor and the meeting was adjourned. co I L U JIM LEUER CONSTRUCTION GRENINGER FARM ALROY BARTHEL. PSYK FARM & CONSTRUCTION, CO. SHERBURNE COUNTY ABSTRACT MAUREEN T. ANDREWS LMC REGIONAL MEETING SEWER ACCOUNTS THOMAS THELEN (LMC) REGISTERED CLOSERS KEN LINDSAY (REIMBURSEMENT HIGHWAY 47 AUTO PARTS CAROL WEIDENBACH MN COPY SYSTEMS, INC. NSP MEYER & MILLER U.S. POST OFFICE CHOUINARDS MICHAEL COFFEY PAPER WAREHOUSE CUB FOOD PETTY CASH - LMC PETTY CASH BROASTER CATERING ST. ALBERT'S INCOME RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 SUBTOTAL BILLS TO BE PAID SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 FOR ST. FRANCIS AUTO PARTS) $ 1,007.40 25.00 25.00 891.50 10.00 2.11 300.00 722.10 188.00 7,492.98 $ 10,664.09 $ 20.00 20.00 24.00 160.61 1,391.19 721.00 7.00 44.76 111.30 13.05 24.81 100.00 30.00 427.45 250.00 SUBTOTAL $ 22413.10 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE P. O. BOX 131 ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: (612) 497-3384 September 15, 1987 Hordis Brother's, Inc. 5334 Barthel Industrial Drive P.O. Box 130 Albertville, Minnesota 55301 Dear Mr. Kunkel and Mr. O'Leary: Please find enclosed two copies of the Task Force findings on the issues raised by your firm in early August. Hopefully the report will answer some of your questions and give you a better understandnig of some of the recent changes the city has experienced. If once you have read the report and would like to sit down and discuss it with me please feel free to give me a call at 497-3384. MA:lr Enclosures cc: Task Force Sincerely, THE CITY OF ALBERTVI E 111�_ Maur en T. Andrews City Administrator Make our Citv........ Your Cite We invite Horne, lndustrY, Business MEN TASK FORCE'S FINDINGS ON HORDIS BROTHER'S, INC. LETTER OF INQUIRY On August 3, 1987 Mr. Larry Kunkel and Mr. Jerry O'Leary of Hordis Brothers, Inc. were present at the regular Council meeting to express their concerns regarding three major issues, which included the residential development in Barthel's Addition that was the result of the Council approval of a rezoning request; the increases that have occurred in the area of property taxes and finally the increases that have occurred in the area of sewer a n d water fees. In addition to these three issues, several other issues were addressed by Mr. Kunkel and Mr. O'Leary in a joint letter to the Albertville City Council dated August 5, 1987. (Attachment A ) . At the August 3, 1987 meeting Mayor Loretta Roden appointed a special Task Force, made up of Maureen Andrews, City Administrator, Bob Braun, and Gary Schwenzfeier, council members; Bob Miller, City Attorney; Chuck Eberhard, City Engineer; and Ken Lindsay, City Waste Water Operator, to review the issues raised by Hordis Brothers and report back their findings in a timely fashion. In the following pages the Task Force has attempted to review the available information and prepare a recommendation for the council to react to. The Task Force will also meet with Mr. Kunkel and Mr. O'Leary on to review with them some of the preliminary findings. The report has been prepared to review the three major issues raised by Hordis Brother's, Inc. as well as the additional 1-1 items discussed in the letter from the firm's President and Plant Manager. While the report addresses Hordis Brother's, Inc. specifically the Council will find general information which applies to other businesses and the residents of the -2- community as well. Finally, the Task Force has attempted to make some recommend- ations for the Council to review and act on, as it is the policy making body for the City, at which time the task force will be disbanned. -3- Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Approval of Parcels in Barthel's Industrial Park. On the following pages you will find excerpt of the Hordis Brother's Inc. letter pertaining to the rezoning of the Barthel Industrial Park and the subsequent development thereof as well as additional information pertaining to the project. In add- ition the task force has attempted to respond to the questions poised by Hordis Brother's, Inc. "Starting from the beginning, I would like to go through the chronology of events as I remember them happening." Subject: Rezone *Jerry O'Leary, Plant Manager of Albertville, and I met with the Planning Commission and voiced our disapproval of Rezoning to Single Family Dwelling. *Representative from Barthel gave his "dog & pony" show on why it should be rezoned - Planning Commission approves Rezoning. *Discussion continues and we point out noise concerns and safety hazzard from trucks and cars. *We recommend a burm, 4 ft. fence, and trees to reduce noise. *Much discussion followed on safety and at that time we all agreed to the installation of the burm, the 4 ft. fence, and the trees; including all members of the Plan- ning Committee and the representative from Barthel. -4- *City Council unanimously overrules the Planning Committee and none of the recommendations have to be installed. *No notification given to participants as to the over- ruling of the agreement. The following questions were asked: 1) Why was Hordis Brothers, Inc. not given the common or professional courtesy as to the overruling by the City Council? 2) Because of this lack of concern for the safety of its citizens, are the individuals on the Council legally responsible if an accident happens? 3) How can an individual/corporation trust in the decisions 1-1 of the City Council when they overrule the group whose duty or obligation it is t,-o protect all concerned; the individual, the corporation, the city, especially when a compromise had been reached and agreed upon by all parties who understood it to be an agreement. 4) It took us to defend the citizens by our insistence on safety measures and sound control be installed. When you overruled the agreement, you demonstrated, by your actions, that you were not concerned for the safety and welfare of its citizens. Why? Your elected positions, by their definitions, say you must be. "I would like to have the answers to these questions in writing." According to the minutes of both the Planning Commission and the City Council (Attachments B,C,D,& E) the following events took place. -5- In the Spring of 1986 a request to rezone Lot 1, Block 1 from Industrial to Residential and portions of Lot 10, Block 5 and Lot 1, Block 6 from Multiple Dwelling to Residential was made by Barthel Construction. In addition to the rezoning there was also a request for preliminary plat approval. On May 8, 1986 a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission regarding the requests. Notices had been sent out to all the effected properties within 300 feet of the proposed areas. Persons present in the audience included Mr. Larry Kunkel and Mr. Jerry O'Leary of Hordis Brother's Inc., 5334 Barthel Industrial Drive, Mr. Doug Psyk, 11420 54th Street, and Mr. LeRoy Berning, representing Barthel Construction. Mr. Berning made the presentation for the rezoning request and on the proposed development. The request would allow Barthel Construction and the Albertville Industrial Development Company to develop fifteen single family lots in what was Lot 1, Block 1 (Barthel Manor) and eight lots in what were Lot 10, Block 5 and Lot 1, Block 6 (Barthel Maple Hills). (Attachment F, and G) . After the presentation was concluded the meeting was opened to the floor for discussion purposes. The following issues were raised and discussed: 1) The safety factor of locating homes so close to the Industrial Park; 2) The fact that children have a tendancy to dart out into oncoming traffic and what steps should be taken to deter an accident from occurring; and 3) That there is a potential noise problem that may be generated from industries located in the industrial park and what steps could be taken by the developer to reduce the conflict between residential and industrial users. After what could be deemed as a lengthy discussion the Planning Commission came up with the following recommendations. That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for rezoning for Lot 1, Block 1 with the following stipulation. That a tree screen and fence buffer be provided along Barthel Industrial Drive for sound and safety restraints. That the Planning Commission would also recommend approval for the requests for Lot 10, Block 5 and Lot 1, Block 6 provided that they meet the stipulations set for Lot 1, Block 1. In addition to the trees and fencing the Planning Commission further stipulated that in the event that multiple dwelling units would be located on Lot 10, Block 5 that the size of the units would be kept to a 4 plex or smaller; and finally if the parcel would be rezoned to parkland that the developer would provide an easement for a walkway leading into the park area. The third stipulation was included because at the time of the hearing the City had been asked to consider an exchange of parcels for parkland. On May 19, 1986 the Albertville City Council held their public hearing on the request for rezoning and preliminary plat approval for the Barthel projects. The Planning Commission's recommendations were reviewed by the Council and discussed. The Council could not come to a consensus regarding the fencing -7- and tree line so the plans were sent back to the Planning Com- mission to work out the details before the final plat would be approved. The Council did however approve the request for rezoning and the preliminary plat pending the Planning Commission working out the details for fencing and tree lines. On May 22, 1986 the Planning Commission met at their regular meeting and one of the issues discussed was the stipulations placed on the Barthel development. Joining in the discussion was Mayor Jim Walsh and LeRoy Berning. Barthel Construction proposed to install a Split Rail Fence to run the length of the street with a start and stop point at each end of the property lines and theplacement of small evergreens along each property. Discussion focused on maintenance problems that could arise with the fences and trees, such as who would be responsible for repairs if the fence was located on the property line, who would mow the grass on the east side of the fence, and who would take care of pruning and watering young trees? There was also some discussion regarding the fact the fences some- times give a false sense of security to parents of small children and would the City be liable for someone being hurt even though the City had required fencing. It was also the contention of some of those present that when a buyer looks at a parcel of land it is their responsibility to look at the site to determine if it meets their needs, which includes general location, surrounding traffic patterns, noise levels or the potential for noise level increases that are the result of development, be it the residential, commercial, or we industrial, and the aesthetics of the area. Keeping that philos- ophy in mind when a person purchases a lot that abutts an indust- rial road they know that they will have a higher level of traffic to contend with. The same holds true for the close proximity to the industrial park and the noise level that may be generated from the business located in the park. It was finally agreed that the Planning Commission would recommend to the Council that the stipulations regarding fencing and trees be removed because of potential liability problems that could arise in the future. As a side light to the dis- cussion there was a suggestion made that possibly a sideway/ walking path should be installed along Barthel Industrial Drive, keeping pedistrians and bikes off the industrial road. No action was taken on this suggestion. On June 2, 1986 the Council recieved the Planning Commission's report which removed the stipulations discussed above. The verbal report included the discussion that took place at the Planning Commission meeting. There was a motion to accept the Planning Commission's Recommendation to remove the stipulations regarding trees and fencing. When voted on it was passed unan- imously. In response to the questions poised by Hordis Brother's, Inc. the Task force has attempted to answer them as fairly and as completely as possible. 1) Why was Hordis Brothers, Inc. not given the common or professional courtesy as to the overruling by the City Council? It has been a long standing policy that the City of Albertville reports the Council's decisions in two forms, first through the Council Minutes which is the official record of the City Council and secondly through the newspaper articles in the Crow River -9- News, which is the City's official newspaper. The City has not made it a policy to send notification of findings unless the parties specifically asked for copies. 2) Because of this lack of concern for the safety of its citizens, are the individualson the council legally responsible if an accident occurs? It is the finding of Minnesota State Statute (MS 466.03, subd. 6) that every municipality shall be immune from liability when the Council's decision is based on a discretionary function or duty, that is where there is no applicable statute governing the action. In the case of the City not requiring the fencing and trees the courts would likely deem that as a discretionary decision of the Council making the members immune from liability. 3) How can an individual/corporation trust in the decisions of the City Council when they overrule the group whose duty or obligation it is to protect all concerned; the individual, the corporation, the city, especially when a compromise had been reached and agreed upon by all parties who understood it to be an agreement. and 4) It took us to defend the citizens by our insistence on safety measures and sound control be installed. When you overruled the agreement, you demonstrated, by your actions, that you were not concerned for the safety and welfare of its citizens. Why? Your elected positions, by their definitions, say you must be. ago First of all there needs to be some clearification on the role of the Boards and Commissions and their relationship to the City Council. In local government the Boards and Commissions serve in an advisory role to the Council, making recommendation and suggestions for the Council to respond to. It is now and always has been the duty of the Council to set policies and carry those policies out to the best of their ability. The residents who take the time to serve on the City Council and its boards and commissions do so because of their concern and interest in the community. The members of the Council who worked on this task force take issue in the Hordis Brother's, Inc's. state- ment regarding the lack of trust in the decisions made by the Council. The members work hard and do the best job possible and as you pointed out in your fourth question the Council is elected by the residents and represents them to the best of their ability. Itisthe Task Forces recommendation that the Park Board look at tying a walking path into the park system to keep children off Barthel Industrial Drive. This proposal could possibly include trees and fencing if it would deem legally feasible. -11- Property Taxes The next issue raised by Hordis Brothers, Inc. was the increase in property tax over a course of a couple years. Hordis stated that their taxes have increased from $35,000 in 1985 to $62,700 in 1986 and to 75,000 in 1987. These increases are in part due to the building addition that was put on their struct- ure in 1985, but not put on the tax role until 1986 and the 1590' state surcharge which was placed on all commercial and in- dustrial properties in Albertville. This increase showed up on the 1987 tax roles. Shown below is a pie diagram showing the average way the property owner have their current tax dollar divided to pay for county, city and school district service. AVERAGE 1987 TAX LEVY THE ABOVE SHOWS THE AVERAGE WAY THAT WRIGHT COUNTY PROPERTY OWNERS WILL RAVE THEIR CURRENT TAX DOLLAR DIVIDED TO PAY FOR COUNTY, CITY, TOWNSHIP, SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES. •SPECIAL MONTICELLO-BIG LAKE HOSPITAL CLEARWATER-RIVER WATERSHED AVERAGE MILL RATE: COUNTY 21.332 CITY/TWP. 27.218 SCHOOL DIST. 54.569 SPEC. DIST. 1.674 -12- These percentages change somewhat from year to year and from City to City, but they do fall within a fairly common range. The figures shown below show the actual changes in mill rates for the years 1985 to 1987 for the City of Albertville. (These figures include all the different taxing catagories) ALBERTVILL MILL RATES FOR THE YEARS 1985 THROUGH 1987 1985 1986 1987 COUNTY 19.719 20.308 21.332 CITY 28.190 35.362 36.262 SCHOOL DIST. 59.507 57.577 68.589 TOTAL* 107.416 113.247 126.183 *based on a per $1,000.00 rate of the properties valuation. As you can see the City controls only 29 percent of the total tax dollar in 1987, while the school district and county control 54 percent and 17 percent respectively. Increases in property taxes can be attributed to the fact that all levels of government have experienced a loss in state and federal assistant, through reductions in Local Government Aid, and the loss of all Revenue Sharing. While we face a loss -� in these revenues we are also faced with the fact that the residents of this community, and that includes the commercial and industrial sectors as well as the homeowner, expects to receive the same level of services regardless to what it costs the city, the -13- ed from the City included good roads, snow free streets, clean sewer and storm sewer lines, good parks, street lights, police and fire protection to name a few and all of which cost money to operate. The City of Albertville is making a conscious effect to keep these costs down as low as possible and can be seen by the amount of work each member of the Council puts in during the budget preparation each year. No budget is error free but it is safe to say that the Council does their best to develop a budget that meets the needs of the community. -14- Increases in Water Rates Because the City of Albertville does not directly control the rate charged for water uses this section will only briefly discuss the rate increase that Hordis Brothers, Inc. and the rest of the water users received. Prior to the last rate increase the Joint Powers Water Board charge for water useage on a decreasing rate, that is the high water users were charged less per 1,000 for the water consumption than the low or average water user. In January, 1987 the Joint Powers Board voted to change their rates structure to better represent what it actually cost to pump 1,000 gallons of water. The philisophy this is based on is that high water users should pay their fair share for their consumption while at the same time low users should not be penalized for conserving water. This theory is the basis for the "user charge system". Keeping the user charge system in mind Hordis Brothers should realize that in the past they have not been charged for the entire cost of pumping the water and treatment thereof. Basic economics has changed the philosophy on which the old rates were established. -15- Increases in Sewer Rates Hordis Brothers raised the issue regarding the sewer rate now being charged by the City of Albertville. In order to ad- equately respond to Hordis Brothers, the task force looked at the issue of sewer rates from several perspectives, including notification of rate increases, comparison of what other cities currently charge and how they structure their rate charges, and finally where does the City of Albertville stand after one year of operation and what change if any should be made. The Task Force did not however deal with the back charges for 1986 sewer useage and feel that the Council will need to deal with that as a seperate issue. The letter from Hordis Brother's, Inc. indicated that they had not been given any notice of the rate change made by the City. Notification of rate change was given on more than one occassion in the following mannors: through the official newspaper, The Crow River News, March 19, 1985 at which time the sewer use charge ordinance was adopt- ed by the Albertville City Council, through the official minutes of the City Council and the newspaper articles in the Crow River News. In addition to these forms of notification, the City of Albertville sent a letter dated November 5, 1985 to all sewer users explaining the sewer rate billing that is currently being used by the City of Albertville (Attachment H). The Task Force is not indicating that another letter at the time the sewer billings were mailed out may not have been helpful, but hind sight is 20/20 and no letter -16- was sent re -explaining the rate system. The Task Force has noted the suggestion so that in the future if a rate change is to occur the City will attempt to send out some notification to the users. When the representatives of Hordis Brothers, Inc. questioned the rate charges the City of Albertville was charging, the Task Force decided to check with other com- munities to see how the rates compared. This was done in two ways, first the Task Force reviewed information supplied to us through the League of Minnesota Cities and secondly through contact made with other cities which have or are in the process of completing new wastewater treat- ment facilities. In reviewing the League of Minnesota Cities information the Task Force found that League had compiled information regarding fees charged by cities in 1981. The information was broken down into population categories which include: 0-1,000; 1,001-5,000; 5,001-10,000; 10,001-20,000 an over 20,000. The Task Force found that cities used a variety of systems to charge for sewer useage. The list includes, but is not limited to the following: minimum quarterly charges plus a per thousand gallon charge, flat rates, percentage of water useage, size of household, and flat rate plus a percentage of water bill. The information provided by the league did not however indicate how old the wastewater systems were or whether or not the cities C I -0 COUNCIL AGENDA SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA *III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. COMMUNITY FORUM 7:05 Val Dan6hU6 - Wright County Recycling 730 Joint Power's Update V. DEPARTMENT BUSINESS a. Legal -Health Central Issue T.I.F. District Fund Balance LaTour Contract 8:00 Public Hearing000 Sign Ordinance b. Administration -Income Received and Bills to be Paid -Rental of Farmland -Barthel Agreement Regarding Draingield -Motion to Approve Reclassification needed for Auditing -Motion to Transfer 1960 Special Assessment Funds -Scheduling Budget Meetings -Set Date Budget Hearing for October 5, 1987 at 8:00 p.m. -Review Regional Meeting Outcome -Administrator's Report c. Maintenance -Other Business d. Engineering -Other Business VI . M EMBER'S REPORT VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. MOTION TO ADJOURN -17- were required to meet the operation, maintenance and re- placement guidelines of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These guidelines require that the fees charged for the treatment of waste cover the operation and maintenance cost as well as setting aside for future capital expendature, in other words replacement costs. Federal regulations further stipulate that it is necessary for municipalities to bring their rate structure into compliance in order to receive federal aid for construction of a new wastewater treatment facility. In addition to requiring cities to follow the federal guidelines the EPA set forth some guide- lines which relate to high quanity users and industrial effluents. The EPA guidelines will be discussed a little later in this report, since they relate directly to Albertville rate charges. The Task Force agreed that it would be advantageous to look at rates being charged by other cities, that like Albertville, had new wastewater treatment facilities, because these cities have been faced with bonding for their share of the project cost. So in addition to making sure that the user charge established covers the operation, maintenance and replacement (0,M, & R) the cities have had the added responsibility of being sure that adequate money is set aside for debt retirement. The task force contacted seven cities which included -18- Fergus Falls, Winsted, Spring Valley, Little Falls, Melrose, Albany, and Dassel to discuss th.e rate structures that they had established to meet the federal guidelines. Each of the cities used somewhat different rate scales or formulas which were based on the types of treatment facility constructed. In all cases, the city representative spoken to said that each user was charged an equal share which was based on water consumed. Additionally, some cities charged their industrial users for flow, suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand (B.O.D.'s) because of the fact that suspended solids and B.O.D.'s increase the cost of treating the wastewater. Some of the suggestions made by the representatives of the Cities we spoke to including: 1. Establishing a flat rate to cover the cost of administration, debt retirement and testing costs and then charge a per thousand gallon rate for the actual treatment of waste. 2. Charge the industrial user on a monthly basis for actual water used. 3. Breakdown the cost and charge for flow, B.O.D. and suspended solids. But in all cases, it was stressed that the city must cover the cost of O,M, & R and debt service. When the Task force first began looking at the Hordis Brothers, Inc. sewer charges, it was suggested that the city should look at giving a quantity discount because the firm is a high water user. During the course of putting -19- together this information the Task Force realized that it would not be feasible to discount the rate because EPA states that "Quantity discounts to large volume users will not be acceptable. Savings resulting from economics of scale shall be apportioned to all users or user classes. The EPA prohibition against quantity discounts has been justified on the following grounds: a) Sewage treatment does not normally exhibit economics of scale. It is not the case that unit costs decline as quantity of sewage treated increases. b) Quantity discounts provide little economic incentive for dischargers to minimize their effluent generation. �-. c) Quantity discounts for large users often lead to situations in which the treatment costs are not assessed equitably. For example, if we neglect billing charges and the costs of installing the sewer lines connecting the customer to the system (which are not covered by the EPA regulations) and if the industrial customer differs from the residential customer only in the quantity of effluent he generates (with no difference in quality) then the cost of treating a gallon of the industrial customer's effluent is equal to the cost of treating a gallon of the residential customer's effluent. A quantity discount to the large user can not then be justified. Furthermore if a discount would be given to a high water user the cost of operation would have to be spread out over the rest of the users. -20- Another EPA guideline relates to treatment of industrial waste. Currently the City does not have a problem with industrial effluent, but if in the future the situation would arise the City would be responsible for charging an adequate fee to cover the industrial users share. The EPA regulation states that: An industrial user's share shall be based on all factors which significantly.jrF'uence the cost of the treatment works. Factors such as strength, volume, and delivery flow rate characteristics shall be considered and included to insure a proportional distribution of the grant assistance ^ allocable to industrial use to all industrial users of the treatment works. As a minimum, an industry's share shall be proportional to its flow, in relation to treatments works flow capacity. Albertvile Sewer Rate Charges In order to understand the sewer rate being charged a basic understanding of how the rate is arrived at would be helpful. The rate is based on a formula that takes into consideration annual wastewater flow, annual cost of operation, maintenance and replace- ment and annual cost for debt service. Each of these components factor into the per thousand gallon charge that the City uses for figuring ^ the sewer rate. -21- On the following pages the Task Force has attempted to work through the formula using actual dollar figures from the first year of operation to determine what the City should do for 1988. In an effort to better understand what options the City might have the Task Force will also provide a couple alternatives to the current user charge structure. In order to complete the calculations the following numbers must be assumed to be correct and accurate: Annual Wastewater Flow 26,160,000. Annual Operating Expenses Sept. -Dec. Jan. -Aug. Actual Ooeratino Expenses Salaries Payroll Tax PERA Medical Benefits Mileage and Travel Training and Education Supplies Plant & Line Maintenance Repair and Maintenance Gasoline Permits and Fees Utilities 1 yr. operating costs 1 yr. replacement costs Total Operating Expense 2,932.66 154.04 180.50 83.66 0 0 249.90 679.49 50.28 16.69 150.00 756.43 5,933.14 $20,979.85 6,550.00 $27,479.85 6,889.20 377.95 224.68 209.10 172.08 148.54 650.90 3,778.58 1,265.40 313.34 340.00 1.327.84 15,046.71 -22- Annual Cost for Debt $49,576. Service (1988) Number of Sewer Users 265 Residential/Commercial 258 Industrial 7 Estimated Sewer Income (1987) $58,835.70 Residential/Commercial 40,093.20 Industrial 18,742.50 At the time the $340,000 General Obligation Bond was issued it was assumed that the City would pledge its full faith and credit taxing powers for payment of the bonds. It was anticipated that the net revenues of the sewer utility fund would be sufficient to pay the debt service on the sewer bond as they become due. At the time of issuance the City had not set the rate, but it was expected to be sufficient to meet operating and debt service costs of the City's sewer system. The bond was structured requiring the City to levy for the bond payment, plus Sa to assure that the City could adequately meet the bond payment. If the sewer rates are structured in such a fashion to cover O,M and R and debt service the Bond provided a method to cancel the levy requirement on a yearly basis. This requires the passing of a resolution cancelling all or part of the levy. Assuming that the City would want to set the sewer rates for 1988 so that all expenses are covered, the rate -23- would have to be set at $2.95 per thousand gallons of water used. Listed below is the calculation used to come up with the base rate using the figures established on pages 21 and 22. Unit Cost for 0, M, & R 27,550 X 1,000 = $ 1.05/ 1,000 gallons 26,160,000 Unit Cost for Debt Retirement 49,576 X 1,000 = $ 1.90/ 1,000 gallons 26,160,000 Total Cost = $ 2.95 per 1,000 gallons used Average Cost Per User Per Quarter $ 46.47 Unit for 0, M, & R = 175 gpd X 30 X 1.05 1,000 5.25 X 1.05 = 5.51 per month Unit for Debt Retirement 175 gpd X 30 X 1.90 1,000 5.25 X 1.90 = 9.98 per month If the City would use this principal it appears that we are under charging the user $.85 per thousand gallons of water used. The City does have a couple options available because Bond Council included Statute 115 which allows the City to use tax proceeds to pay for all or in part the bond payment through the general tax levy. Because of the inclusion of this statute the City can reduce the base rate of the user charge system and levy the difference to the tax roles. The Task Force looked at two options first levying -24- for the purchase of land used to construct the wastewater treatment facility and secondly just levy the difference between expenses and income. Each of these options will be broken out and explain on the following pages. Option 1 - Levying For Land Cost. * This option assumes that the cost of the land amounts to $ 204,263 (and is taken from the bond document), which is approximately 2/3 of the cost of the issu- ance. * That being the case the portion of the "soft costs" or issuance costs would also be split on a 2/3, 1/3 split. * Making the City's 6' share of the project cost $97,137. Used below are the calculations using the assumptions listed above, which the following formula changes. - Annual Cost of Debt Service for Project Costs $17,951.05/yr. - Levy rate charged in 1988 $ 31,624.95 Unit for 0, M, & R $1.05 (would remain the same) Unit for Debt Service $ 17,951.05 X 1,000 - $.69/ 1,000 gallons 26,160,000 Total Cost - $1.74 per 1,000 gallons used. Average Cost Per User per Quarter $ 27.39 Unit for 0, M, & R 5.51 per month (would remain th.e same) Unit for Debt Retirement 175 gpd X 30 X $.69 13000 -25- 5.25 X $.69 = 3.62 per month Option 2 - Status Quo The next option looked at was reducing the amount levied so that it was just the amount different between operating and income. This would be based on the current $2.10 per thousand gallon charge in effect now. Total Operating expenses $ 77.126 Estimate 1987 income 58,835.70 Amount to eb levied 18,290.30 (difference between operating expenses and income) If the Council would decide to use option # 2 but would want to keep the ratea little higher then the $1.74 base rate, the following charges indicates what type of income would be received. (this is based on the $31,624.95 levy amount for land cost.) Sewer Incomes (9 1.80/1,000 = 78,712.95 9 2.00/1,000 = 83,944.95 0 1.85/1,000 = 80,020.95 ® 2.05/19000 = 85,577.95 ® 1.90/11000 = 81,328.95 0 2.10/19000 = 869880.95 1.95/19000 = 82,636.95 At this point the Task Force feels that adequate information has been provided to determine which is the best option, on which to base a decision. -26- The Task Force members also talked to several different companies that work in some type of glass production to see if any of them take "in-house" measures to reduce the cost of their sewer bills. The companies looked at included the St. Louis Park based Cardinal I.G., Warroad's, Marvin Window Glass, and Virocon in Owatonna. In speaking with each of these companies the Task Force found that some type of water conservation or recycling takes place in each of their processes. Listed below is a brief description,of some of the activities each company does to keep their water rates low: Cardinal I.G. Does a 4 stage cleaning process of the glass that first prewashes the glass, then washes, treats with softened water and then through an ionization wash. The water used in most of these steps are used between 4 and B times before it is dumped and in the early stages the water goes through a filtering system to remove large particles from the water. Marvin Window Glass Equipment has some type of recycle components built right into it. The water is reused for a period of time and is then dumped. Virocon Does the least amount of recycling but could do more if they wanted to. They do use settling tanks, to remove some materials from the water, which is then cleaned out on a regular basis. The Company also uses alot of water in a cooling system which eventually is released into the storm sewer system. -27- Removal of Office Spaces, Move Fire Hydrant, and the Discontinued Use of the Firms incinerator The Hordis Brother's, Inc. letter stated that they had been forced to remove office spaces because they were not to code, had to move a fire hydrant that they had not put there and remove and stop using the incinerator. The Task Force would like to respond to each of these issues on an individual basis. Hordis Brothers was required to remove office spaces because they did not meet State Building Codes nor State Fire Codes when they were built. In this case, a building permit had not been applied for, prior to the work being done. When the inspector inspected the work they found several serious violations of code and therefore made the company remove the offices. It is the Task Forces' feeling that if a permit would have been applied for before the construction was started, the building inspector would have been able to have Hordis Brother's correct the problems before time, labor, and materials were involved. The next issue reveiwed by the Task Force was regarding the fire hydrant. At one point there was discussion regarding the City putting posts around a hydrant located near the Hordis Brother's loading dock so that the hydrant would not get hit when the driveway became slick. -28- Since the fire hydrants are the responsibility of the Joint Powers the issue was deferred to their office. On September 15, 1986, the Joint Powers Water Board sent Hordis Brother's, Inc. a letter requesting that posts be installed around the hydrant to protect it from damage (Attachment I ). It is the understanding of the Task Force that by locating the post around the hydrant it was not required to have the hydrant moved. If a hydrant was moved neither the Joint Powers Board or the City is aware of the relocation. Finally the last issue raised by Hordis Brother's had to do with the removal of the incinerator. The City did receive many complaints about the operation of the incin- erator because it was not properly enclosed to protect from someone getting burned nor were the side seams properly sealed. Reviewing correspondence from the City, dated November 4, 1985, the Task Force found that Hordis Brother's Inc. did not have a permit for either an "approved Waste Burner" or "open burning" from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. It was the lack of these permits that placed Hordis Brother's, Inc. in violation of the Minnesota Air Pollution Control Rules 7005.0070, Statutory Authority 116.07, Subdivision 4. Because of the violation the City did request that all on -site burning be stopped, which Hordis did do. (Attachment J). -29- City's Response to Questions poised by the Hordis Brother's Letter The last section of this report has attempted to respond to the five questions poised by Hordis Brother's, Inc. 1) Where do we stand in the community? Are you indirectly, by your actions, asking us to leave? The Task Force along with the City Council enjoy having Hordis Brother's, Inc. as one of our industrial neighbors and believe that our actions of using Tax Increment Financing and Industrial Revenue Bonds to bring a glass company to town is a good indication that the City is interested in the development of the industrial park. Hordis Brother's, Inc. may be overlooking some of the things that the City does to make operation of the plant function smoothly, such as paving the Industrial Boulevard to make it easier to get trucks in and out, the fact that Barthel Industrial Drive is the first area to be plowed out during a snow storm so that the employees working the the businesses in the industrial park can get to and from work safely and on time so not to delay production schedules and requesting that the developer put signs up locating the business in the industrial park. The Task Force also believes that the Council's willingness to research and respond to the issues raised by the appearance of Mr. Kunkel and Mr. O'Leary and their letter is an indication of how important Hordis Brother's is to the City. The work done by the Task Force may not have come up with all the answers Hordis Brother's would like to see, but the information -30- is factual and hopefully answers some of the questions raised by the glass company. 2) What does our existence here mean? In payment of taxes, water, sewer and school bonds? The Task Force acknowledges that Hordis Brother's plays an important factor in the City and that hopefully the inform- ation supplied in this report helps the representatives of Hordis Brother's understand that each of these issues: taxes, water, sewer, and school bonds are seperate issues which do have an interlocking impact on one another. Secondly the Task Force hopes that Hordis Brother's will see that the City does not control any one of the issues one hundred percent, that there is county, state and federal involvement in almost all of them, and that there is legal and financial committments for bond issues and grants that the City is responsible for. 3) What are you going to do about the backcharoes levied to this company? As stated earlier in the report the Task Force is deferrinq this issue to the Council since it is a policy issue. 4) What is going to happen in the future? The City of Albertville will continue to take every step possible to keep operating cost, sewer rates and property taxes down as much as possible without creating a negative impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the residents and industries in town. In addition the City will fulfill its obligation to the state and federal government for the construction funds used to build the Wastewater Treatment -31- Facility and any obligations required in the course of bonding for required improvements in the City. 5) Is there a future for Albertville and Hordis Brothers? It is the opinion of this Task Force that there is a future for Albertville and Hordis Brothers and that there is commitment by the City to make it a good partnership. The City is aware of Hordis Brother's concerns and have tried to respond to them in a positive manner. In addition, it is important to note that the City is working at improving the conditions in the City, by develop- ing a good marketing plan that will intise other industries into the industrial park and provide incentives for de- velopment in the areas of commercial and residential areas as well. The Task Force also notes that a good partnership requires work by both parties in a give and take situation. It can not be expected that the City be the only one willing to make concessions. Hordis Brother's must also be willing to work with the City in a period of growing pains. -32- Conclusion The Task Force has attempted to offer some solutions to the issues raised by Hordis Brothers, but would like to take this opportunity to make the following statement regarding the costs being assessed to the company. If Hordis Brother's Inc. looks at what they have been charged in the past for sewer and water they will realize that the City has not been recooping the cost of these operations and that now federal regulations are going to require that everyone pay their fair share of the costs. We all agreed that going from $ 30.00 a quarter to $2.10/1,000 gal. does cause a notible change in operating expenses for the firm. They must also realize the fact that there has also been changes for the City as well. The Task Force would like to be able to assure Hordis Brother's, Inc. that there will be no additional increases in taxes, sewer or water rates etc., but in good consience can not make that committment. The Task Force can however assure the firm that the City will take every step possible to keep the economy as secure and stable as possible. n _ HORDIS BROTHERS, INC. August 5, 1987 5334 BARTHEL DRIVE P.O. BOX130 ALBERTVILLE, MN 55301 Members of the City Council City of Albertville Albertville, MN 55301 Ladies and Gentlemen: 612-497-3212 800-328-9749 Thank -you for allowing me the time at the August 3, 1987 meeting to voice my opinions and concerns over the over- ruling of the Planning Committee by the City Council on the subject of safety fence and sound control which was to be installed on Barthel Drive. The other subject matter we discussed was the astronomical increase of water, sewer, and taxes that were levied to Hordis Brothers, Inc. Starting from the beginning, I would like to go through the chronology of events as I remember them happening. Subject: Rezone *Jerry O'Leary, Plant Manager of Albertville, and I met with the Planning Commission and voiced our disapproval of Rezoning to Single Family Dwelling. *Representative from Barthel gave his "dog & pony" show on why it should be rezoned - Planning Com- mission approves Rezoning. *Discussion continues and we point out noise concerns and safety hazzard from trucks and cars. *We recommend a burm, 4 ft. fence, and trees to reduce noise. *Much discussion followed on safety and at that time we all agreed to the installation of the burm, the 4 ft. fence, and the trees; including all members of the Planning Committee and the representative from Barthel. *City Council unanimously overrules the Planning Committee and none of the recommendations have to be installed. Members of the City Council August 5, 1987 Page 2 *No notification given to participants as to the overruling of the agreement. The following questions were asked: 1) Why was Hordis Brothers, Inc. not given the common or professional courtesy as to the overruling by the City Council? 2) Because of this lack of concern for the safety of its citizens, are the individuals on the council legally responsible if an accident happens? 3) How can an individual/corporation trust in the decisions of the City Council when they overrule the group whose duty or obligation it is to protect all concerned; the individual, the corporation, the city, especially when a compromise had been reached and agreed upon by all parties who understood it to be an agreement. 4) It took us to defend the citizens by our insistence on safety measures and sound control be installed. When you overruled the agree- ment, you demonstrated, by your actions, that you were not concerned for the safety and welfare of its citizens. Why? Your elected positions, by their definitions, say you must be. I would like to have the answers to these questions in writing. The second topic that we brought up was the subject of taxes, water and sewer costs. I began with a brief history and corporate organization of Hordis Brothers, Inc. *12 plants throughout the U.S. *5 divisions, Albertville within the Central Division Members of the City Council August 5, 1987 Page 3 *Each plant & division are totally autonomic (ie. stand on their own profits) *Responsibility and authority of Division President *We previously rented from Scherer Bros. *Doubled the size of the operation $1 1/2 million addition *When building, used all local suppliers and con- tractors when possible. *In December, 1986, we purchased the building *Employment of 125-130 people *$1 1/2 million payroll *Stable in community *We use all local support - from hardware to gas to food to bank. Pointed out in all aspects how we have tried to be good corporate citizens. In'the past we have had to tear down offices because they were not in city specifications, move fire hydrants that we didn't put there, remove and stop using our incinera- tor. We have done all of this with no complaints. Coupled with this, our taxes have risen from $35,000 to $62,700 to $75,000 to probably $100,000 in 1988. Water has recently increased from $.43/1000 gallons to $1.05/ 1000 gallons - a 250% increase. The sewer has risen from $30/quarter to $3,030/quarter, a 1000% increase. We have just received a backcharge of $9,090 for sewer usage for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarter of 1986. I still have not received the backcharge for the 1st half of 1987. I'm assuming a $1,000/month payment. This means for 7 quarters, the sewer bill has increased from $210 to $21,000+. And again, not even the professional courtesy of a noti- fication that this was happening. I asked the following questions: 1) Where do we stand in the community? Are you indirectly, by your actions, asking us to leave? Members of the City Council August 5, 1987 Page 4 2) What does our existence here mean? In payment of taxes, water, sewer and school bonds? 3) What are you going to do about the backcharges levied to this company? 4) What is going to happen in the future? 5) Is there a future for Albertville and Hordis Brothers? Summary - It's probably obvious by my letter and appearance at the meeting that I am fairly upset with some of the decisions made by the City Council. I cannot, in good conscience, allow possible dangerous situations to continue unprotected. I absolutely believe and insist that the City Council recognize these situations and correct them accordingly. I must also ask that the City Council relook at the costs that have been assessed to this company. If these costs continue, and continue to escalate in the future, I must prepare this plant to vacate its present site and move to a city where we can afford to take roots and where our business is appreciated. Thank -you for your time and I look forward to your answers to these most important questions. Sincerely, HORDIS BROTHERS, INC. Cr,_") ei�4�zxl" Kunkel President/Central Division LJK:JJO:ck HORDIS BROTHERS, INC. Jerome J. O'Leary Plant Manager The regular meeting of the Albertville Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Brian Bebeau. All members were present. Others present included Maureen Andrews and Don Berning. The minutes of the April 24, 1986 meeting were read and approved on a motion made by i4—LL-, and seconded by All were in favor of the motion. There was discussion about who would serve as the Planning Commission's representative to the Park Land exchange. It was agreed that Herb Scherber would be on the committee since he has been active in the development of the parks in Albertville. AT 8:00 p.m. the Public Hearing on the Haller/Moses property was called to order. Ms. Patty Moses was present to discuss the application for lot subdivision and the variance to allow for a 80 foot frontage instead of 90 feet as called for in the City Ordinance. No persons were present to voice their objection to the proposal. The Planning Commission recommendation to the Council is as follows: To recommend approval of the preliminary plat and allow the legal discription to be done by the meetes and bound method. This recommendation was made on a motion by Ray V. and a second by Herb S. All were in favor. The second recommendation was to allow for a variance of 10 feet on the front width requirement. There was a motion made by Ray and seconded by Donatus V. to allow for an 80 foot front width instead of 90 feet as called for in the City Ordinances. All were in favor. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Doug Psyk was present to discuss a preliminary plat for discussion. The discussion focus on street location, street openings, utilities, etc. Doug will meet with Barry Johnson, Engineer to discuss some of the details of this development and will come back to the PlanningCommission at a later date. The Public Hearing for Barthel Construction was called to order. LeRoy Berning was Barthel's representaitve. The hearing was for the following rezoning and preliminary plat approval: LOT 1, BLOCK 1--INDUSTRIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY LOT 10, BLOCK 5--MULTIPLE TO SINGLE FAMILY LOT 1, BLOCK 6--MULTIPLE TO SINGLE FAMILY Persons present for the hearing included: Larry Kunkel and Jerome O'Leary of Hordis Brothers, 5334 Barthel Drive and Doug Psyk of 11420 54th Street. Items that were brought up for discussion: 1.The safety factor of locating homes so close to the Industrial Park. LeRoy explained that there would be no driveways that would back out onto Barthel Industrial Drive. The plan calls for the homes to enter onto a cal -du -sac and then enter onto 57th Street, keeping Barthel free of driveways. 2. Another concern brought up was the fact the childern have a tendency to dart out into oncoming traffic and methods that could be used to deter this action. 3. The potential noise problems with relationship to the industry located across Barthel Industrial Drive and what actions could be taken by the developer to buffer some of the noise. After a lengthy discussion the following recommendations were made: There was a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning for Lot 1, Block 1 with the following stipulation --That a tree screen and fence buffer be provided on Barthel Industrial Drive for sound and safety restraints. The Planning Commission would request that the city Engineer, Barry Johnson comment on the recommendation. This motion also included the recommendation to approve the preliminary plat for the same location. The motion was made by Donatus V. and seconded by Ray V., All members were in favor. There was a motion made by Ray V. and seconded by Herb S. to recommend approval to the Council of the rezoning and preliminary plat approval of Lot 10, Block 5 with the following stipulations--1. that it meets the same stipulations of Lot 1, Block 1 and that 2. if in the event that multiple units are located on the remaining part of the block that no larger then 4 plex units will be allowed and 3. that a walkway easement be located along one of the side property lot lines in the event that a park would be located on the remaining property. The exact location can be determined by the developer at the time of final plat approval. All members were in favor of the motion. The third motion was made by Ray V. and seconded by Herb S. to recommend approval to the Council of the rezoning and the preliminary plat approval of Lot 1, Block 6. The motion carries stipulations 1 of the Lot 10, Block 5. All members were in favor. The public hearing was closed. Randy Lebsock was present to request a public hearing for June 12th at 8:00 p.m. to approve a lot division of his property which faces 51st Street. The motion was made by Ray and seconded by Herb. All were in faove. There was a motion to adjourn made by Donatus and seconded by Herb. All members were in favor. YY1c� k j qi , I q Maureen was asked to write a letter to the Councty Auditor's Assessment Clerk and request that the pending assessments for the 32 feet that the Hallers will retain ownership of for a driveway be moved over to parcel B. Gary S. made a motion to this regard and Donatus V. seconded the motion. All members were in favor. A representative of the Sheriff's Department was here to bring the Council up to date on what has been happening in Albertville. The Council was informed that there was a break in out at the City Park, where someone kicked the door into one of the bathrooms. There was also a,�possible attempt to break in to the shop at City Hall. No charges have been made in either cases. There was also some discussion about setting the speed limit for Barthel Industrial Drive. The Deputy recommended that we contact MN/DOT to have a Traffice Engineering Investigation done to set the speed limit zone. Maureen was asked to contact MN/DOT. The Public Hearing for Barthel Construction was called to order by Mayor Walsh. The Council was read the Notice of Hearing and the Planning Commission's recommendation. There was some discussion regarding the Planning Commission's request that trees and fences to located along Barthel Industrial Drive. It was finally decided that the plans go back to the Planning Commission to work out the details of fencing and trees but the Council would go ahead and approve the rezoning and preliminary plats. The following motions were made: To approve the Rezoning of: LOT AND BLOCK FIRST SECOND LOT 1, BLOCK 1 BOB B. DONATUS V. LOT 10, BLOCK 5 DON C. DONATUS V. LOT 1, BLOCK 6 DON C. GARY S. pending the payment of $300.00 for hearing fees. All were in favor. To approve the Preliminary Plats of: LOT AND BLOCK FIRST SECOND LOT 1, BLOCK 1 BOB B. GARY S. LOT 10, BLOCK 5 DON C. BOB B. LOT 1, BLOCK 6 GARY S. DON C. Lot 1, Block 1 shall be called Barthel Manor while Lot 10, Block 5 and _ Lot 1, Block 6 shall be referred to as Maple Hill. All were in favor of the motions. D PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 22, 1986 The regular meeting of the Albertville Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Brian Bebeau. Members present included Ray Vetsch, Herb Scherber and Donatus Vetsch. Others present included Maureeen Andrews, Don Berning, Mayor Jim Walsh and Gary Meyer. There was a motion made by Herb Scherber and a second made by Donatus Vetsch to approve the minutes of the May 8, 1986 meeting. All were in favor. Maureen updated the Planning Commission on what had occurred at the City Council's Public Hearings on the Haller/Moses property and the Barthel Construction application. The Planning Commission was told that the Haller/Moses request had been approved but the Barthel Construciton project was being sent back to Planning for additional work. Maureen informed the group that LeRoy Berning would be in later in the evening to discuss the project again. At 8:00 p.m. the Public Hearing on the Shoreland Management Over- lay was called to order by Mayor Walsh on a request by the Planning Commission's Chairman to have the Mayor chair the meeting. The following is a recap of the hearing. Mr.Gary Meyer read through 1985-2 entitled, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1975-5 IN ORDER TO ADOPT CONTROLS COMPLIANT WITH THE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SHORELAND AREAS OF MINNESOTA". The Planning Commission came up with the following changes that they would recommend to the City Council: 1. Subdivision E, Section 1, Subpoint d. (page 3) Changes the setback requirement from 10 to 35 feet for munici- pal and private roads. This change brings the amendment into conformance with the rest of Ordinance 1975-5. 2. Subdivision G, Section 3, Subpoint a (page 6) adds the following: ...as provided for in Ordinance 1985-2; and This change clearifies the public sewer issue by referencing the existing sewer ordinance, which has been approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 3. Subdivision G, Section 4 (page 6) Corrected this section by adding the following: ...and located as to be above all possible sources of pollution. Wells... between the words "between" and "already". This was a typing correction. The Planning Commission also requested that the City Council contact the Department of Natural Resources and require that they set the Ordinary High Water Marks for Mud and School lakes and forward that information to the City to use as reference when approving future development elevations. This document should be attached to the Ordinance as a reference tool but should not be required as an additional amendment to the Ordinance. The Planning Commission's recommendation is as follows: THERE WAS A MOTION BY BRIAN BEBEAU AND A SECOND BY RAY VETSCH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL OF ORDINACNE 1986-2 RELATING TO: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 1975-5 IN ORDER TO ADOPT CONTROLS COMPLIANT WITH THE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SHORELAND AREAS OF MINNESOTA WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED CHANGES. ALL WERE IN FAVOR AND THE MOTION PASSED. The Public Hearing was closed and the meeting was turned back to Chairman Brian Bebeau. Doug Psyk was present to request a Public Hearing in order to open Psyk's Forth Addition. There was some discussion on street and strom sewer easements, Maureen informed the Planning Commission that Barry had found copies of the required easements and would be gettingtogether with Gary Meyer to review them. As it looks there may only be the need to get a temporary construciton easement from Clem Marx to put the storm sewer in. There was a motion made by Donatus Vetsch and a second by Herb Scherber to set the Public Hearing for June 12, 1986 at 8:30 p.m. All were in favor. The public hearing is to approve the Preliminimary Plat. LeRoy Berning was present to continue the discussion on providing fencing along Barthel Industrial Drive. Barthel Construction proposed a split rail fence to run the length of the street, with a start and stop oint at each property line. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 After a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission decided to remove the stipulation regarding trees and fences along Barthel Industrial Drive because of the problems that could arise from the City requiring the fence and potential lawsuits if someone was hurt. There was a motion made by Ray Vetsch and a second by Herb Scherber to remove the stipulation of fencing and trees from Lotil,iBlock 1; Lot 10, Block 5 and Lot 1, Block6. because of the liability problems. The Planning Commission members were all in favor, the motion carried. As a side light to this discussion there was some talk about locating a sidewalk along Barthel Industrial Drive. No action was taken on this matter. There was a motion to adjourn made by Donatus Vetsch and a second by Ray Vetsch. All were in favor, the meeting was adjourned. ES 4 2 , �C�Cn_ En l 1. ORDINANCE 1986-2 2. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 3. EXTRACTS OF MINUTES 4. CERTIFICATION OF AUTHENTICY 5. PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDANCE LIST 6. COPY OF THE REVISED ZONING MAP The motion to approve Ordinance 1986-2 as discribed within the context of these minutes was made by Bob Braun and seconded by Gary Scwhenzfeier. A roll call votes was taken with the following results: G. Schwenzfeier Yes D. Vetsch Yes D. Cornelius Yes R. Braun Yes J. Walsh Yes It should be noted that all members were present and voted to approve Ordinance 1986-2, there were no opposing votes. Maurren was also requested to forward these materials to the Municipal Board since any Decision was pending the review of this material. The Public Hearing was closed at this point. L Gary Meyer gave the Council an update on the hearing before the Municipal Board. He explained how the Oral Aurguments had been handled by Attorney Hayes, himself and the Attorney for the Township. It was agreed by Walsh, Andrews and Meyer that the arguments for the petitioner were more detailed and organized, but that the final outcome will not be known until the Municipal Board makes theI. ir decision. Mayor Walsh at this time withdresl his suggestion that members of the Otesgo Board sit with the Albertville Officials and work on the Ordinance regarding Manufactured Housing. The reasoning for this withdrawal is the lack of cooperation of working together in the spirit intended. LeRoy Berning of Barthel Construction was present to get Final Plat Approval for the 2 new additions. There was a report from the Planning Commission which informed the Council that the stipulations regarding fences and trees had been removed. There was a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission made by Don Cornelius and seconded by Gary Schwenzfeier. All were in favor. In reviewing thefinal Plats there were some questions regarding - irregular lots and one lot which had less than 90 feet in the front. LeRoy was asked to go back to Planning and clear up these questions before the Final Plat are signed. Maureen was asked to check on the problem with irregualr shaped lots and report back to the Council. Jim requested that Meyer-Rohlin have core samples taken on Barthel Industrial Drive and 54th Street to make sure that they meet the stand- ards. C Sao .00 IF C) 1p C)5 A4 2 cv CO Ij ry 3� 9 \ 2 2310 p6" O a 9 > Oy 10 00 elk G C? C-3 91 ,kO6 . 6' ci SO, 40 c JO.,O JO It (0 03 Q) Id I 1� 0 ji 30 0 30b 4CV 99 go La CA 10 ry s 0, 30 • (3) 30 Qr- C13 it Co Jig I 0 N4 8 CY C? 0 -99. IIJIOin / - JIn I O / C!� OCY' L v _64.26 to 04 C; H6.ou 06.00 89* 30,581, F 6 s 89* 30, 58"--El G 0 40 40 PLA BARTHEL MAPLE p v HILLS p 1• Y p0 • A p � 342. — � — — 4 —N •0. 02� If' E 1 •O ' V r p < r + Y p Y N i Y S, • p S 1 • p 71 • OYTIOT A ~ « x � sus p n 146 Y \ V• •D 1 V° N ,Oyl o °' a "• \ 0 p° \ To \ O ''° T 4'92• 4. •�. ♦�/ S .4e Q0.p0 12. .• s y, I o90 � ' j��9pop'04 / i \ ,DO. 00 • O' \ 1 CASUAL- LOC Of be 2 __� ♦ . / \ `!` •� a 1pC) A I•J �0%' `A \ pj� 0100� \ �`� °4� 0 88. / a GOto wool 100 T .00 OGoc■ . 1 cotton cost. O[Tr[u 4[� GOT I AND GOT (/ Di b �• 66.0" .c"[ r /[[T • —.ova$ .000 rOwVr[rT ■Oyr• It as ww r•Lrr[rT {[T '•.T rT•t.•r M 1M1. K.O.K fT{T[r 1 If r � 1 1NEYER-RONUN,INC pwuYf[ •rD VhI.TT [•1[r[.Tf •.[ f•orr ,wuf •[..G [ r[[T �w •.OTw ••• •�JOIr.rG lOT l.M({ •MD .O r[[T ri rWTM CITY OF ALBERTVILLE ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: 497-3384 IMPORTANT NOTICE PLEASE DISREGARD THE SEWER BILLING THAT YOU RECIEVED LAST WEEK AND PAY THE AMOUNT INDICATED ON THE ENCLOSED BILLING. BELOW IS AN EXPLANATION FOR THE SECOND SEWER BILLING AND HOW THE NEW SEWER BILLINGS ARE TO BE FIGURED. November 5, 1985 Dear Sewer Bill Recipient: The Albertville City Council at its regular meeting on November 4th voted to redo the sewer billing that had been sent out late last week. There have been several questions regarding the billing and hopefully this letter will help clearify the billing for the system users. As many of you know the City of Albertville is currently constructing a new Wastewater Treatment Facility east of Mud Lake. This project . is being funded in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the City of Albertville. Since state and federal money is being used to construct the project the City is required to follow the guidelines set up by the EPA, which include the establishment of a sewer rate charge. This rate is used to cover the costs of the facility's operation and maintenance, future replacement and the debt service retirement on the City's portion of the project. This rate is calculated using a formula approved by the EPA and the MPCA which is_ttanslated into the sewer rate that the City charges it customers. The rate is currently being figured on a $2.10 per 1,000 gallons of water used during the months of January - March of each year, with a minimum of $30.00 a quarter. The project was suppose to be completed and on line by the first of November and the new sewer rates were to go into effect on October lst, 1985. Due to inclimate weather the project has had several delays and will not be completed until next spring, but in the mean time the City is still responsilbe for the debt retirement. The Council has decided that instead of billing based on the water useage, the bill should be based on the new rate minimum charge of $30.00 a quarter. This charge will be in effect until December 31, 1985. The new rate will be effective as of January 1, 1985. In addition, this current billing is a two quarter billing for the second and third quarter of 1985. Second quarter is figured at the old rate of $15.00 for Residential and $19.00 for Commercial and is added to the third quarter charges. If you have any questions regarding your billing, please feel free to call Maureen Andrews, City Administrator at 497-3384, and she will be happy to answer them for you. Ve y sincerely -515 � mes Walsh Mayor Make our City........ Your City We invite Home, Industry, Business JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD Hanover, Ezaukfb'F,,Yt Michael and Albertville Post Office Box 147 Albertville, Minnesota 55301 September 15, 1986 HORDIS BROTHERS, INC. Rorthland Glass Company 5334 Barthel Industrial Drive Albertville, Minnesota 55301 Gentlemen: It h"as come to the attention of the Joint Powers Board that a hydrant is located on your property beside your loading dock. Since there would seem to be a chance'of that hydrant being hit by vehicles using your loading dock, the Board requests that you instifl posts around the hydrant to,protect the hydrant from damage. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions regarding the hydrant. Sincerely, JOINT POWERS BOARD Linda Houghton Clerk CITY OF ALBERTVILLE ALBERTVILLE, NIINNtSOTA 55301 PHONE. 49 7-3 384 November 4, 1985 Larry Kunkel, President iordis Brother's Inca 5334 Barthel Industrial Drive Albertville, Minnesota 55301 )ear Mr. Kunkel: The City of Albertville has recieved several complaints about the burning that is occurring on your property. In checking with the Minnesota 'ollution Control Agency the City has found that the Agency has no record if Hordis Brother's Inc. obtaining a permit for either an "Approved Waste 3urner" or "Open Burning". The lack of these permits places Hordis Brother's Inc. in violation of the Minnesota Air Pollution Control Rules 7005,0070, Statutory Authority 116.07, Subdivision 4. Because of this, the City is requesting that all burning on your property stops immediately. In addition, on October 7, 1985 the Albertville City Council approved a variance for a 11 by 17 foot addition to your present building. At the time the variance was approved the Council had some concerns about the noise that could be produced by the machine that is to be located in the addition. This is a reminder that the Council's approval of the variance was with the stipulation that if the noise level is objectable to the neightbors located close to Hordis that the company has agreed to take corrective measures in alleviating the problem. Thank you for your attention to these matters, if you have any questions regarding the burning problem or the agreement please feel free to contact me at 497-3384. Sincerely, �- J V --1 emu ' r) Maureen T. Andrews t�' `— City Administrator cc: Mayor and City Council Gary Meyer, City Attorney Larry Shaw, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency -Brainard Make inn City You, City we invite Home, hdt,itry, bwiinr,i LMC REGIONAL MEETING CASH SEWER ACCOUNT ADDITIONAL INCOME SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 TOTAL ADDITIONAL BILLS TO BE PAID $ 12,703.69 342.00 1,661.60 $ 12,703.69 MAUREEN ANDREWS $ 535.47 KEN LINDSAY 629.52 LORI RODEN 260.59 MIKE MERGES 310.20 MTI 178.37 TOTAL $ 4,327.25 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE P. O. BOX 131 ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: (612) 497-3384 DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 TO: MAYOR LORETTA RODEN AND MEMBERS OF THE ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: MAUREEN ANDREWS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR REGARDING: WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY LAND RENTAL At the last meeting of the Council the City had received a letter from Kenneth and Harold Zimmer regarding the rental of the 19 acres of land at the Waste - Water Treatment Facility, which they are currently farming. The letter requests a five year lease so that they can plan a crop rotation for the land. The rate is as follows: 88 growing season $25.00/acre 89 growing season 40.00/acre 90 growing season 40.00/acre 91 growing season 50.00/acre 92 growing season 50.00/acre There was some questions regarding what the original agreement was, and what could the City do regarding their request. I was asked to review the minutes of the Council to see if there was any official discussion regarding a multiple year lease. A review of the minutes, the advertisement for bid, and the contract did not indicate any language regarding an extended lease. It does seem to me that when the rental issue first came up there was some discussion about giving the farmer first option on the land if they had worked the land the first year. It is my recommendation that we discuss this issue with the City Attorney. Make our Of' ......... Your 01Y We invite Home, /ndu.urv. Business LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES REGIONAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 INCOME RECEIVED $ 984.11 BILLS TO BE PAID PAPER WAREHOUSE $ 13.05 CUB FOOD 24.81 PETTY CASH 100.00 BROASTER CATERING 427.45 CAROL WEIDENBACH 24.00 ST. ALBERT'S PARISH CENTER 250.00 CITY OF HANOVER (REFUND) 12.00 ALBERTVILLE BAR SUBTOTAL $ 851.31 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE GENERAL FUND AUGUST 1987 CURRENT YEAR TO YEAR TO VARIANCE MONTH DATE DATE FROM BUDGET BUDGET General Tax Levy 0.00 29,572.33 57,091.37 (27,519.04) Homestead Credit 0.00 7,693.99 0.00 7,693.99 Wetlands Credit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetland �'eimbursement Aid 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Local Gov't Aid 0.00 26,573.00 53,215.00 (26,642.00) Revenue Sharing 0.00 271.00 0.00 271.00 Other State Aids 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Liquior Permits 25.00 3,625.00 5,200.00 (1,575.00) Beer Permits 25.00 380.00 300.00 80.00 Amusement Licenses 0.00 330.00 130.00 200.00 Cigaretee Licenses 0.00 60.00 60.00 0.00 Building Permits 535.90 25,141.77 18,500.00 6,641.77 _ ver Permits 663.90 2,086.30 0.00 2,086.30 -.gn Permits 0.00 1,352.80 1,300.00 52.80 Dog Permits 6.00 30.00 60.00 (30.00) Bingo Permits 0.00 0.00 75.00 (75.00) Fence Permits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hall Rental 25.00 65.00 425.00 (360.00) Hearing Fees 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 Interest on assessments 0.00 1,147.26 0.00 1,147.25 Interest on Investments 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Donations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Capital Asset Sales 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Refunds and Reimbursement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Income 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL REVENUES 1,280.80 98,528.45 136,356.37 (37,827.92)