The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006 [04] Apr 20 {Book 37} Administrator Judy Weyrens Mayor Richard Carlbom Councilors AI Rassier Ross Rieke Renee Symanietz Dale Wick CITY OF ST. JOSEPH www.cityofstjoseph.com City of St. Joseph City Council April 2Q, 2006 7:00 PM 1 . Call to Order 2. Approve Agenda 3. Consent Agenda a. Minutes - Requested Action: Approve the minutes of March 2 and March 16, 2006. b. Bills Payable - Requested Action: Approve check numbers 037111-037177. c. Gambling License Renewal - Requested Action: Accept the Lawful Gambling License Renewal for the St. Joseph Recreational Association for Loso's Mainstreet Pub, 21 W Minnesota Street and authorize execution of the Gambling Lease for Millstream Park. d. Donation - Requested Action: Accept the donation from Central Minnesota Federal Credit Union in the amount of $750 to be applied to the costs for the Fallen Officers Memorial Service. 4. Public Comments to the Agenda 5. 7:05 PM 2006 Street Improvement Financing a. Set the public bond sale - $2,300,000 b. Financial Advisory Contract 6. 7:15 PM Interim Use Permit, Patrick Conway, 35 - 2nd Avenue SE 7. 7:20 PM Amendment to PUD, Graceview Estates, Bob Herges 8. 7:30 PM St. Joseph Action Group, Phil Welter 9. City Engineer Reports a. Water Treatment Plant Color Selections (For Informational Purposes) b. Update on St. Cloud Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion Plans (For Informational Purposes) c. Other Matters 10. Mayor Reports 11. Council Reports 12. Administrator Reports 13. Adjourn 2.)' College Avenue North, PO Box 668 . Saint. Joseph, Minnesota )'6)74 Phone ')2.0.')6').72.01 Fax ')2.0.')6').0')42. St. Joseph City Council April 20, 2006 FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS 1. -f1}rflli r ( [fill W a '-1 I _.~ c- ,R ,11 :S...;J ~.~. it'l J \L. <:";;><~iAn.. ;~ir 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. City of St. Joseph Bills Payable April 17, 2006 Check Search Name Comments Amount FUND DEPART OBJ Nbr 037111 LIFE LINE SCREENING partia I $175.00 105 42210 037112 EFTPS Medicare Reg pp $213.62 101 037112 EFTPS SS Reg pp 7.1, $589.20 101 037112 EFTPS Reg pp 7.1, 7.2, $153.56 101 037113 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE Reg pp 7.1,7.2, $107.94 101 037114 PERA . retirement pay-Reg $650.82 101 037115 ACCLAIM BENEFITS-REIMB flex reimburement $999.96 101 037t 15 ACCLAIM BENEFITS-REIMB flex reimbursement $2,338.14 101 037116RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER LTO Seren/Charter $34.50 101 41610 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANS MEIER L TO Trobec's $265.00 101 41610 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER LTD City mapping & $130.50 101 41610 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER L TD Glatzel property $101.35 101 41610 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER LTD administrative $477.50 101 41610 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER LTO Police issues $174.50 101 42120 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER L TO Arcon $1,744.50 101 41610 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER LTO forfeiture 1999 ford $23.00 101 42120 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER L TO Gangl/Gustafson $21.00 101 41610 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER L TO Morningside Acres $126.50 101 41610 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER L TO Foxmore Hollow $23.00 101 41610 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER L TO Liberty Pointe $92;00 428 43124 530 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER LTO Meadowvale $652.25 101 41610 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER LTO Meetings $806.25 101 41610 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER L TO MN Skyline $506.00 101 41610 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER L TO Criminal Matters $3,510.00 101 41610 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER l TO Annexation $125.00 101 41610 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER L TO Appeal work-B $1,679.00 101 42120 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER L TD Water Treatment $323.00 434 49440 530 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER L TD Verizon $115.00 101 41610 304 037116 RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER L TO Water Treatment $555.00 434 49440 530 037117 EFTPS Reg pp 8 & 7.3 $3,242.05 101 037117 EFTPS Reg pp 8 & $2,703.60 101 037117 EFTPS Reg pp 8 & $974.42 101 037118 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE Reg pp 8& 7.3 $1,487.49 101 037119 ING LIFE INS & ANNUITY COMPANY deferred comp $225.00 101 037120 PERA retirement pay-Reg $4,449.17 101 037121 MANEY INTERNATIONAL INC. corrected inv $1,945.53 101 43120 220 037121 MANEY INTERNATIONAL INC. corrected inv $1,945.53 101 43125 220 037122 MN FIRE SERVICE CERT. BOARD FF1 $330.00 105 42240 443 037123 ACCLAIM BENEFITS administration $3.70 603 43230 137 037123 ACCLAIM BENEFITS administration $11.11 101 41530 137 037123 ACCLAIM BENEFITS administration $22.22 101 41430 137 037123 ACCLAIM BENEFITS administration $33.35 101 42120 137 037123 ACCLAIM BENEFITS administration $11.11 101 45202 137 037123 ACCLAIM BENEFITS administration $14.81 601 49440 137 037123 ACCLAIM BENEFITS administration $3.70 602 49490 137 037124 ACCLAIM BENEFITS-REIMB 2005 Medical $880.75 101 037124 ACCLAIM BENEFITS-REIMB replenish prefund $1,550.00 101 037125 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD MN Med Insurance $10,324.00 101 037126 CASEY'S GENERAL STORE safety meeting $3.75 101 43120 212 037126 CASEY'S GENERAL STORE safety meeting $3.74 602 49490 212 037126 CASEY'S GENERAL STORE safety meeting $3.74 101 45202 212 037126 CASEY'S GENERAL STORE safety meeting $3.74 601 49440 212 037127 CENTRAL HYDRAULICS repair shop air $10.34 101 45201 220 037128 CHADER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT 1st quarter maint $47.66 101 42120 220 037129 CITY OF ST. CLOUD sewer rental $14,705.45 602 49480 419 037130 GRAEVE, JAMES 3 mtgs, 1 site $140.00 101 41120 103 037131 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP hydrofluosilicici $285.80 601 49420 210 037132 INDEPENDENT TESTING TECHNOLOG Centennial Park $950.00 205 45203 531 037133 INSPECTRON INC building $9,875.00 101 42401 300 037134 JM GRAYSTONE OIL CO., INC diesel $54.30 101 43120 210 037134 JM GRAYSTONE OIL CO., INC gas $22.91 101 45202 210 037134 JM GRAYSTONE OIL CO., INC gas $69.03 105 42220 210 City of St. Joseph Bills Payable . April 17, 2006 Check Search Name Comments Amount FUND DEPART OBJ Nbr 037134 JM GRAYSTONE OIL CO., INC UPS Charges $26.71 602 49490 322 037134 JM GRAYSTONE OIL CO., INC fuel $94.15 101 43120 210 037135 JOHN T JONES 1st payment-Wa $64,410.00 434 49440 530 037136 JOHNSON, KEVIN reimbursement for $150.00 601 00000 037137 KALINOWSKI, KATHLEEN S. 4 Planning Comm $140.00 101 41120 103 037138 KEEPRS, INC/CY'S UNIFORMS D Pfannenstein $27.58 101 42120 171 037139 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH LLC Field St History $1,372.00 435 43120 530 037140 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES J Weyrens $20.00 101 41430 331 037140 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES P Jansky $20.00 101 42140 331 037141 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST D Taufen $345.86 601 49440 151 037142 LEE'S ACE HARDWARE cleaning supplies $67.77 101 41942 220 037142 LEE'S ACE HARDWARE supplies $7.24 601 49440 220 037142 LEE'S ACE HARDWARE supplies $19.85 101 45201 220 037142 LEE'S ACE HARDWARE bulbs $57.75 105 42210 220 037142 LEE'S ACE HARDWARE maint supplies $82.61 101 43120 220 037143 LEEF BROS clothing $74.71 601 49440 171 037143 LEEF BROS clothing $74.71 101 45202 171 037143 LEEF BROS clothing $74.71 602 49490 171 037143 LEEF BROS floor mats $49.46 101 42120 220 037143 LEEF'BROS floor mats, towels $120.20101 41430 220 037143 LEEF BROS clothing $74.71 101 43120 171 ) 037144 LESNICK, MARGE :; Planning Comm $105.00 101 41120 103 037145 LOSO,NATHAN 2 council mtgs, 2 $120.00 101 41950 103 037146 MAIER TYPEWRITER SERVICE ink & toner $194.74 101 41430 200 037146 MAIER TYPEWRITER SERVICE ink & toner $53.14 101 42120 200 037146 MAIER TYPEWRITER SERVICE toner for printer $56.40 101 41530 200 037147 ME NARDS desk $203.10 101 42120 570 037147 MENARDS shelving, map $223.21 601 49440 530 037147 MENARDS shop supplies, $50.51 101 45201 240 037148 MINCO, INC 4 laptops & auto $14,967.16 437 42151 320 037149 MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOCIATION May Life Insurance $38.84 101 037150 MINNESOTA ELEVATOR, INC service-April $77.17 101 41942 220 037151 MINNESOTA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT Lease 5556 $873.27 101 42152 414 037151 MINNESOTA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT Lease 5244 $888.15 101 42152 414 037151 MINNESOTA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT Lease 4783 $928.76 101 42152 414 037152 MOLITOR EXCAVATING Payment $16,024.08 430 43120 530 037153 MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT CORP eda contract $2,236.08 150 46500 300 037154 NAHAN, TOM video cassettes $11.62 101 41950 210 037154 NAHAN, TOM cabinet $18.18 101 41950 230 037155 NORTHLAND TRUST SERVICES INC annual fee $403.00 439 47100 620 037156 OFFICE MAX paper, envelopes $138.94 101 41430 200 037156 OFFICE MAX paper, binders, $275.35 101 42120 200 037157 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INC notification- $20.30 602 49490 319 037157 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INC notification- $20.30 601 49440 319 037158 QUILL CORPORATION mailing labels $53.49 101 41430 200 037159 REED CONSTRUCTION DATA Adv-Trunk Water $318.00 434 49440 530 037160 RENGEL PRINTING Letterhead $107.03 101 41430 200. 037161 SAND COMPANIES waived plan review $6,240.00 101 41430 037162 SCHWAAB stamp $35.40 101 41530 200 037163 SCHWEGEL'S TELEPHONE SERVICES reset voice mail $60.00 101 42151 233 037164 SEH into to chlorine $1,600.52 434 49440 530 037164 SEH Water treatment $25,881.97 434 49440 530 037164 SEH Wellhead $1,021.10 434 49440 530 037164 SEH GIS services $192.00 101 43131 303 037165 SHAMROCK LEATHERS, INC B Gohman award $24.50 150 46500 200 037166 ST. CLOUD ACOUSTICS, INC ceiling tiles $84.53 602 49480 220 037167 ST. CLOUD TECHNICAL COLLEGE training Jacobson, $1,600.00 105 42240 443 . 037168 ST. CLOUD TIMES advertisment for $280.00 438 43120 530 037168 ST. CLOUD TIMES rezoning ad $48.16 101 41130 340 037169 ST. JOSEPH NEWSLEADER Interiam use $60.00 101 41130 340 037169 ST. JOSEPH NEWSLEADER Northland Drive & $30.00 435 49450 530 037169 ST. JOSEPH NEWS LEADER Northland Drive & $30.00 435 49450 530 City of 51. Joseph Bills Payable April 17, 2006 Check Search Name Comments Amount FUND DEPART OBJ Nbr . 037169 ST. JOSEPH NEWS LEADER Graceview Estates $114.00 101 41130 340 037169 ST. JOSEPH NEWSLEADER Crescent Hills $120.00 101 41130 322 037170 STEARNS COUNTY RECORDER Morningside Acres $46.00 101 41910 431 037171 TAUFEN, DICK cups $7.93 601 49440 200 037172 TDS METROCOM telephone $53.60 101 41941 321 037172 TDS METROCOM telephone $55.94 101 41946 321 037172 TDS METROCOM telephone $275.76101 42151 321 037172 TDS METROCOM telephone $190.22 101 45201 321 037172 TDS METROCOM telephone $100.88 105 42250. 321 037172 TDS METROCOM telephone $41.16 150 46500 321 037172 TDS METROCOM telephone $100.52 602 49470 321 037172 TDS METROCOM telephone $230.22 101 41430 321 037172 TDS METROCOM telephone $89.18 602 49490 321 037172 TDS METROCOM telephone $53.61 602 49471 321 037172 TDS METROCOM telephone $55.61 602 49472 321 037172 TDS METROCOM telephone $55.61 602 49473 321 037172 TDS METROCOM telephone $60.99 601 49440 321 037173 TRAUT WELLS Payment #2 $11,611.94 434 49440 530 037174 UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS 2.16ton cold patch $179.43 101 43120 210 037175 VERIZON WIRELESS cell phone $150.61 101 42151 321 037175 VERIZON WIRELESS cell phone $15.28 601 49440 321 037175 VERIZON WIRELESS cell phone $7.64 101 45202 321 037175 VERIZON WIRELESS cell phone $15.28 602 49490 321 037175 VERIZON WIRELESS cell phone $7.64 101 43120 321 037175 VERIZON WIRELESS cell phone $18.43 101 41430 321 037176 WERNER ELECTRIC SUPPLY LED Lights $53.34 601 49420 220 037176 WERNER ELECTRIC SUPPLY fuses $37.03 601 49420 220 037176 WERNER ELECTRIC SUPPLY fuses $14.99 601 49420 220 037177 XGEL ENERGY March usage $21.30 602 49471 383 037177 XGEL ENERGY March usage $450.55 601 49410 381 037177 XGEL ENERGY March usage $102.64 601 49410 381 037177 XCELENERGY March usage $18.07 601 49410 381 037177 XCEL ENERGY March usage $62.28 601 49410 383 037177 XCEL ENERGY March usage $85.29 601 49410 383 037177 XCEL ENERGY March usage $402.28 602 49480 381 037177 XCEL ENERGY March usage $93.99 602 49470 381 037177 XGEL ENERGY March usage $221.07 601 49435 381 037177 XGEL ENERGY March usage $3.76 101 42500 326 037177 XGEL ENERGY March usage $26.51 101 42610 386 037177 XGEL ENERGY March usage $9.83 101 45123 381 037177 XGEL ENERGY March usage $265.94 602 49480 383 037177. XGEL ENERGY March usage $25.91 101 43120 381 037177 XCEL ENERGY March usage $274.18 101 43120 383 037177 XCEL ENERGY March usage $182.78 101 45201 383 037177 XCEL ENERGY March usage $15.35 .101 43120 381 037177 XCEL ENERGY March usage $10.23 101 45201 381 037177 XCEL ENERGY March usage $47.93 101 43120 381 037177 XGEL ENERGY March usage $31.95 101 45201 381 037177 XCEL ENERGY March usage $483.05 101 41942 383 037177 XGEL ENERGY March usage $619.58 101 41942 381 037177 XGEL ENERGY March usage $971.30 101 41941 383 '037177 XCEL ENERGY March usage $23.16 101 45123 383 037177 XCEL ENERGY March usage $49.22 101 45202 381 037177 XGEL ENERGY March usage $2,146.03 101 43160 386 037177 XCEL ENERGY March usage $1,021.24 101 41941 381 $237,378.37 I Attachment: ~ or No REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CONSENT 3(c) DATE: April 20, 2006 Administation ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM Gambling License Renewal PREVIOUS ACTION RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION Accept the Lawful Gambling License Renewal for the St. Joseph Recreational Association for Loso's Mainstreet Pub, 21 W Minnesota Street and authorize execution of the Gambling Lease for Millstream Park. FISCAL IMPACT None COMMENTS/RECOMMENDA TIONS <V~G . 6/05 p:age.l' of 2 Daytime phone \; ~lY25llp D:?2b'~; I Slate ! Zip . ~phoOe . .~'!D(d31q SA).3h3 --lfS;:C ;1 ! Statal Zip Daytime phone I I .. '. . f.-\N !00?14 .3~'3-4006 I State I Zip Oi!iy\iri$phone ! I .. '_.~-jj,.-:-, ..~~.~,.-,,:::,:"~ -~." .:.<....... , ..-.,-,.."....._.~---, Check all activities that will be conducted: ~Puf,,"~ XPull-tabs wlthdl$penslng devk:e","",,-Tlpboards XPaddtewheel -:.Paddlewheel with table ~BlngO _Barblngo Pull-tab, Tlpboard, and Paddlewheel Rent (No lease required for raffles.) BoOfhoperation . smes. qf gamblll19 equlpmentbV ailetripioyee liar operaUon - sates of gambling eql.llplnent within a teased (or Ii'oIUliteer) of a ndmSed oi'ganlmtlonWltfiln a separate endosiire premises Wan employee of the lessor ftoma comrnoil area where thilt Is dl!:tfnd: froni areas Where fOOd and beverages are $Old. food and beVerages are alsri sold.. r--~~--~---~~-~-~---~-~~---~~---~----' !'. '. Does your organIZation OR any other organtza. tIon conctuct:>!.ambllng from a booth operation at this location? . Yes No L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __._ _ _ __ _ _ _ _...:.... _---=:: _,;",.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.J . If you answered yes to the question above, rent limits are . If you answered no to the questlonabove. rent Ilmltsare. based orithefdllOWl1lg rnmblnations of operation: based on the fdllowing CQmblnations of operation: . Booth operation . . ... . - Bar operation . BoOthoperatlOnand pulH:abd~device . Bar operation with pull-tab dispensing device - Booth opEitatlon and bar operation - Pull-tab dispensing device only - Booth operation, bar operation, and pUll-tab dispensing deVice Themaximum rent alloweO may riot exceed $1,750 in total per month i'or all organizations at this premise::. The maximum rent allowed may not exceed $2,500 in total per month for all organizations at this premises. I CottJPlete one option: Option A: {} to 10% of the gross profits per month. Percentage to be Paid .. % Complete ~e option: . option A: .0 to 2.0% ofthegrossproflts permonth. Percentage to be. paid '2.0 . % option lk When gross profits are $4,000 Or ~ per month, $0 to option B: When gross profttsare $1,000 or less per month, $0 $400 per month may be paid. Amount to be paid $ to $200 per mOnth may be paId. Amount to be paid :$ Option C: $0 to $400 per month may be paid on the first $4,000 of gross profit. Amount to be paid $ . Plus 0% to 100/0 of the gross profits may be paid per month on gross profits over $4,000. Percentage to be paid % option C: $0 to $200 per month may be paid on the .first $1,000 ofgrossproflts. Amounttobepald$ '.. . ,PlusO%to 20% of the grOss ptoflts may be paid permooth ori gross profits over $1,000. Pen::entage to be paid % Bingo Rent OptionD: 0 to 10% of the gross profits permohth from all lawful gambling activities held duriTlg bingo occasions, excluding bar bingo. Percentage to be paid % Bar Bingo Rent _ Option F: No rentmay be paid forbiilgo conducted In a bar. Option E: A rate based on arost per square foot not to exceed 1100/0 of a comparable rnst per square foot for leased space, as approved by the director of the Gambling Control Board. No rent may be paid for bar bingo. Rate to be paid $ per square foot. The lessor must attach documentation, verlfied by the organization, to confirm the comparable rate and an applicable costs to be paid by the organization to the lessor. r------------, I FQr any new bingo activity not previously I included in a Premises PermitApplk:ation, I attach a separate sheet of paper listing the I days and hours that bingo will be conducted. L____________.J Amended Lease Only If this is an amended lease showing changes oCcuning during the term of the current premises permit, both parties that signed the lease must initial and date all changes. Changes must be submitted to the Gamblil1f! Control Board at least: 10 days prior to the change. Write in the date that the changes will be effective ---1---1_- Lessor Date_ Organization Date~ I~LJI"~~"''''~''''''''''''''',"""",~'m''~~'"'''~''',."""'''"""",,,,,,,,,,,",^,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,!,,,,~""~~~f",,,,>\~,,__ ._"'.~ LG2,15 lease for Lawful Gambling AetI'(,ty" LeaIfi Terrri~The territ of this lease agreement wintlE! 00IlCllllB'It with the ",en Uses permit Issued by the GambIlng ~~~(8oard). ManqementofGambllng Prohibited - The owner of the ptemtsesor the lessor will not manage the mnduct of gambling at the premises; ......P8tioIl as PiayersPl:'ohlbftBd .- The IessoI; the Iessor's immediate family, and any agetits or gambling employees of the lessor will not participate as players in the mnduct of lawful gambling QO.theprelTlises;. DieIJ.III~ ,'..., .' ..' , · The Ies50r Is aWare of the prtihlbltion agaInSt IJlegaI gaMbling' In Minnesota Statutes 609.75, and the pemiltleS fur mega! gambling vioIatiOriS fn Mjnf'leSOtB Rules 786UJ050t SUbpart 3, In addition, the Board may ~theorganlzation to withhold rent for a period of up to 90 chiys If the Boarddet:ermines that iI!egaJ gambling 0CX1II1'ed on the premises and that the lessor or Its employees partldpated In the Illegal gambfing or knew of the gambling and did not take prompt action fD stop the gambling. Continued tenancy of the Ol'9anlzalion Is authorized wIthout:the payment of rent during the time period determined by the Board for violations of lhisprovlsion.. · To the best of the Iessor'Sfmowledge, the le$SOr affllT11Sthat any and all games or deviCC'-s located on the premises are not being used, and are not capable of being used, in a manner that violates the prohibitions against Illegal gambling In Minnesota Statutes 609.75, and the penaltJes for Illegal gambling violations in Minnesota ROles 7861.0050, SUbpart 3. · NotWithstanding Minnesota Rules 7861.00S0, Subpart 3, an organlzatlon must mntinue maklng rent payments, pursuant to the terms of the lease, if the Ol'9anl2atlon or Its agents are found to be solely responsible for any Illegal gambling cOOductB:! at that site that Is prohibited by Minnesota Rules 7861.0050, Subpart 1, or Minnesota Statutes 609.75, unless the organization's agents responsible for the Illegal gambling activity are also agents or emplOyees of the lesSor. · The lessor shari not modify or terminate the lease In whole or in part because the.organlzation reported to a state orloc:al law enforcement authority or the I;loard the occurreF1O!atthe site of Illegal ~ activllyln which theorgantzation didnol: . participate. 8105 ...~~f2 Other PruhfbIIIcms · The lessOr wilt not Impose ..asbldb IS on the organization wItt1 respecttD.~(dIstrIbutm) of~,~ and serviceSbf in'the. use of net profltsfdi' 1iIWft1t~:. '.' .. The lessor, person resldlng In the same hcusehoId as the lessor, theles1lo~slmmed~famuy, and~ny~or~ of. the IessorwIH not require the orgimIz:atton to PEirfOrm anyadlor1 that would ~ statute or rule. D'thtYels ill dlsptJteasto whether a violation of this provision occurrecI; the lease Wlni'emain In effect pending a final determination by the CompIlsnteReview Group (CRG) of the Gaml?llng Control Board. The lessor agrees txl CIil blb8lkn. when a.vIOIatIon of this provision Is alleged. .lhe atbJbakftshall betheCRG:. . · The leSsor shaR notrnodftiV or.".1lII:e thlSfeBSeln VIIhoIt!itft'-in part due to the Iessor's violatiOn Of the provisions listed In this , lease. . Ac:c:ess to permitted pi emises- The Board and Its agents, the mmmlSsloners of revenue and pUblic safety and their agents, and law enfm:ementpersonnel have ~ to the pennJtted premises at any reasonable tlrrie during the business hours of the lessor. The organization has aams to the pennll1ed premises dlirlng any tlnie reasonable and when necessary for the mndud: of laWful gambling on the premises. Lessor records - The lesSor shall maintain a recotd Of aU money received from the orgaiiizatiori, and make tl1ereaird available to the Board and Its agents, and the commissioners of revenue and public safety and their agents upon demand. The reaird Shall be maintained for a period of 3-1/2 years. . R.entaU-inc:iusive " Amounts paid as rent by. the (ll'9anlzatlon to the lessor are alHnduslve. No other services or ~es provided or mntJacted by the lessor may be paid by the organization, induding but not limited to trash removal, janltorjal and deanin~ services, snow removal, lawn setVices, eiedridty, heat, securlt:y, security monitoring, storage, other utilities or services,. and In.the' case of bar operations, cash shortages. Any other &pendttures made by an organization that Is relatEdto,a leased premiS"'..s must be approved by the director of the Gar11bling Control Board. Rent payments may not be made to an individual. 'Acknowledgment of lease Terms All obligations and agreements are contained in or attitchetltol:hls lease and are subject to the approval Of the director Of tlleGaiTIbltng Control Board. I affirm that the lease Information Is the total and only agreement between the lessor and the organization. There is no other agreement and no other consideration required between the parties as to the lawful gambling arid other matters related to the lease. Any changes in this lease wBI be submitted to the Gambling Control Board at least 10 days prior to the effective date of the charige. If a renegotiated lease Is made due to a change in ownership, the new lease will be submitted within 10 days after the new lessor has assumed ownership. List or attach other terms or conditions (must' be approved bydlreetor of Gambling Control Board) L Signature of ,lessor I Print name and title of lessor Date Signature of organization olliotal' (lessee) /: , 'Q- AOCt. Print name and title of lessee Date '-lIe () Questions on thIs fonnshould be directed to the Ucenslng Sectlon of the Gambling ContrOl Board (Board) at 651-639-40tJO. This publication ; , will be made available in alternative format (Le. large prlnt,Brallle) upon request. If you use a TIY, you can call the Board by using the Minnesota Relay Selvice and ask to place a call to 651-639-4000. The information requested on this form will become public information! when received by the Board, and win be used to determine your compliance with Minnesota statutes and rules goV€ming lawfu! gambling i activities. ; '~~" 1~.. ~ontrol Minnesota Lawful Gambling (LG200R) Lawful Gambling License Renewal Application Corrections should be made directly on this application Submit one check for all renewal fees, payable to State of Minnesota [~::.~~., Organization requirements: 1. An annual organization license fee of $350 is required. CEO: 2960 St. Joseph Recreational Assoc Box 601, St. Joseph, MN .563740601 Michael Paul Bader 101 5th Ave NW, St. Joseph, MN 56374 Gary Schleicher 503 Gumtree St E, St. Joseph, MN 56374 Current license term: 7/1/2004 to 6/30/2006 Renewing license term: 7/1/2006 to 6/30/2008 [iJ ICheckthls box If you;- I 1 organization qualifies for 1 I the waiver of the $350 I 1 organization license fee 1 defined In MN Statute L ~49.1~ubd. ~ _,_I (320)363-7829 County of Stearns Authorization: Organization: Treasurer: (320)420-4536 (320)363-7829 ~-------------------------I 'Annual Goal for Charitable Contributions % L_________________~_______I I Premises perlpit requirements: 1. An annual premises permit fee of $150, 2. A separate resolution of approval including the site address from the local unit of government, (The local unit of government does not sign this renewal application) and 3. A LG215 lease agreement for each site your organization does not own is required. .,------. -------------... Site number 001 '\iii!I "'_'''__''"'_'''__'__''__''~'~_<__'''''__<__''_W<_'''___'__.--..--.-''''---..-- , ~; Check this box if this site has been discontinued or will not be renewed. i . f R B~~a.rd u~~- o~,iy-~ . . . . . . . . . . _..~ ~~~~~ ....~_~~.. M"_ Millstream Park Concession 725 Co Rd 75 W, st. Joseph, MN 56374 L-TownshiP of (if applicable) Stearns County Gambling account # 108286106 Organization owns this site: N First State Bank Doesyour organization conduct bingo at this site? Y IN 400 4th Ave, St. Joseph, MN 56374 Is the resolution of approval attached? Y IN:' If yes, 'tt,:a'ttaChed liSt of the days and begimling and' encling riou~s' of your :, , , , , , _, )J,ing9 ,o~cal?ions ,rT!u~ qe, upgat~d, and reb,Jr!led,' ." ,_" ' Site number 002 LaPlayette Bar Restaurant 19 N College Ave, St. Joseph, MN L-TownshiP of (if applicable) '~"'-~cf;ecrthiS'bo;Zif'-thissite'tiasbeer1~disconum;ed o~~ilrnot'be-re"r1~ed:-'-- . . r' B";;rd' u~;; O~~y:~ . . . . . . . . _.................._MMM.... Stearns County Gambling account # 108286106 Organization owns this site: N First State Bank Does your organization conduct bingo at this site? Y I N ,__ 400 4th Ave, St. Joseph, MN 56374 Is the resolution of approval attached? Y IN:' If yes,the'~ttached liSt of the days and beginning and 'ending riou~s' of yoU!' : "".."" bing9 ,occasiqn,s .rT!ust, be upg~t~d ~~d re~urnl~d. , =----.=-.:..,cc..:,...c,. 56374 Site number 003 Losos Mainstreet Pub 21 W Minnesota St, St. Joseph, MN L-TownshiP of (if applicable) heck this box if this site has been discontinued or will not be renewed. :'B-;;;rdU~;; o~li):-: Stearns County Gambling account # 108286106 Organization owns this site: N First State Bank Does your or~anization conduct bingo at this site? Y I@-I 400 4th Ave, St. Joseph, MN 56374 Is the resolution of approval attached? WI N If yes, the attached list of the days and beginning and ending hours of YOLn , , ' , _ ' , ,bing9 occasions must be updated and returned. - .. n_''''_'__ ....._...__^_.____.._."____.._~._______._.__.._.______. ._____..__. ... ..m_n.._..______.. _.. __ ...__.____-._..._.___._ .._.~___.~~______~_..___~.~.__ _ .__..._._. n__.__._ .... ._...._._._..._~. ..____.. _..__..._......__._..... _. _ ......_.__... 56374 at JO$ep1i~i;:i:on~Jis$ociat;;Lo.n :Inac'Z'pc:rateid: 2005 AnnUal GU1k:llinsJ ,Aoti:vi ties Repcrt Income pulltabs LaPlayette Pull tabs Millstream Park pUlltabsLoso's Main Street Pub Tax refund - unsold pulltabs Tax Refund - lIe Tax(20.00} Meat Raffle Refund start up bank _. ~.i.llstream Park Refund start up bank: - 1MSP Repay, excess shortage - La 25 f $0.1. aQ 573.00 9,981.00 1,974.00 .53.96 600.00 300.00 700.00 7B . 00 ':otaI :tn~ ~nselll UUJ.owabl.e ~nsel Laplayette Bar - rent Loso's Mainstreet Pub - rent City af st Joseph - rent Shelly Muske - gambling manager salary' Scott Bloch - gambling employee Gary Schleicher - accounting service Shelly Muske - postage/copies/supplies Scott Bloch - office supplies Start up bank -set up - Millstream t'ar:k Start up bank -set up- LMSP Replenish start up bank at'Laplayette Replenish start up hank at ~~p Allied Charities merobershi.p C~!]\, -- -garnbl.ing -ntal1a~!er bOTi.c1 rene\nJal Deluxe Checks -', :ne"t,\7 :::hec}-~'/depos:i.t tkt !-~~-do," Habben/Hennen-tax prep st I,.Ic)€~ Jyle-at. Market. -.. n1.eat I)ack.a:.ges $ 40,06$1.96 4,11Q;.QfY 1,652.00 103.00 4,800.00 551.25 1,200.00 90.83 132.29 900.00 3,700.00 925.00 65.00 200.00 100,00 81..0D 250.00 300.00 1,':[.] re-'gula.r:t:6~y fee 2 07 ~ .4.'9- E: C.J: () 'f'~!T} t. :teef_:~ (~L2 r;cl~C}.:..~ LI~:TS~-' :~n(, "~OC St;at~.E:' n'';' central Garn.iI19 "Ca.!) dispen.sin>; ma.ch.lil-t (includes) ; 1,772,,2Ci 1 C f' 31 f:; . 73 y 1.:.36'7.,92 7.8S 88.00 6.00 140.00 299.64 5,409.32 .Total F.~nses Con:tJ:ibutions (LawfUl Pu::;pose 'P.~ndi:tu....-e i IRS - FQrrn 730 F'ederal li.agering ta:l>, IRS -taxes/esttaxe-s PulJ."tabs pactdl e tkc.s veriphone paper hOUSe nHes cash drawers 6.. 5'~~ sales "ta1-: 1.7% gambling tax $32,364.87 IRS -"-'Il-:C ta"x/pent./int H:Qbb{~n/Henne:n. - arrrn;~ab ~_udi: t St Joseph Lab SChool- donat~o~ Benton Tropby- memo=ial City of St Joseph - Millstream Pk improvement Ci- ty o"t St Joseph - Millst.!.~earn PaJ:k TI'ia:Lntenance Long :Lake Co:nservat:ior:. Carnp To~~1 Con+~~u~ons C"'peokbock Start Balan-oe i;,neOll:W< ~~n$e~ !1'2lot<!able ~"ls--i. Contributio:nE'" !Lawful p.,z.t:pose E~ndi ture) ~"'-~ ~ook End BaJ.~ce Year End Phvsi.cal Inven.tor"\T 9t~t;_~~:!;; 5 454. 42 651. 00 466.00 115.84 -MN" Re'\.re!lUe - taxes/est t.axes 1: 75-0" 00 200,,00 396..24 8,299.30 7:651..08 275.00 520.258.88 $13,~ €3C ~ 1$ 4Q,063.96 32,364.87 20,258.88 $ 1 ,~.270 34 567,,87 1il,20v.OO ~; 6 038.2:. I Attachment: Yes' or No REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Consent DATE: April 20, 2006 Administration ORIGINA TING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM Donation - Requested Actio.n: Accept the donation from Central Minnesota Federal Credit Union in the amount of$750 to be applied to the costs for the Fallen Officers Memorial. PREVIOUS ACTION None RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION Accept the Donation from Cel1tral Minnesota Federal Credit Union. FISCAL IMPACT $750.00 COMMENTS/RECOMMENDA TION .l-~i . Central. ~4 . Minnesota " \ .hdenll Credlt Union ?With)'OUwhertNUYOUgo. INVOICE # Post Date: Issue Date: Payee: CITY Amount: DESCRIPTION 04/11/06 04/11/06 OF ST JOSEPH 750.00 Check No. 051382 INVOICE DATE AMOUNT 0410060701 DONATION FOR LAW ENFORCE 04/05/06 750.00 . ,'. ':.n',. _' . ..' )..<~>...::...,..,.:.): "t'" ". I' . ,. ". . .. ...... .. ......-. '." ......' ............ '.".. , .......... ."........, :............e..lI.. "'. ..r.a. .. '. ". .............. .... . ".' - -, . ;:>:::::~'.. ::.;:;:;:::;.:::: - '". ....: .....: ; ",' . ;:: : -'<-' . '. '::::'NJ' """:" .....>.."".:,',.,....,.,.:,'.... '..t. ..... .. ,.. . ..... " ...... .. .. -' :",cc,,'. '..: "'1"11: ,':' cU., ... ::~"'S"O' :. ".a: '. ......,. . .', ." . .", ,',',. . '. . .......PedefalCtedit. Uriion .' ?With you 04/11/06 . .-- '..' ..-. . ... . ........" ........,.......:................ .. ... ......... ....... ...... ........... ". ....'......................'...1 ...,...........,.., " . . "- " -"", .....,:.: .:.....,';... ....... ,.-,.. , . ...... .... .'- ."" ";';';':-.".:';. ...0:...;...... ...... .-..... ..... .,....-'..'.. ,- -.' . .:. '. ~. ..... ...... ;.":'.-:'::':"',.;--::.':' <:,.;:.,.:.,:<.;,.,...:..:.;. U. OS .~lH2.ll'<.: . ',' ,-.......-. . .....,.. 20 SOUTH FOURTH AVE. E:4S!, MELROSE. MN 56352 (320) 2564269 1 i....<?':;.jj)ATE: ....... ...... .... VO.IDAFTER .180 DAYS PAY **Seven Hundred .....,.,. ....-... ,,"'.',. '-..':":"':-:., :'-"-"-' ..... :'::-,.:.. .", -, -.,...., -'. ..........'... .'. '.. -- -........_....'.. .'.....,... ...... .'-. --.- .-. ...-................. - ..- ,... .... . . --... ...... . .;.-.:.::::, .::::.:'.:...>-_.. .:::;.~ (::::>., >.:<::<::. -;:}-:.:}? :\::).::\:':-":':./:,::':"::. r.i.. ..<~If~O~S't~9$~PH .....t6~mi\fP9aI1~~G~~~....:.N 'ORDER.PCiBOX+66 a::.... OF '..ST.JOSEPHMN.5637:4 ... - ... ... .."... .... .. ,,- .... ... .-.. -.. . . . .., . - .. ....-. . - -....... ...... ....... .... .' ... ... ... ----.. .... '......, .... --....... ..... --.. -..... .-,- .. .-.,. .......... ....... '.. ,.... -.... ..' . .-.., '.' ....--- .',. 'CENTflAtWUNNESOTA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ... ... .. ,.. ..... -' . . . .... . ..... .--'" .... ........ . ..- . .... .- ... .' .."_..... . .' - ..... .... - ... ...... ... .. . ........ ....,...,.. ...-:-:..:.....- ....,........ ....... ..... ........ ........., .............. " ........ .... ." "'-.' .... .... .. ... --.... '.-' ...- ..--.. ...... ,........ ........ .......-- .... ...... ...... ........ ......~. ..c,.:............:..'.'...........::.......:...'...:.....:..........ii."C..<....................~... ....~...............;a...~. ......w..... . (L..... . .- .. .,. .~ .. ... . '. .... ...-:.'-:." .'.':..',- '........:.;: .... '-' '-.' :' '- - '. ....:........ '.-:.:.' .<,......... ,". '.. . .-. ..-, ,'. -:; - ". r. '. .- Awi"" "'"~" ',0.. ,i.w~"",,,. f'" I Attachment: ~ or No REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 20, 2006 Administation ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM 2006 Street Improvement Financing PREVIOUS ACTION RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION Two items need to be approved: 1. Set the public bond sale - $2,300,000 2. Financial Advisory Contract FISCAL IMP ACT $2,300,000 COMMENTS/RECOMMENDA TIONS () o a ..... Q) ~ ~ 0' CD CJl ." CD 0" ..... C tIl ..... '< N N N o o en z o ~ :r iii" ::J C- o ... <' CD en cQ' ::J !2. "tJ ... o CD' . (') ... to *-o.CIl * c *OCDCD)>_ ::l:'cJ?0""O<_ CD CD CD CD CD "')>o.::l_'< tIleno9:cO" ::len::l::l-CD o.mCD(C!:;;E c; en ~,g CD CD O~::;: OCD 'CF-- ::;:O::l m Q ~ CD (;) s:: en(")O::lenZ ~cenrn~(J) en a- 3 o.........!:j en _Q'CD CD .QO 00 0 .., CD 0.(;)6"'3- Q'c<=::CD~ ..,-3~"'0. ::l~f:g~Z:;)> CD -3CDen =:: (ji' -0 m 0" ::r g III 6 3' ~ S!2 ;+ 3 CD' -0 tIl .., .... -, 0 0 CD QOx__::rm. (C8.o~en- c en ""_..,, en ~ 6 :=:0<;::+":-'3 ~'CF-::;:CD 0 _m-l m ::r::l ::r 0 g:CDo.CDffi' CD o=:: en(C en 0::r8 CD en ,",CD 00 )> CD UJ - CD < C!..en::r CD Q';::;:~8.::l .., CD 0 ...... c .., -'.., ::r CD CD 3 ::l (ii' - 8"00=::0 ::l6;0"">' ~<-...,~ 2 ~~^3)> Q.CDootllC5 S' ::l m '< ::l (C en s, 0 c , ::l::r CD o (CtIlZ a. (ji' <E m QO CDO ifl N o .0 o o o ~ CD .., ::l tIl - CD !':' ~ CD '< ~ tIl - CD 3 m S' QO (J) 0' -I 3 o en ~ ~ =:: Q! ;::;: ::r )> 0. 0. ...... 0' ::l ~ ~ o ...., ^ -Efl N -f:fi ....... en ........1:>- .......CP CJ,)~ ....... N -Efl ....... ....... .......-f:fi .......~ .......CP NN CJ,)CP -Efl ....... o o o ~ "">'(D" .I:>- '< < ::;:0(5= )> ~. ~ < ::l CD tIl (J)(C c:CD CD =:: tIl ~ -f:fi ifl .I:>- N-f:fi N....>.en W-...J-...J CP(o"">' CPON ifl-f:fi ~01 ON -...J~ ..... ifl ifl 00 -f:fi N -f:fi ..... .01 ....... ON CX)-f:fi-...JCP <00"">'''''>' ~ CD '< "U m < S' (C .~ g> 2 (J) ~ ~~a-~3 ~IllQo- s:: -< (;) !!:!, (J) c ::l Cl> - =:: CD Cl> .., .., ~ "Tl(J) o ...... .., 0 o .., Cl> 3 3 (J) m CD S' =:: :::0 CD 3 Cl> .., 00 5" .., 0 o ~ < 0' 3 ::l Cl> ::l - en -I o ~ -f:fi -f:fi -f:fi -f:fi -f:fi -f:fi -f:fi N N -f:fi ..... W 0>. ..... (0 O1N01enw(Ow01 .l:>-NN01.O"">'N01 (ON01....>.01.....WCP -...JO.....NOO>COO c;N01OOWW-...JN Z g, -f:fi N W 01 00 .l:>- N .I:>- ::l o c-f:fi~~~ 0. 01 0 O>-...J ~-...Jwo(O (oNN-...J O.l:>-NW N .I:>- .I:>- .I:>- -f:fi N o 00 en Z g,-f:fiifl-f:fi-f:fi ::l 01 ~ ~ ~ o.l:>-N-...J9 ;::-oen"".!:..01 ... ....>. W W 01 g-w(Oo>-...J 0. ....>. W W -f:fi ....>. ....>. ....>. N N (0 01 Z g, ::l o C 0. CD-f:fi-f:fi 0.00 Z g, -f:fi ..... W en 01 w W -f:fi -f:fi ....>. 00 W 00 N .00 -...J-...J 00 0 0> ..... -f:fi -f:fi -f:fi ..... W -f:fi 01 -...J ..... (0 W N N .I:>- W "".!:.. W N-N O>W-...JN N.I:>-OOO -f:fi (0 -...J W 00 W -...J ::l ifl-f:fi-f:fi O-f:fiN.....N-f:fi C010.....0W o..j:::. N.I:>- 00.00 CDOO>(oN01 O'.....W-...JNO W(001WOO "Tl CD en II) CD ~. "0 0'".... - .... ::;:c.n '< ~ CJ)N ....0 == 0 c.c.n '< :s: II) oCi CD ::r CIl -f:fi cQ'.!'J (0 :::s N N 0 00 -...J C'I 00 00 )> .-~ o == ::E (,.l llJ~ C:O o C'I -f:fi ~ Ul CD Ul Ul CD C. (') ::;: -f:fi'< W 0 01 0 0'1 Ul -.I:>- .... 00 o o "C ~::s 00 00)::S -. en 0 ~-.... .., o CD "C ....CD.., en-o -30" . I>> c.. "C 0" o .., CD en 0 CD < -I "C CD 0 ::s"3- CD I>> ::s (') uto en ut NORTHLAND SECURITIES April 11, 2006 Sarah Bialke City ofSt. Joseph, Minnesota Email: sbialke@cityofstjoseph;com Re: City of S1. Joseph, Minnesota General Obligation Improvement Bonds, 2006 . Dear Sarah: At the. direction of Monte Eastvold of this office, I am requesting that you provide our office with the appropriate Chapter 429 Improvement proceedings for an improvement project to be fmanced by the above-mentioned bond issue. Below is a list of the documents you should send to me immediately, so that they can be reviewed and forwarded to Bond Counsel for fmal review. 1. Resolution Calling for the Public Hearing on the Improvements; 2. The Certificate of Mailing Notice ofthe Hearing to all affected property owners (mailed ten or more days before the hearing and the notice must contain the following: "A reasonable estimate of the impact of the assessment will be available at the hearing); 3. Affidavit of Publication ofthe.Notice of Hearing from the local paper (published twice, a week apart, with the last publication at least three days prior to the hearing date); 4. Resolution Ordering the Improvement (adopted ~ithin six months of the hearing and be approved by a four-fifths vote of all members ofthe Council.) If the project was a 100% Petition request, then we need the following: 1. Petition of the owners, 2. City Resolution Accepting the Petition, 3. Resolution Ordering the Improvement. All of the documents should be originally executed. If that is not possible, we will need to have a certificate as to originals executed. I can provide you with the appropriate fonn if you need it. Please feel free to call me if you should have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, Northland Securities, Inc. '/J .......,--> " - L1ftU.Ld Cynthia L. Tebbitt Fiscal Administrator Northland Securities, Ine 45 South 7th Street, Suite 2500, Minneapolis, MN 55402 -li,III'"" ] -800-851-2920 Main 612-851-5900 I'a, 612-851-5987 . www.northlanclsecurities..com Member NASD and SIPC EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA HELD: April 20, 2006 Pursuant to due call thereof, a regular or special meeting of the City Council of the City of St. Joseph, Stearns County, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall on April 20, 2006, at --'-- P.M. for the purpose in part of authorizing the competitive negotiated sale of the $2,375,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006C. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED SALE OF $2,375,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2006C A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofSt. Joseph, Minnesota (the "City"), has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue $2,375,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006C (the "Bonds"), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 475 and 429 for the purpose of financing the 2006 Improvement Pr~jects; and B. WHEREAS, the City has retained Northland Securities, Inc., in Minneapolis, Minnesota ("Northland"), as its independent financial advisor and is therefore authorized to sell these obligations by a competitive negotiated sale. in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofSt. Joseph, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization. The City Council hereby authorizes Northland to solicit proposals for the competitive negotiated sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting~ Proposal Opening. This City Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the Notice of Sale attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of considering sealed proposals and awarding the sale of the Bonds. The City Administrator or designee, shall open proposals at the time and place specified in the Notice of Sale. 3. Notice of Sale. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the negotiation thereof are fully set forth in the Notice of Sale attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby approved and made a part hereof. 189466lvI ""-- 4. Official Statement. In connection with the competitive negotiated sale, the City Administrator and other officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Northland and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds, and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 189466lvl 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF STEARNS CITY OF ST. JOSEPH I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Administrator ofthe City of S1. Joseph, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council, duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to the City's $2,375,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006C. WITNESS my hand on April 20, 2006. City Administrator 189466IvI 3 NOTICE OF SALE $2,375,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2006C CITY OF ST. JOSEPH (STEARNS COUNTY), MINNESOTA (Book-Entry Only) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that these Honds will be offered for sale according to the following tenns: TIME AND PLACE: Proposals will be opened by the City Administrator, or designee, on Thursday, May 18,2006, at 11:00 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Northland Securities, Inc., 45 South 7th - Street, Suite 2500, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. Consideration of the proposals for award of the sale will be by the City Council at its meeting at the City Offices beginning Thursday, May 18' 2006 at 7:00 P.M. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS: Proposals may be: a) submitted to the office of Northland Securities, Inc., b) faxed to Northland Securities, Inc. at (612) 851-5917, c) for proposals submitted prior to the sale, the final price and coupon rates may be submitted to Northland Securities, Inc. by telephone at (612) 851-5900, or d) be submitted electronically. Notice is hereby given that electronic proposals will be received via PARITyTM, in the manner described below, until 11:00 A.M., local time on December 15, 2005. Bids may be submitted electronically via PARITy™ pursuant to this Notice until 11:00 A.M., local time, but no bid will be received after the time for receiving bids specified above. To the extent any instructions or directions set forth in PARITyTM conflict with this Notice, the terms of this Notice shall control. For further information about PARITyTM; potential bidders may contact Northland Securities, Inc. or i-deal@ at 1359 Broadway, 2nd floor, New York, NY 10018, telephone (212) 849-5021. Neither the Issuer nor Northland Securities, Inc. assumes any liability if there is a malfunction of PARITyTM. All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner in which the proposal is submitted. BOOK-ENTRY SYSTEM: The bo~ds will be issued by means of a book-e~try system with no physical distribution of bond certificates made to the public. The bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one bond certificate, representing the aggregate principal amount of the bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the bonds. Individual purchases of the bonds may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the Issuer through Northland Trust Services, Inc., Miimeapolis, Minnesota (the "Paying Agent/Registrar"), to DTC, or its nominee as registered owner of the bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficia] owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The successful proposal maker, as a condition of delivery of the bonds, will be required to deposit the bond certificates with DTC. The Issuer will pay reasonable and customary charges for the services of the Paying Agent/Registrar. DATE OF ORIGINAL ISSUE OF BONDS: June 1,2006 AUTHORITY/PURPOSE: The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475, as amended. Proceeds will be used to provide monies for street reconstruction and utility work. INTEREST PAYMENTS: December 1, 2006, and semiannually thereafter on June ] and December 1 to registered owners of the bonds appearing of record in the bond register as of the close of business on the fifteenth day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. MATURITIES: December 1, inclusive, in each of the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 2007 $120,000 2015 $160,000 2008 125,000 2016 170,000 . 2009 130,000 2017 175,000,r 2010 135,000 2018 180,000 2011 135,000 2019 190,000 2012 145,000 2020 200,000 2013 150,000 2021 205,000 2014 155,000 Proposals for the bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for any combination of serial bonds and term bonds, subject to mandatory redemption, so long as the amount of principal maturing or subject to mandatory .redemption in each year conforms to the maturity schedule set forth above. INTEREST RATES: All rates must be in integral multiples of 1/20th or 1/8th of 1%. Rates must be in level or ascending order. No limitation is placed upon the number of rates which may be used. All Iionds of the same maturity must bear a single uniform rate from date of issue to maturity. ADJUSTMENTS TO PRINCIPAL AMOUNT AFTER PROPOSALS: REDEMPTION: CUSIP NUMBERS: DELIVERY: TYPE OF PROPOSAL: The Issuer may increase or decrease each maturity by no more than $50,000, in increments of $5,000, but the total adjustment to the issued will not exceed $250,000. Such adjustments shall be made promptly after the sale and prior to award of bids by the Issuer and shall be in the sole discretion of the Issuer. The Issuer shall only make such adjustments in order to size the Bonds to so .that the annual principal and interest payments are in order to size the issue in accordance with federal tax laws governing refundings. The successful bidder may. not withdraw or modifY its bid once submitted to the Issuer for any reason, including post bond adjustment. Any adjustment shall be conclusive and shall be binding upon the successful bidder. Bonds are subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the .Issuer on December 1,2013 (2014 through 2021 maturities), and on any date thereafter at par. Redemption may be in whole or in part. If redemption is in part, the maturity and the principal amounts within each maturity to be redeemed shall be determined by the Issuer and if only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment, the specific Bonds to be prepaid shall be chosen by lot by the Bond Registrar. If the bonds qualifY for assignment ofCUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the bonds, but neither the failure to . print such numbers on any bond nor any error with respect thereto shall constitute cause for a failure or refusal by the successful bidder thereof to accept delivery of and pay for the bonds in accordance with terms of the purchase contract. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the successful bidder. Within forty days after award subject to approving legal opinion by Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, Bond Counsel. Legal opinion will be paid by the Issuer and delivery will be anywhere in the continental United States without cost to the successful bidder at DTC. Proposals of not less than $2,344,125.00 (98.70%) and accrued interest on the principal sum of $2,375,000 from date of original issue of the Bonds to date of delivery must be filed with the undersigned prior to the time of sale. Proposals must be unconditional except as to legality. A certified or cashier's check (the "Deposit") in the amount of $47,500, payable to the order ofthe City Administrator of the Issuer, or a Financial Surety Bond complying with the provisions below, must accompany each proposal, to be forfeited as liquidated damages if proposal maker fails to comply with accepted proposal. Proposals for the bonds should be delivered to Northland Securities, Inc. and addressed to: Judy Weyrens, Administrator City of St. Joseph 25 College Avenue North St. Joseph, Minnesota 56374 If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the Issuer. Such bond must be submitted to Northland Securities, Inc. prior to the opening ofthe proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each proposal maker whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the bonds are awarded to a proposal maker using a Financial Surety Bond, then that successful bidder is. required to submit its Deposit to Northland Securities, Inc. in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Northland Securities, Inc. not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the Issuer to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The Issuer will deposit the check of the successful bidder, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the successful bidder. In the event the successful bidder fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the Issuer. No proposal can be withdrawn after the time set for receiving. proposals unless the meeting of the Issuer scheduled for award of the bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the bonds having been made. AWARD: The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest. cost (TIC) basis. The Issuer's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with . customary practice, will be controlling. In the event of a tie, the sale of the Bonds will be awarded by lot. The Issuer will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and (iii) reject any proposal which the Issuer determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. INFORMATION FROM SUCCESSFUL BIDDER: The successful bidder will be required to provide, in a timely manner, certain information relating to the initial offering price of the bonds necessary to compute the yield on the bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.of 1986, as amended. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE: BANK QUALIFICATION: BOND INSURANCE AT UNDERWRITER'S OPTION: By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefore, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda. The Issuer will covenant in the resolution awarding the sale of the bond.s and in a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking to provide, or cause to be provided, annual financial information, including audited financial statements of the Issuer, and notices of certain material events, as required by SEC Rule 15c2-12. The Issuer will designate the bonds as qualified tax-exempt obligations for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. If the Bonds qualifY for issuance of any policy of municipal .bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the successful bidder, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the successful bidder of the Bonds. Any increase in the costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the successful bidder, except that, if the Issuer has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the Issuer will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the successful bidder. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after the Bonds have been awarded to the successful bidder shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the successful bidder to accept delivery on the Bonds. . Dated: April 20, 2006 The Issuer reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive informalities and to adjourn the sale. BY ORDER OF THE ST. JOSEPH CITY COUNCIL /s/ Judy Weyrens Administrator Additional information may be obtained from: Northland Securities, Inc. 45 South Seventh Street Suite 2500 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone No.: (612) 851-5900 FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA AND NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC. This Agreement made and entered into by and between the City of 81. Joseph, Minnesota (hereinafter "City") and Northland Securities, Inc., ofMinneapoIis, Minnesota (hereinafter "NSI"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City desires to use the services of Nsr related to the issuance of City bonds as described herein ("Debt"), and WHEREAS, NSI desires to furnish services to the City as hereinafter described, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows: SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY NSI Debt issuance: Serve as the City's Financial Advisor for the issuance of the Debt. NSI shall provide all services necessary to analyze, structure, offer for sale and close the transaction. Examples of the services include the following: Planning and Development * * * Meet with City officials and others as directed to define the scope and the objectives Assemble and analyze relevant statistical information. Prepare a preliminary feasibility study or discuss with City officials possible funding options and the fiscal implications of each. Prepare details on the recommended options - information on the issue structure, method of issuance, term, sale timing, call provisions, etc. Prepare a schedule of events related to the issuance process. Attend meetings of the City Council and other project and bond issue related meetings as needed and as requested. * * * Bond Sales * Prepare, cause to be printed, and distribute the Official Statement and Bid Form to prospective bidders. Cause to be published the Official Notice of Sale if required by law. Recommend whether the issue should secure a bond rating. lfthe issue is to be rated, prepare and furnish to the rating agencies the information they require to evaluate the issue and provide their rating. Serve as the City's representative to the rating agencies. Directly contact underwriters most likely to serve as syndicate managers to assure that bidding interest is established. * * * st joseph fa 041106 Page] * Assist the City in recelVlng the bids, compute the accuracy of the bids received, and recommend to the City the most favorable bid for award. *' Coordinate with bond counsel the preparation of required contracts and resolutions. * * * Post Sale Support Coordinate the bond issue closing. including making. all arrangements for bond printing, registration, and delivery. Furnish to the City a complete transcript of the transaction. Assist, as requested by the City, with the investment of bond issue proceeds. Investment Assistance: Should the City desire to invest the proceeds from the Debt issuance or any other funds of the City through NSI in its capacity as a broker, NSI shall, at all times, transact such investments as principaL . COMPENSATION For the proposed sale by the City in 2006 of its approximate $ 2,375,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A (the "Bonds"), NSl's fee shall be a lump sum of $19,500.00. The fee due to NSI shall be payable by the Cityupon the closing of the Bonds. . NSI agrees to pay the following expenses from its fee: * * Out-of-pocket expenses such as travel, long distance phone. and copy costs. Production and distribution of material to rating agencies and/or bond insurance companies. Preparation of the bond transcript. * The City agrees to pay for all other expenses related to the processing of the bond issue(s) including, but not limited to, the following: * * * * * * * Engineering and/or architectural fees. Publication of legal notices. Bond counsel and local attorney fees. Fees for various debt certificates. The cost of printing Official Statements, if any. City staff expenses. Airfare and lodging expenses of one NSl official and City officials when and if traveling to New York City for rating agency presentations. Rating agency fees, if any. Bond insurance fees,' if any. Accounting and other related fees. * * * It is expressly understood that there is no obligation on the part of the City under the terms of this Agreement to issue the Bonds. If the Bonds are not issued, NSI agrees to pay its own expenses and receive no fee for any services it has rendered. st joseph fa 041106 Page 2 AUTHORIZATION TO BID As a broker dealer, NSI is subject to the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (hereinafter "Board"). Pursuant to Rule G-23 of the Board, the City consents and does authorize NSI or any entity or. company affiliated with NSI to submit a competitive bid for the purchase of the Bonds. NSI agrees that any bid so submitted shall be faxed directly to the City for receipt at least fifteen (I5) minutes prior to the deadline otherwise established for the receipt of such a bid. SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS The terms and provisions of this Agreement are binding upon and inure to the benefit of the City and NSI and their successors or assigns. TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT This Agreement may be terminated by thirty (30) days written notice by either the City or NSI and it shall terminate sixty (60) days following the closing date related to the issuance of the Bonds. Dated this 20th day of April, 2006. Northland Securities, Inc. By: Richard G. Asleson, Sr. Vice President City of St. Joseph, Minnesota By: And: st Joseph fa 041106 Page 3 I Attachment: Yes or No REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Interim Use Permit, Patrick Conway, 35 - 2nd Avenue NE DATE: April 20, 2006 Administration . ORIGINA TING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM Interim Use Permit, Owner Occupied Rental Patrick Conway, 35 - 2nd A venue NE PREVIOUS ACTION Planning Commisston held a public hearing on April 3, 2006 to review the request for Interim Use Permit. The Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the request contingent upon him meeting all outstanding rental housing issues. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION Accept recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the Interim Use Permit for Patrick Conway to allow an owner occupied rental at 35 - 2nd Avenue NE. COMMENTS The Planning Commission received objection to the proposed Interim Use, however, the applicant is meeting the requirements for the Interim Use. The City Office staff has been working on a number of properties where it has been reported there are rentals. In the past two weeks we have probably mailed 12 compliance orders and are working on enforcing the Ordinance. Interim Use Permits are different than Special Use Permits as Interim can have expiration dates and as long as all applicable Ordinances are met, it is difficult to deny. The Planning Commission requires that all Interim Use Permits be renewed annually so that ifthe neighbors are experiencing Ordinance Violations we can remedy the situation and as a final action end the Interim Use Permit. In addition, Interim Use Permits are not transferable between property owners, special use permits are. The only case where the City issues Interim Use Pennits is for owner occupied rental units. Resolution of finding Patrick Conway, 35 - 2nd AvenueSE The request of Patrick Conway for an Interim Use Permit request came before the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on April 3, 2006. The purpose of the hearing was to consider issuance of an interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit in a R1 Zoning District. The property is legally described as Lot 008 Block 002 Loso's Second Addition according to the plat and survey thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for the County of Stearns and State of Minnesota located at 35 - 2nd Avenue SE. St. JoseDh Code of Ordinances 52.27, subd 5 allows for an Interim Use permit as follows: Residential rental provided the unit is owner occupied and provided the room (s) rented does not contain separate kitchen facilities and is not intended for use as an independent residence. For purposes of establishing if the property is owner occupied, the owner must be a natural person and the owner occupying the property as his or her principal residence and must own a fifty percent (50%) or greater interest in the property. The request for interim Use has been submitted by Patrick Conway, 35 - 2nd Avenue 8E; 8t. Joseph MN 56374. Notice of this matter was duly served and published. In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of 81. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: The proposed use is consistent with the standards for granting an interim Use Permit, Sf. Joseoh Code of Ordinances 52.07.()4 Therefore, based on the above findings; the Planning Commission makes the following recommendation: Approval of the interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit in a R1 Zoning District with the following contingencies: 1 . The rental license in non-transferable and if the property is sold or the ownership changes so that the aforementioned no longer owns a 50% or greater interest fn the property the Interim Use Permit is null and void. 2. Approval of the Rental Housing Inspector 3. The Planning Commission will review the license annually and revoke the license if the property is in violation of the 81. Joseoh Code of Ordinances. 4.. The City Office will place a notice in the 81. Joseph Newsleader when the owner occupied rental licenses are reviewed and will accept public comments. 5. The property will be in compliance by June 1, 2006. The motion passed unanimously. Extract of Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2006 Public Hearinq -Interim Use Permit. 35 - 2"d Avenue SE: Weyrensstated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider an Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental in an R-1 Single Family zoning district. The property is legally described as Lot 8 Block 2, Loso's 2"d Addition. . Patrick Conway has submitted the request for Interim Use Permit. Conway approached the commissioners stating that he had no idea that he could not rent the property when he purchased it. He stated that it is his intent to be able to allow the current residents to stay there until graduation in 2007, after which he plans to sell the house. Bud Reber, 118 - 2nd Avenue SE, approached the commissioners stating that this area is one of the oldest residential neighborhoods in the City and it is a quiet area. According to Reber, he recommends denial of the Interim Use Permit for 35 - 2nd Avenue SE. Monica Cofell, 24 - 2nd Avenue SE, spoke in opposition to the request for Interim Use Permit. According to Cofell, if a person is old enough to buy a house, then they should know all of the rules associated with it. She mentioned that this residence has had many parties earlier this year. She also stated that the City grants too many of these permits and it is hard to keep track of all of them. Becky Staneart, 31- 2nd Avenue SE, approached the commissioners stating that she lives directly next door to the property in question. She stated thai she has had no problems with noise from that house. According to Staneart, she walks by other rental properties in town and they are not taken care of, and she does not want that right next to her. She stated that she does not want this as a long-term rental property. Dennis Stueve, 111 E Able Street, also approached the commissioners; however, he stated that he is not against this property being a rental. He stated that he is; however, concerned with the fence around the property and the appearance of the yard. Ken Twit, 213 EAble Street, questioned the Commissioners as to how the City found that this was a rental property. He stated that this property had been in violation for a while. The public hearing was closed at 7:15. Utsch stated that the new rental ordinance requires property owners to apply for an Interim Use Permit to allow the City to control rentals in the City. He stated that the permits are reviewed on a yearly basis for compliance and problems. The problem with the process is that the City needs to find the rental properties in order to enforce the Ordinance. According to Utsch, he is unsure as to why this is a problem as the local realtors all know that St. Joseph does not allow for non-owner occupied rentals. They must be owner occupied the owner must own at least 50% or more of the property. According to City Ordinance, there may only be 3 people living in the house, which in this case there are 5. Utsch added that rental licenses are non-transferable. Weyrens added that a letter was received by the City Offices in opposition to the potential Interim Use Permit. In her letter, Mary Stamps urged the City to disallow the request and think about how that would affect the neighborhood. Utsch stated that this property has been in non-compliance since the beginning of the school year. Weyrens stated that although the property is currently violating the Ordinance, the Planning Commission must have facts of finding to deny the request. Utsch advised the local residents that if they have a problem with a property, which has an Interim Use Permit, they should file something in writing to the City Offices. Currently, there are 8 Interim Use Permits in the City and there have no complaints on any of those properties. He stated that those with Interim Use Permits take care of their property, as they are living there and building equity. Rassier made a motion to recommend that this be forwarded to the City Council for approval contingent upon items being repaired that were found to be in non- compliance at the time of the rental inspection. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Weyrens and Oeutz re-stated that aI/Interim Use Permits come up for renewal in July. Weyrens stated that an item #5 should be added to the Resolution of Findings to state a date for compliance. The motion passed unanimously. . Previously, it was stated that Conway planned to have his current tenants there through graduation of 2007. Rassier questioned if all of the tenants had signed leases. Conway stated that 3 of the 4 renters have signed leases and, as a result, he is asking for the City to aI/ow 3 renters in addition to himself to stay in the house through graduation. Graeve made a motion for the property to be in compliance by June 1, 2006. The motion was seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously. Weyrens added that this item will be placed on the Agenda for City Council approval on April 20th. I Attachment: Yes or No REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Interim Use Permit DATE: April 3, 2006 AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing - Interim Use Permit, Owner Occupied Rental Patrick Conway, 35 - 2nd Avenue NE PREVIOUS ACTION The City Offices received a complaint of a rental unit at 35 - 2nd Avenue NE When complaints are received a compliance order is mailed to the property owner and they have 10 days to respond. Mr. Conway responded shortly after receiving the order and stated he was unaware that he needed a rental license and he would file the required paperwork. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS At the time of writing this RF A I have not received the Inspection Report or parking configuration. As soon as I receive those documents I will forward the information. Administrator Judy Weyrens Mayor Richard earlbom Councilors AI R.assier Ross Rieke Renee Symanietz Dale Wick CITY OF ST. JOSEPH www.cityofstjoseph.com Public Hearing City of St. Joseph The 81. Joseph PlaniJ.ing Commission shall conduct a public hearing on Monday, April 3 at 7:00 PM. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an Interim Use permit to allow an owner occupied rental in an R-I Single-Family zoning district. The property is legally described as Lot 8 Block 2, Loso' s 2nd Addition. 8t. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27 subd. 5 allows for an Interim Use Permit as follows: Residential rental provided the unit is owner occupied and provided the room(s) rented does not contain separate kitchen facilities and is not intended for use as an independent residence. For purposes of establishing if the property is owner occupied, the owner must be a natural person and the owner occupying the property as his or her principal residence and must own a fifty percent (50%) or greater interest in the property. .1JE3 I ---.-.- ~ .............-..-.. .. [ n ';~ 35_2nd Avenue SE Patrick Conway, 35 - 2nd Avenue SE, St. Joseph, MN 56374 has submitted the request for Interim Ue. . Judy Weyrens Administrator PLEASE NOTE: CORRECT ADDRESS IS 35 - 2ND AVENUE SE r-, f 1 t; ~ ~/ :) d I rJ Y use p I'~, klJi n n t ::; 0 t d .;- () } 7 4 bel>: bt)(-~; 2..)" ',~.. c \ ! e g t: /\ v t' 1"1 U -~. I,,! ~'" _ I i,' j, i; 1 APPLICATION FOR INTERIM USE .PERMIT CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 25 College Avenue NW P. O. Box 668 St'-Joseph, MN 56374 (320)363-7201 or Fax (320)363-0342 Fee $ Paid Receipt # Date STATE OF MINNESOTA) ')ss COUNTY OF STEARNS) o ,~- II' NAME: . /,:(11 \ eVL :1 () &/ L- c) (1', (-.lor. ,,/C!O~-,-t 'J PHONE: (f~ !) 9. 0,( - /"7<. I ....j- ...J. - \.-" .,.- ADDRESS: s5 Au e. <:.' r-: -.J,__ s~. -Sc>:;eo~; mil 5hS i7 Lj I1Wc, the undersigned, hereby make the following application to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of St. Joseph, Stearns County, Minnesota. (Applicants have the responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances pertaining to their application and complying with all ordinance requirements): 1. Application is hereby made for Interim Use Permit to conduct the following: ilHirz.e {A<" ('".~ rl"'fc..,...-.t ,./f t,.,,< ~:.t> :.rl. R a("( on~IlG~:' _11'- hpJo;,/'\.'; I"VH-:l ,.d~(:~~,~...j,. "'k.1:. (Cb!~+ ~."!_~,"'LTcrAek ..~~;1'(..; ne"v...r ...\.ti/,lQ.....(;.:t.j.~ .;..~~e;l..da."t"I... weJ<.<," (<-~,+-S, I 2: Legal description ofland to be affected by application, including acreage or square footage ofland involved, and street address, if any (attacn a!fditionai ;sheet if necessary): f-c +..~ '1:.: ,..7 l::.:, t. f~.';' .....,..~' i/... ..~~,:~;~(; .~: ,;;..1/, /};t;{.:.L-1J!:V ':$S 2".~ h',o"c ...S,&-' .S"4. '-s.t~~,~~~'~?h ,,f'?'1r1 _q.:~~'?,::i 5.e.e::. <:"'_~b(:,,,,~A; t't^t;:f;,.(1- 3. Presem: zoning of the abpve described property is: 4. Name and address of the present 0wner of the above described property is: PC\:tt\:c>V '35> ;;. ~\ ,4f/;.( :;S'. 'S-1. ;;C~. >~:.::;;:-, i"3T<'/ l...i"'k'~ {Ai (0..:""/ ,"'- /'.-,.~~,.' ,:::. k' ~I,.,..-z: 5. Is the proposed use compatible with present and future land uses of the area? Please explain: 7l,')J' ~;,: ;~l~. (jf:~ t'i~~::;S,d6f- a1-~'(';-a~::7: ('/~/M '>J5;:^, ~':~:~~~'~ ..n('CDI':.."~+-" l.....j .;J~ .,.., ("""'r. i-:~.;- (\ .J "'\ ' . -:. 4..{i I , I I i~ePt~c.sh-(f US" ~",'~ p",j,?"i~.;;;-, ,~~:-~.{ ..j 1./\..L, ~ {.;, , ~ 6. Will the proposed use depreciate the area in which it is proposed? Please explain: It!} , !1~( t:;CP~1 n'i"~;llt.~ 1L1 nt.v?v....:. +w ../lt1C ....IP<~./' /'::0(; hc~~J,j'.:. .t-"iM..v'~_~I{ -m:;"v~;;~,' ...,'t!'. +.at,. q,"v'c.....,. .~~:r~ -- ":".('-, t:.: ,'t,' Ct('"'.~...~., --r~..."1-:." .;.-,5..;. h. ;/ _ u j//C'''/ L<',f r ~/"?t~ 'fin(< d.i'~f:,,:-rl..i)h.. ,...,.:.:. !{~..z ~:> 0" !'-i!':..";"; \.;: ,-'1::'''1 ~.{./it'Z'i' """'Y '1c-'"74b<::/~ Ir~- v;l~:;. 7. Can ;he proposed use be accon1J11odated with ~xisting City service without overburdening the system? Explain: . V'~. .J- t,<~,;.'- t'\......y IRs:.': :/ir~;:t).:(;;~:, ..f"h..;".~: VII h.~ -1t-\;~ l'e.r::> { '/ ('! {....J...-:.: r /:;-':'.1;'/ F -r:i.': j.}b.W\f.;;.... ~~re ,,-1.;,<?L.-~...;: u,;i11 /\;r"'l"~:/j,, f/l--",'Ii'1j',..-, -rl~"'" :;';"1". i,11..,.'L'.; .,..~..t :":;:-~..-...., ~i..::,. ~:> (-,~ l:', ,c'{b.'.-r/~ ( -rttE ('.,-A /"/'C".,,,+ t ~V~;.""'~.,' ~"'t~'P'''-'I'P:!/..'',vl''''.,,,i - , 5c.... f c.~ .<J,'~:r;.. -l- .':1,.-7-:;'-:1:":- .';:"':~ ',[ , , 8. Are IO,caJ streets capable of handling traffic which is generated by the proposed use? Please explain: "II'S. (.;,..~::\1:l (,......."7. .1'irv-:::.. ,,,),~,,,,,.j;,::""f-'O :.~ :;. "~"--'c;.,~-q'~i"f-ti .;); J:.'-'~' l~-, ,.":'J. f.J t..:.H'- {\t;\.6'.::w'~f"'''''i ...., ;[\tt;' +\." 'v. I."'" 1\::0 ~~'r/\.r:.."{- '.,.-;"" f..k '1l.r~:';""" _~'/.-c'e--t P:"..fl.C-,:,L: v- i ' ,f rr.~~ ,; -+ ('oZ..;;: .'t""~ j'~ .,. "..Fl,.-:: t: I,JS~'I<"'I c:: :~ ,~ ~r.,(/.;(. .~,..:. Attached to this application and made a part thereof are othe.r material submission data requirements, as indicated. //l, ,i /? /"/.^ . .. ij/ flil/L/ l ~ I' "C>..t.'.{./~^"' "''') /-, -;;l',?1 Applicant Signature: r't.. 'f. .. .. '..A,' ,'" Date: ";,f t.. .:>; t..<,1;7 Owner Signature: Date: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY DATE APPLICATION SUBMITTED: DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE: Planning Commission Action: _ Recommend Approval _ Recommend Disapproval Date of Action Date Applicant/Property Owner notified of Planning Commission Action: City Council Action: _ Approved _ Disapproved Date of Action Date ApplicantJProperty Owner notified of City Council Action: March 23, .2006 Patrick Conway 35 - 2nd Avenue SE S1. Joseph MN RE: Interim Use Permit Application Dear Patrick: I am in receipt of your Interim Use Application requesting authorization to secure a rental license for 35 - 2nd Avenue SE. In reviewing your packet the following information was mlssmg: 1. Proof of Ownership 2. Site Plan illustrating the dimensions of your property, location of the house and the area designated for off street parking. Please see the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.10 forthe required parking 3. Your application was not signed. Please stop the City Office ASAP to sign the application. In addition, please contact the Building Official at 1-800-322-6153 to make arrangements for a rental housing inspection. . This inspection needs to be completed as soon as possible, no later than Thursday, March 30, 2006. All rental properties are required to complete an annual inspection before a rental1icense can be issued. The Planning Commission will need this information for the meeting on April 3. Please provide the required information no later than March 30, 2006. Your hearing has been scheduled for 7:00 PM April 3, 2006. If you have any questions or need additional information please feel free to contact me at 320-363-7201 Sincerely, CITY OF ST. JOSEPH Judy Weyrens Administrator cc: Ron Wasmond/Gary Dtsch, Building/Rental Official File Steams County Page 1 of2 COUNTY WEBSITE I PROPERTY SEARCH I FAQ's I GLOSSARY I PAYMENT TRACKER : SECURITY I PRIVACY STATEMEN CONTACT STElZIRti$ CO\J!'fTV Parcel Number 84.53623.000 Payable Year: 2005 Property Address 35 2ND AVE SE ST JOSEPH Tax Roll Type: REAL ESTATE Jurisdiction: ST JOSEPH CITY School District: ISD 0742 ST CLOU[ Identification Information Primary Taxpayer/Owner MARK W DUNNIGAN 35 2ND AVE SE ST JOSEPH MN 56374 New Taxpayer/Owner PATRICK P CONWAY 35 2ND AVESE ST JOSEPH MN 56374 Legal Description S60' OF lOTS 8-9-10 & 11 BLK 2 Section: 10 Township: 124 Range: 029 Lot: 008 Biock: 002 Piat Name: 84014 LOSO'S 2ND ADD Real Estate and Personal Property Taxes are determined using the previous year aSSE Mobile Home Taxes are determined using the current year assessment value. Property Classification: FULL HOMESTEAD RESIDENTIAL Assessment Year 2004 Est. Market Value - Building Est. Market Value - Land Est. Market Value - Total Taxable Market Total Payable Year 20m $68,600.00 $28,000.00 $96,600.00 $96,600.00 Total Tax Special Assessments: 2005 SOLID WASTE FEE Total TaxlAsmts. Paid To Date installments Due Date Taxes/Assessments 1 st Half 5/15/2005 Taxes/Assessments 2nd Half 10/17/2005 *Total Tax/Asmts. does not include any fees, interest and/or penalties that may apply. **Additional reductions in taxable value may apply due to special tax deferrals, This Old House, Plat Laws, etc. http://secure.co .stearns.mn. us/RecapBill. aspx?RollType= R&ParcelNumber=84 53623000 3/29/2006 ,---- '" ~, .....) 11 e. 0' , \ C\.V\ 35 2~..! Ave. ,-- ~c . S}. 3cSc:.fh , mr? S i+~ Diwvu::/',sioA..S 75" 0'\ o l-r", 1/ --- : ~f; . ; ., ,.;P ~ ,""J\;-~"",1-e~ ?M~"} Sy""c ~ '1-\0' l- I I 15/75D s'{.. Ff. . '3" .:\.o::.,e$ 1 SF a_.... (.-., }--/ ~ r Ki '/\'_~ '<<I4rr-~-t";A~ ~ d'~ ~ v\'&lt . .IIi :lC;~ 2. ~:a...... 'fj<S:r'lA,e.. ... ~ ~,q~'-ri;'" ~."'..y1 1""" r; 0~"~~r! ff 1': 4- " . 'I ,'...1\, Lr"-'-.r-~ ': :',.'_: ~! !: ~\ i'f'>." I "..-." t:::lID ~ ! ~(3) ~ i(~P ~ ~, ~ i ~ ~ /' ~ ~.:) L._-i \ \ Ii Ld/ \e7 @ m ~ -t'-* * f I; 1:>00 $eJ a.d.o..;'>;;1:>.......i , ~ti o-<F+c,..... " plA~"'1."...s1l "" t'"' f/bPV1- '/ . F-IA.;"j ~fdLC.e... by ;..c._v.."") 2.!lJ;t i...."'I},n:n"".... wa.,S Ih . -: i \ t '; 'r '; r-- c1t 'U 0..1 ~". . i 1~ ~~;::;..p.';_'::: z '$>+~r ":.... <:Jii.~)'.'" 71{?tf1'" 1$~,.;:,-* Ho...." i:&& Z.Elo"~ oji:<... I Attachment: Yes or No REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Graceview Estates - pun Amendment DATE: April 20, 2006 Administration ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM Graceview Estates - PUD Amendment, Change to a piece of trail PREVIOUS ACTION Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 3, 2006 to review the request for PUD Amendment. The Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the request for amendment to the trail system. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION Accept recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the Amendment to the PUD entitled Graceview Estates to change a portion of trail. COMMENTS None - Resolution of Finding PUD Amendment - Graceview Estates The request for PUD Amendmentcame before the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on April 3, 2006. The purpose of the hearing was to consider an amendment to the Planned Unit Development entitled Graceview Estates. The proposed amendment would change a piece of trail. The property is legally described as: The Southwest Quarter ofthe Southeast Quarter (SW1/4 SE1/4) of section ten (10) in Township one hundred twenty-four (124) North, of Range twenty-nine (29) in Ste.arns County, Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT; the North 66 feet thereof AND ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT the East 30 feet thereof. The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4 NE1/4) of Section fifteen (15), In Township one hundred twenty- four (124) North, Range twenty-nine (29) West in Stearns County, Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT: Commencing at the Northwest Quarter of said NE1/4 NE1/4; thence East on an assumed bearing along the North line of said NE1/4 NE1/4, a distance of 500 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 00 degree 09 minutes 26 seconds East parallel with the West line of said NE1/4 Me1/4 a distance of 1330.93 feet to the South line of said NE1/4 NE1/4; thence North 89 degree 57 minutes 43 seconds East along said South line ofsaid NE1/4 NE1/4; a distance of 819.95 feet to the East line of said section; thence North 00 degree 10 minutes 42 seconds West along said East line a distance of 1330.38 feet to the Northeast corner of said Section; thence West along the North line of said Section 819.47 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. AND The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW1/4 NE1/4) of Section fifteen (15), in Township one hundred twenty- four (124) North, of Range twenty-nine (29) West in Stearns County, Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT: That part of the NW1/4 NE1/4 of Section 15, Township 124, Range 29, described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of said Quarter- Quarter, said point being South 89 degrees 11 minutes West, 1320 feet from the NE Corner of said Section; thence along the East line of said Quarter-Quarter, du.e South 310 feet; thence South 89 degrees 11 minutes West, 250 feet; thence due north 310 feet to a point on the North line of said Section; thence along said North line North 89 degrees 11 minutes East, 250 feet to the point of beginning. The request for PUD Amendment was submitted by Pond View Ridge, LLP, 25-11 th Avenue N, St. Cloud, MN 56303. Notice of this matter was duly served and published. In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission made the following findings: 1. The amendment to the trail plan has been reviewed by the Park Board and they have determined that removing the portion of the trail along Elena Lane west of 4th Avenue will not jeopardize the trail plan for the entire development. 2. The amendment to the trail plan would fit the future plans for connection to Kleinfelter Park. Therefore, based on the above findings, the Planning Commission made the following recommendation: Approval of the amendment to the PUD entitled Graceview Estates to remove the portion of the trial requested contingent upon the following: 1. The developer will, at their cost, extend the trail into Kleinfelter Park, connecting the existing trail. 2. The developer will at their cost, extend the trail south on th to connect to future Field Street. .The motion passed unanimously. Extract of Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2006 Public Hearino - Graceview Estates PUO Amendment: Weyrens stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider an amendment to the Planned Unit Development entitled Graceview Estates. The proposed amendment would change one piece of trail. The request for PUO Amendment was submitted by Pond View Ridge LLP. Bob Herges, Pond View Ridge LLP, approached the commissioners as the developer. He stated that they are requesting to delete the portion of the trail to .the west of 4th A venue SE along Elena Lane and add a section of trail to the East extending south along Elena Lane to allow for future development. This would allow for the trail to connect to the trail in Kleinfelter Park rather than end at the end of Elena Lane. Herges stated that the original trail plan did not show a connection between Graceview 1 & 2; however, that piece of trail was added by the developer. Nelda Dehn, 508 Elena Lane, approached the commissioners questioning how the trail will affect her property. Herges advised Oehn that the trail would extend along Elena Lane in front of her property; however, it will be on the property of the neighbor on the south side of the street. Heidi Benkowski, 418 Elena Lane, also approached the commissioners stating that she is not in favor of the proposed trail extending west along Elena Lane. She stated that when they moved to Sf. Joseph from the Cities, they were unaware of this potential trail in their yard until a walk through with Herges prior to closing. She stated that she was frustrated, as her realtor did not make her aware of the proposed trail. Herges stated that he discloses that information to all of the local realtors and he is unsure as to why her realtor didn't disclose that information. Benkowski also stated that she does not want Field Street in her backyard as well as a trail going through her front yard. The public hearing was closed at 7:50. Lesnick stated that the PUQ Amendment had been approved at the Park Board Meeting. She stated that all of these issues were brought up and that many ofthe residents were present at the meeting. The trail system in Graceview is part of their park dedication fees. Graeve questioned whether or not the amendment to the trail would benefit the City, to which Weyrens stated it would. Rassier made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the PUD Amendment to the trail plan as presented. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Weyrens added that this item will also be placed on the Agenda for City Council approval on April 20th. I Attachment: Yes or No REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Graceview Estates - PUD Amendment DATE: April 3, 2006 AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing ~ Graceview Estates, PUD Amendment Revise Trail Plan PREVIOUS ACTION The City approved the Preliminary Plat for Graceview Estates in 2002. When the plat was presented to the City it was presented asa style of living using coving and trails, maximizing open space. The plat was approved and development has occurred since. Graceview is currently constructing the third phase of the development and the fourth phase has been submitted for review. Since Graceview was developed as a PUD with the trail concept, the trail cannot be modified without amending the POO. Therefore, a public hearing was scheduled and hearing notices were not only sent to property m:vners within 350 feet of the project, but all the residents in Graceview Estates. The Developer was required to approach the Park Board before scheduling the public hearing. The Park Board considered the matter and recommended the Planning Commission and Council approve the PUD Amendment (see attached email). The Park Board required the trail be extended along 7th A venue to Field Street in exchange for not constructing the trail on a portion of Elena. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS The trail became an issue when Engineering notified the Developer that the trail construction along Elena was an outstanding item. The Developer indicated that the portion of trail in dispute was not part of the original plan. The City has provided evidence of the trail being approved at the time of Preliminary Plat. Therefore, 'the matter is now before the Planning Commission. In reviewing the request, the only negative of the trail relocation is a small portion of the plat will not have sidewalk or trail. Administrator Judy Weyrens Mayor Richard Carlbom Councilors AI Rassier Ross Rieke Renee Symanietz Dale Wick A CITY OF ST. JOSEPH www.cityofstjoseph.com Public Hearing City of St. Joseph The St. Joseph Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on Monday, April 3 at 7: 10 PM. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an'amendment to the Planned Unit Development entitled Graceview Estates. The proposed amendment will change one piece of trail. The property is legally described as: The Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quiuter (SWI/4 SE1/4) of section ten (10) in Township one hundred twenty-four (124) North, of Range twenty-nine (29) in Stearns County, Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT; the North 66 feet thereof AND ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT the East 30 feet thereOf. The Northeast Quarter ofthe Northeast Quarter (NEI/4 NE1I4) of Section fifteen (IS), in Township one hundred twenty-four (124) North, Range twenty-nine (29) West'in Stearns County, Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT: Commencing at the Northwest Quarter of said NE1I4 NE1/4; thence Easton an assumed bearing along the North line of said NEI/4 NE1/4, a distance of500 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 00 degree 09 minutes 26 seconds East parallel with the West line of said NE1I4 Mel/4 a distance of 1330.93 feet to the South line' of said NE1I4 NE1I4; thence North 89 degree 57 minutes 43 seconds East along said South line of said NEl/4 NEI/4; a distance of 819.95 feetto the East line of said section; thence North 00 degree 10 minutes 42 seconds West along said East line a distance of 1330.38 feet to the Northeast comer of said Section; thence West along the North line of said Section 819.47 feet to the pClint of beginning and there terminating. AND The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW 1/4 NE1/4) of Section fifteen (15), in Township one hundred twenty-four (124) North, of Range twenty-nine (29) West in Stearns County, Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT: That part of the NW1/4 NE1I4 of Section 15, Township 124. Range 29. described as follows: Beginning at the NE comer of said Quarter-Quarter. said point being South 89 degrees]] minutes West, 1320 feet from the NE Comer of said Section; thence along the East line of said Quarter-Quarter, due South 310 feet; thence South 89 degrees 11 minutes West. 250 feet: thence due north 310 feet to a point on the North hne of said Section; thence along said North line North 89 degrees 1 j minutes East. 250 feet to the point of beginning. Pond View Ridge LLP, 25 - 11th Avenue N, 81. Cloud, MN 56303 has submitted the request for PUD Amendment. Judy Weyrens Administrator _', (~o!lf"gt.. A\/cnuc !-\iOri'h f-J B 0 ^ 6 t) g . S din t. J 0 s e p tl, ]\!J inn e ~! Cl t () ~ (; -.; 7 ,15. Ph .')6, 0-;42 ';..t,l : ;- : eX n (" -:;' ~~. c. APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A PUD CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 25 College Avenue NW P. O. Box 668 St. Joseph,MN56314 (320)363-7201 o.r Fax (320)363-0342 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF STEARNS) NAME: . Pondview Ridge LLP PHONE: 1-320-253-1366 ADDRESS: 25 11th Avenue N. S1. Cloud. MN 56303 IN-Ie, the undersigned, hereby make the following application to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of 51. Joseph, Steams County, Minnesota. (Applicants have the responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances pertaining to their application and complying with all ordinance requirements): 1. Development Name: Graceview Estates 2. Legal description of land to be affected by application, including acreage or square footage of land involved, and street address, if any (attach additional sheet if necessary): (see attached) . 3. Percentage of development completed: 65% 4. Name and address of the present owner of the above described property is: Bob HergeslRick Reid 25 nth Avenue N. 81. Cloud. MN 56303 5. Nature of the proposed amendment: Delete the trail located on the south side ofElana Ln between 4th Avenue SE and the future field street. Add trail on 7th Avenue SE from the intersection of 7th Avenue SE and Elana Avenue to the south edge of the Diat ending at the back lot Drouertv line. Adiust the DroDosed trail entering Klinefelter Park from the north side to the south side of the roadway and adding trail to ioin the Graceview trail sYstem with the Klinefelter Park trail svstemas recommended bv the Park Board. (see attached drawing) 6. Is the proposed use amendment consistent with the overall development plan? Yes. there will still be access to the PfOVOSed field street and a trail will be added bv the develODer to loin the develonni.ents trail sYstem with the Klienfelter Park trail sYstem. 7. What impact will the proposed development have on the current and future development of the approved PUD? The chan e will 've~ access from the develo ment to the existin arks trail sYstem. APPiicantSignatur(!(~~~ ~~) Date: 3h,~k"i"; O S. atu ~~A':; ,4' ~~~~'. 3l if I,:,~ wner Ign re:. ... r- -- =- ~-- ~~ _ _ .-r Date: .1'\'>.0 I LJ::;. -- -"'/ I . I f f. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ATE SUBMITTED: DATE COMPLETE: DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLICATION DATE: , Janning Commission Action: _ Recommend Approval _ Recommend Disapproval Date of Action: Jats ApplicantIProperty Owner notified of Planning Commission Action: I ht)! Council Action: _ ,b,pproved _ Disapproved Date of Action: IDate Applicant/Property Owner notified of City Council Action: LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SW1/4 SE1/ 4) of section Ten (10)- in Township One Hundred Twenty-Four (124) North, of Range Twenty-nine (29) in steams County, Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT; The North 66 feet thereof #-ID ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT the East 30 feet thereof. The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4 NE1/4) of Section Fifteen (15), in Township One Hundred Twenty-Four (124) North, Range Twenty-Nine (29) West In Steams County, Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT: Commencing at the Northwest comer of said . NE1/4. NE1/4; thence Eost on an ossumed bearing along the North line of sold NEt/4- NE1/ 4. a distance of 500 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 00 degree 09 minutes 26 seconds East peroliel with the West line of said NE1/4 NE1/4 a distance of 1330.~3 feet to the South line of said NE1/ 4- NE1/ 4; thence North 89 degree 57 minutes 43 seconds East aiong soid South line of sOid NE1/4 NE1/4.; OJ d!stance of 819.95 feet to the; East line of said section; thence North 00 degree 1 0 minutes 42 seconds West along said East line a distance of 1330.38 feet to the Northeast comer of sold Section; thence West along the North line of sald Section 819.47 feet to the point of beginning ond"~ there terminating, .. AND The Northwest Quarter of ,the Northeast Quarter (NW1/4 NE1/4) of Section Flfteen (15), in Township One Hundred Twenty-four (124) North. of Range Twenty-nine (29) West 1n Steams County. Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT: That part of the NW1/4 NEl/4, cf Section 15, Township 124, Range 29, described as follows: Beginning at the NE Comer of soid Quarter-Quarter. sald point being South 89 degrees 11 minutes West. 1320 feet from the NE Comer of soid Section; thence olong the East line of said Quarter-Quarter. due South 310 feet; thence South 89 degrees 11 minutes West. 250 feet; thence due north 310 feet to (1 polnt on the North I1ne of said Section; thence along said North line North 89 degrees 11 minutes East~ 250 feet to the point of beginning. ...J -- ~ ~ q \&a ... .. .. ... ~. 1 PREliMINARY PLAT OF GRACEVlEW ESJ:47FS I- PLANNED UNff RESIDENTIAL fJE.'VEl.OPMENT I /ri;'~-~-I-~.",.,"".!C/TY OF ST. JOSEPH 11------+---- f /-~_~ I~;-~....,y::.l~ ~:!fJ~~ ,t I sf A : 3 := II~_. -ICCHar p#.nf I ~;!:: """ _-"" 9' 1 I 1ll.11 NIr :2 L__._._-I t%' ..... I .................oIf.................,.~ L~-~-f;;.~~!i/r~\t, ',~$t~V y~.t~._.;..:_~ ~J .:~\.~ ROIttt~: I~i~-----Jes _~~=='S:-=- l,taWJlt lDOlGt. C7"~I':'il: KI~ ~Stmf IIWI. I. >~.^",... 1~1. '-I 'sam J mmo\-~:v---.................. I - I ~ .....r3JlJ,. f _I-' -'1 "r"'" ....,.... j.AlO'" I '~.t:0V. I :J:I. '11UIC I tJD[,\ =:-.A......tf_...._.....~ "1t8l I ~I r-----..;.:;~k~-(t --'''_!!_l ,\ '....J ~ -I' -.:z::r =r" L..----i' 1::'1-_____ I RVG ==~...:::;..__=:=:~_;; ~ ;5~. =.I"":!Ja( ~l MC11V. ltttoll t smol ., I ':"1--:#_ J;}------I f I - 1---- --rl_.................._~7 --_...-1-=-~-I~J J-~-+~_._- I ~l J--~--_:~ r.! \ II ...... K: ~~~. ..: I I ~ I AUlU, I li~nous.: lolan'_ =-':;="G.-":::::=:::::::-.::..~ lICKUJa I A'fJ1Of"r4l1_ I IIIl1IE ,::rl 1- re'\I.t \llNl1E1.-~ I ~.I I 1_ t)lHo1i :,,1[M - : ~"$QM 1 JtOBIl'I is=_-:=:.-:-.....~aaa...... ~ c I ~ ~ I; I =: lotI 'MW<r2 ~f:;' ( ~ ~ !_u: \~ \. I L.. f l t=.o IMlmtUR r it tutlIIN I WM! =.._..:"':'::-.:::-L-;:'=*-=.-=-- ____~_L____J ~{~i:~:::~ 1..______.J~_____.r.l--- _oJ l..____ ____..J ~_____..1___ =...... . =---=:t~-=-~~~. ....--~~:7~.. ~M=:--:r:. -=='=":-:- ~.:-::::i:.--:s.~.::.i.~~ ~t::.--=.=:-t'-== -- :~===-~~~" =:.~~...!__m:_.. -T--r I 7 I I&: : : IElIlC.ac'" I JAl4e!>c, :g=!~I !-~..:-+ I 1lDJ!l" I NIOHt I 1~IJOlIlfIf't:ftI j~I~1 ! , t t ! I I I I I I ~.____-1..___.L.. .lIClIIIlUIIJ! - --CALCA"w:i,':-:-- r----T---j , I I G 1 is J l SlNIU: ~ $lMH lit I tti~:~l il~-.--+---+ -I I I WI t ~ 1 I , I , 11.lJlEW.:", S'fMtt"t =I~:~: 'I CL t:VE RDr;i~ .. ..----,..1;,;.----........ I!If!' ij\1@ mm I , , ~~llIl'll.nIE'3~ -..- ~ ." ...:...J _'101......_ -- ..,j - . ~ ., I- .. .. .. Q I i I --sl ~ ~I I .Ql 01 ~t I r f I , ! ! , I i i I i ~ ...... ----__ -- s.....--r.U\Uf ~hl lEI IIC~ --. -_ c.v... ~ ~ ~_-__------_------_---"L---~- ~... ~ ~L"...-.e tIII.~~ iSlEJRlr6aamr~Il6I1tlCI:""")--- ....__-._ -. '............ -........., . ===_::: .......r.:an n!!ErIP-..;................ ......., ~- -......-s _ '--.1Ie. ----- It:I:S: ....... ~..-.:; Sft. -.-.....,- =-"='__ = _____1Dl'l >==_=._ =.r-~ ~ ~~ a=.____~ - ~ 'Hltt_.--.rr_ .~ ML_ """" . JD<<U .... ~ :=:: D __ ..-.~ a _...-: :..==- 'i' ..i"" - ~E.I!:r=:~- --- - - --- 0____.... t' -.s........1aIC - PRELIMINARY PLA T' OF GRACEV/EW ESTA TES ,I-, PLANNED UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT / :~'J~t"~"--/,~,,,,,',q,.C/TY OF S1. JOSEPH , ~-----+---- " /~~~;"/'r~~:J:;(~;!:'/oo", .,<~~,ZCO~~~~::: _!~_ : I~f ~,;., :----~ :~1L--_:t_-~ ! 1--------1 "... ;/ "',"',, , . '{'iZ.;" I ""' I- .;1 '"I-=-'-"'"-j ""tR,., I~.' ' 1 '- " I . ! J ik~o;~t~~~--~'J~.'C _ ~~ <1--<:~:', i ~; ~ i I~;~;:,S)$~N L ~~LE~ i 'I~! . ~~ : ~ A '" , -..., I'wl, ,JilU[S& '"I I --..... I I \ ,Ul"'''.'''".... ,-' "'. I Ii..... ~D -----i I 1-------....'--' S~N ('i J l~ mrEN'" 1~ll ~~lANGEN!i5t ~ 1;~I~~1 I ~WN 14i \ \ MiNt<<:H' ~?:?:;--41 <.or;----i : II;?, rl--- ..----- L....:~_..:___1~1 f------+---...--1.~1 ~-----__l Ii I \ K' ,", 1 I ~ .o\U.EN& : i IS; lliQW.S& I JODY& g~dI ;; i 14~=t:~ ! _~~ !:d ~~A(Nm "l~l : ~1t.m ;5 [BRUCE \~~~})\ : :kHa:: I ] ~iER : ~~ l~] :~ = 1 ~~ SC~E~tR l_ ~~:_J: ;t~-~~t~~~~~~~~:~~. I ~_9R~:~_ ~D~~~~_PT~_~.~~J_ ___J ~L __ '_ ___-l ~ ~______-1____ rn - T---r I~ 8 1 ( 1 :;;: : : lfil9f/Wl6: I JAUES do 1 IB flRENO/. 1 RE.'lEE 1 f~OONWAY t.f'()Pf> 1 1~llAmiar'l'1 :--~fl-.tiiIl-+ I TO!>!> & ! TODD tt I I JHlNlfER t JEIUlIFT;l r I spyc~f SI'YCHAlAI 1 I 2 I , I I , I I 1 , , L____.L____..L. C;),U..;\WA''( r-----T----T I , 1 I 1 I , 1 , , 1 , I S1EVEN.it J S1(YEN /& I ~~l =~R: ~=ER : , ~ t-~--+----+ -I I 1 Wolr! 1.;2 1 I I I 1 . 'I ~3~~/' I ~~ &: 1 ~ l;':;jlill'0Ji __MtI'lt'lW>l IV Wl~ IilNGlif-"YIIDWES ,.- "'- C ... "~'IIIIINIaES 1C~__ :-~~- "'... " J~srtIlrI'N'NlICII$ !l: 140 11m fAtlII) ~ ~~~ .. ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ;~ t:l'lllPDAATELlCr.SarT Of Si..I05'9!t'....__ """'II:'\!olb'l"'ll' , it/?lf,WNr I:. r--------- S 89'06 59~ W 500.13 ~t~~__ SOUJHI.HOF"THE ~\t~;o\H,laeW ------------------- It.SFT""ERlfloIDfi "_,__=T!:M~ -...~..r. ~..... ' (:,TrJ.~~<. w,mlY 7OUIl"lG DlS1F.1C1 A4f.o; ,'.~"r-.'~ ' IITlIITY ~rRVlr.~~ L~~i A......r. """"""'" ,"""",,0:: ....,........ I.fIlOI{fYM!lSETBlQ(SA5SH011H(lHCCllJR[IJDIIiJIlllIli; :.sn:TAROSEllW:K10f[[1 r.r~ 100 2O<l 500 """. Fro DENOTESIRONIolONUUDllstT 0ENal'tSIR01IWONUWENiFOUNt, ~ .E.. o " ~, . """'" C"'"'" -- SURVEYED HOV 1. 2001 BROWN HERKEMHOf'F, INC 142< 2m STRED" NORTh SNJKRo\PlOS,Wtll)s's7S' (320) 2$-12:\04 F~(320)20:>-l~ 1P~ 10 n. DfWAAGE ANI! UllU!"f EllSOfftm 1lloo _ __~.... _ o-tor fliW'l/4 Ut/4) 0' .........,,(10)III~o...tioMdJoldl~_(1:~) E.r~",-~jO~~,)~,==,";Uo~'" ,... _ __.. lIMt -.... QuarW (Nf:I/4 HEt/~) .., $MrtIolI~(1Ii)."'l........__~(124) =~~~~~~o::::..~ ~/':~4:1_____""'___*"", MEt/~HEJ/4,._..aoo""IOIlof"""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,d _....IlI......-.-IiIdlitOO...... .........11I .... bat...- 1DIlh.. w.at........... tEl/4 Nr:1/4. =-~==:~~_,..HEJ.(;..~4I s.ulII.............Mtl/41C1/41._0I1l1.....toh _...."....~....NorVIGO..,...tO__oI:Z ...........,NIdlllllt_...........l.DlUiIl*lw UoI__...MIlI~_w.t.....,...1lIIIth 1lM~...w-...Itt.47...IIl"'"....III...........ewl -- - ... ~cu.w.. 1M """-"l. "-'or (NWl/4 "/') 01 ~......(t:l).'" u.........~(I24) ......01 In_~, ~/"oI ~'if::.. 1S~11 '.....,:w ~ palntfll~ ~ F,\.....,,\~EW\lIAP,.... ~~~ \}Q@ 'mM " , . " . " 61L t 166 i~~ TYPIr'.Al RIIII nlt1lG nIUF"N~I~ ""'.- t (lIl~) ~2_ (c::olIHIT~) ~~ ;;;... 58 c.o 0" i_,-:.-.'V:'. .:;.....,/7('. f~(}/J GAlLJ;, L.[QW.R(Jl: E1I2AEnH 'II~-." ~~: , I , ~~~~~T~~~ ragt.- 1 Ul j Judy Weyrens From: Dale Wick [newopp2@addr.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 11 :39 AM To: Judy Weyrens; Bruce Berghorst Cc: Sarah Bialke; dale.wick@wolterskluwer.com Subject: Re: Park Board Judy, are you talking the issue with the trails running through the front yards of the current development or something different? If it is the trail issue, the Park Board decided to allow the removal of the trail on the south side of the current location from 4th Ave S.E. to where the road would be attached to "Field Street". In return, the Board required the developer to place a new trail along 7th Ave S.E. (one lot) that would connect the current trail to the trail on the North side of "Field Street", They also required the trail be moved from the North to the South side of Klinefelter Way (the road into the park from the west) and extended into the park to connect to the current trail running around the park. Hope this helps. I may not have the exact street names because the documentation is at home. Bruce, please correct me if I am wrong. Dale ----- Original Message ----- . From: Judy Wevrens : To: dale.YVick@newQQ.p.com ; Bruce Berghorst . Cc: $arClhSii:llke Sent: Wednesday, March 29,20069:58 AM Subject: Park Board Good Morning - I am in the process of preparing the packets for the Planning Commission meeting and one of the agenda items is the PUD amendment for Graceview Estates. I am looking for something in writing, even via email, that the applicant did appear before the Park Board and the Park Board recommendations. I am wondering is SOmeone would have time to drop a quick note verifying the PB actions. If by email could you please forward to Sarah at ~J:,lj;:~JK~@Gj1YQf$.jjQ$.~ptLGQm. Thanks , Judy Weyrens Administrator City of S1. Joseph PO Box 668 S1. Joseph MN 56374 (320) 363-7201 (320) 363-0342 (Fax) iwevren s@cityofstioseph.com 3/29/2006 January 30, 2006 Attn: Judy Weyrens Re: Graceview Proposed Trail System A discrepancy regarding the trail system has been brought to the developer's attention. The discrepancy is the walkway from the intersection of 4th Ave. SE and Elena Lane to the future Field Street. This would affect all of the homes frOl;n this intersection on the south side of Elena Lane. The developer felt that a decision was made not to construct this portion of the trail. We would like to discuss this with the Park Board on February 21, 2006 and the Planning Commission on March 6, 2006. I have shown a trail system with the questionable trail shown as a dashed line. Please call me at 320-259-8888 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tom Herkenhoff Project Manager Questions about walking trail Feb~ 27th meeting at City Hall VV"hen is the proposed walking trail going in and why/so soon? How wide is it supposed to be? Who is paying for the removal/repair/replacement of landscaping/sprinkler systems/mailboxes? Why not connect walking trail to proposed Field Street at 7th l.\ve. SE? "vVby not then COlmect to a walking trail north ofField Street t "'h';,i +h.'A"" 1M!'A ti" ~.c",,^'a.ri ~. art'c.~ + .' " ,"'t~ . 'at "0 D""hd.nU Ii..., ",",Uhvl1 Jl) aI1""..,:'[..A.. pliOp""!~h...;:,, iO.!' a !DUlLer zone D""vv,-,en -r:-::: 'l.~: !"~':....."'... ,....+. r-1......"...J ,..,."'r.. .~"...~;_.", il'" >-r..--.;j' .t'lehJ ;::Y,hec;, a.HU pJ0peld..y liUJLt;;;::.; Why not put $ in Escrow to be used for putting in a walking-trail if - Fl' p:ld'StreAt' 0-00." l' ~1? . \Iao,.<' - , J! Ii..J e- v:S I. . UTt.O t"...." +r- ~....~, .cO'" +t..~ -e......,.l....- m"':-+....-,.,,-,.~ ~.(:'...t..e "'~pt......l... t'-al'l :n vv H ua,;, tV po.)' jJ .I tHe:;.I b1\.HC11 .I H:HUlc;UaUvc;; 'U.l U.I . a;:, nalL 1 .! the future? Comments: Homes in Grace view Estates II are, closer to the public street than the first phase of Grace view Estates so front yards are affected more by the wider trail. Asphalt trails used in front yards can cause undo hardship in affecting the curb appeal of homes when people want to move and/or sell their home. Therefore causing a lower resale value verses homes on the other side of the street. This becomes especially true when driveways becolne seal coated or when the trails become seal coated at different time intervals. I've noticed that repairs such as crack sealing have already been made on the existing trail in Phase ] of Grace view Estates5 and "t'M . "'T .~ 1,: ~'_. .l-r" 'L .{"''f!'>' ~~~r 110'\7v Oiu IS tnat ll-1 au ~ I.,., ,... I ' · l~" d"' rt ~ h- r a connectmlg tralVSlde\vaK is nee ;,eo an..}. agreeu upon l.,y the honleovvuers "vvhy not consider cement. Cem.ent is longer Itasting~ aesthetically better looking, cooler in sunnnertime/less stress on trees or ommnental plants, and lower maintenance. Furthermore issues vviH arise when pet owners allow their pets to urinate or defecate on the yards as well as trash becoming a maintenance issue for the homeowners. As concerned property owners we want our homes, our neighborhood, and our property values to be a safeguard and an enjoyable place away from the hectic daily grind of work. By putting this burden on us as wen as the field street in our backyards we can only feel taken advantage and insecure about our children playing outside. So please reconsider this proposal and aHov%! us I" ro lOb d 11. . r>" 1 ~ 1 .. ne51erty an,. the purSUIt or happIness we so long ior ana IS d' 1 ..' 1 1 .. "h" , suppose i. to oe an InauenaDle ngnt In t ..IS cOuntl y. Neighbors who could not be hear to voice their concerns have read and agree with those of us who feel so strongly against the walking-trail in our front yards. Their signatures below represent their voice. Thank you ":~:1"l / -..,) ;"7 t.... ...... ",l; t/ .:..:':/'e", .ri- l/ l /; ~ ,,/'Ci.,4"''$;'. ...!'c (~".\ .../ ~ ~I ~ l I.. '\ )1J ("J\)~ I. J\ !<::,~I......'_.."""'-'- .....' , (. ,:-r ~ 1..1/1--1 t:-i tJl"(~. L~Q..n 'C .1.. -.:..-/? ..,ii" \ l r' f\ \~ /' .-: f '@/'.., ,",. IJ TP.'...c..-.i..-'-'....f ~ -\., '-. ~.~:~~-;it-:.---...//t.r~- , ... . f' -- 0 ~.d-']_ Iv ( 'J. C.....[i \.-/ ATTN: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE:GRACEVIEW PROPOSED TRAIL SYSTEM WE WERE RECENTLY INFORMED .OF A WALKWAY GOING IN PAST OUR HOME WHICH IS LOCATED AT 414 ELENA LANE. WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THIS AS WE WERE NEVER INFORMED OF THIS AT THE TIME OF PURSCHASING OUR HOME IN MAY OF 200S.SINCE THEN WE HAVE COMPLETED OUR YARD BY INSTALLING UNDERGROUND SPRINKLERS, PUTTING SOD DOWN, DONE ALL OF OUR LANDSCAPING AS WELL AS PLANTING TREES. THE WALKWAY WOULD BE A INCONVENIENCE TO US AS WELL AS THE EXTRA EXPENSE OF HIRING SOMEONE TO MOVE THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM BACK, REMOVING SOME OF THE SOD AS WELL AS THE ROCI< AND SHRUBS IN THE LANDSCAPING, HAVING TO MOVE OUR MAILBOX WHICH IS NOW CEMENTED IN THE GROUND AND BY POSSIBLY HAVING TO MOVE OUR TREES. OUR PREVIOS HOME HAD A WALKWAY IN FRONT OF IT AND WE WERE CONSTANTLY PICKING UP OTHER PEOPLES GARBAGE AS WELL AS HAVING KIDS RIDE THEIR BIKES THRU OUR YARD AND HAVING PEOPLE LETTING THEIR PETS DO THEIR DUTIES IN THE YARD AND NOT REMOVING IT OR DOGS LIFTING THEIR LEG ON THE SHRUBS AND TREES. NOT HAVING A WALKWAY THRU OUR YARD WAS PART OF THE REASON WE BOUGHT THIS HOME,THINKING IT WAS A QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT PEOPLE AND PETS GOING THRU THE YARD. WE LIKE OUR HOME AND THE LOCATION,WE ALWAYS TRY TO KEEP OUR PLACE LOOKING IT'S BEST AT ALL TIMES AND WE STRONGLY OPPOSE TO THE WALKWAY BEING PUT IN THRU OUR AREA. SINCERELY, SCOTT G. J.ACQUELII-JE DIEDERICH 4-14 EL=:f'.Jp.. LANE Si ,. JOSEPH fVlN 320-271-0143 1...----........'- Jr. /. , (' , 'If; "..... Ii \ \ I.~. 1[' I \ 1 f, r 'i , .... ...:IA..A,j-J:f,,';'V,~;j...) \.L '-7) / \ !' {/ ('i \ ! / { . i/ i \...J / -1 I i/ \ ~L.../, _' ..-.' .. _~\/ 1/ ,Zi1r ,4. / (/ '--.-. /~ >-{<,:U1/// it I ~.. ..--<~o,r( ?!~~. ./ /; {I,~;. .. ~ r...-&-' \"~_.. ~. ./ -~ ',..,..,.,' ('. .' ( (\"\':1\ l\/l/'/"""\ t~ll!.J}~jJ_J (~ \ St. JosephAction Group Preserving Special Places Date: April 12,2006 To: Richard Carlbom, Mayor Members of the City Council City of S1. Joseph From: St. Joseph Action Group - Preserving Special Places Philip Welter, Chair . The S1. Joseph Action Group has been collecting signatures on s~veral petitions in opposition to the proposed Field Street Corridor. Having initiated several petition drives since May of 2005 some of the petitions are complete at this time while others are still in process. The petitions are: 1. S1. Joseph City and Township residents - May-June 2005 - complete 2. S1. Joseph City and Township residents - September-October 2005 - complete 3 ~ St. Joseph Business owners - in process 4. Members of Saint Benedict's Monastery, College of Saint Benedict faculty, staff and students - in process 5. S1. Joseph City and Township residents - in process At this time we present Petition No. I to the Mayor and CounciL It has a total of 189 signatures of citizens who oppose the Field Street proposal. ce. S1. Cloud Area Planning Organization Stearns County Board of Commissioners S1. Joseph Township Board of Directors S1. Joseph Chamber of Commerce Editor, Newsleader To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Stearns County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council Mayor of St. Joseph St. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in St. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the S1. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name Signature fJ\"^..<L \ Cc.....f~' v1A~ ~o1;i:e1 ~ ~Eiul (MhLY Ebe-~~ Address ~t'\ a ~ ~"" ~\v<< ~ ~t ~.:>)<f' s; 5 '1-<../ 1.. 0/ ~ ~ '7 ",1-;, /V ~J ..51 J tr5dt k . ;12, .. r.;-t:,r. '1 ~ '1 Lf 57 k/w/ Cf. S-I. Jose..I'A ~ r f5 7 J:.t 'w/ C+ sl-. m~~ ~ liD( 7- S-f'-. -- ~(qJ.J) )bs1L( d7</72- ~4.C. S/~4~>7j ;).9lf7 2-- ~Jo~ . S"?7~ ~LC Lr~Y.J3S~LJ/j To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: S1. Cloud APO Steams County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council Mayor of S1. Joseph St. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) S1. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in S1. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the S1. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment.or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name Signature Address ")/~~mi" Sljo,kty) hrL~~ ?/1<{~ k.~{~ cj, sf. J6~~ ~/;.cf A,..~ 7JHrleL trb>S d-7w':,M& cfJ7;J~ ():n/M) aV)~' ANN. ARfJtsl ~CH(v\Oj\jDJ M,\j SJ'LLcvY\pfo) To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Steams County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council Mayor of St. Joseph St. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the rema~ning farmland in St. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the St. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name C.,s<;~( sJ.V'/{ Ro 0er+ OlnCf()~ A/ ~j{ ~f0-€,r . U d(~'w' ~~~ ,VJvtclr- J . v Signature" I (~~~~- ~/- ~'-r\-- W -J..JJL J'^-,-~ 10 U. 2, 2" Lev" Address c..0t?, 6D)( H- 17 i :s 5J L{ 8~ 13 3 :.z 'ilU 6A ( ?;t/ CSIS (S,CK' J g J 8; 1 () /7"1 ,SJ 01 'jo, /, ~ To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Stearns County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council Mayor of St. Joseph St. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) S1. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in St. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the St. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name Signature Address u..2e--+K- ~ \ ~N ./~h{~W\ )vGI C;D~ !Sd.~4- 331 '0t A-ufS\) /3C6/-S-:;U To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Stearns County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council Mayor of St. Joseph St. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative asa future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in St. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the St. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name Signature 1Jl1j'fC) 'C!e(,~'H M~V\.e Lusf ~~.~;tJ tk~~~4!&~ ~f- (j 10' U ~A. len- 5~ '1C'~)~ IC'f ~ ~/ ~~ftU /1mi tA 0-e .r Lv-.. A Vv' ~ /(.( ~ e r V\ €..v- 2- <<;& C,rC '9S-~ ~ . ~utLv1 kll{es~ \~~ \~ \~ l~ ~ Address borJDV\ Banv0 A)-II!:,,. J..{tJ.I'tA;(" U (:2. f-?J!. . '\. -r-~- ~r~. H JLvtll/~jt1 IV ~ CS,b [n-.pI1R0 /04 Ch~ LCt.-N SIJ~,At 1/10/ ~t ~ ~.~~ fo~~ ~ JI-~ k' a.. ~<- ytW\..e kn..Tt- (>l."l;.., J ht &;~~~ tY ~__J? u _~~ To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Steams County Board of Commissioners S1. Joseph City Council Mayor of 51. Joseph S1. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) S1. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in S1. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. W eencourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the St. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name J-()'/') t~ C/ tl(lc 9-3i~~ 1A I(,s 71.....J-(<1:HbeH Address ~~2S 51? It> ?t-{-/ L W6LT6JZ 5~ (;;~ 2 S!ig~ 291J2?Z //1/;- Cf, 9, JDs<p Au-e-- <1 ;1" #-f/C J{ Jos-y' 'e lA.) Ct-. 51';;J]i '/ ;29'-1(3 K( LU/ C-( >: T ..ro~4 To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Stearns County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council Mayor of St. Joseph St. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in St. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the St. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name 2t!J iY i:. :.; esl-l Signature ~9~ Address lbll ~~~,S,1~ Nld>L~~ C: 11\/1.;\ 'f\.I\.;{..~ ( ~ 7 S. Cof- '\O-\b' :&+ :Rd. 2St<jce, / ~ 1/ {J/va~/~~ ./r Ir :1:Jv),~r?kY' t~ ~ c'o~( t..qYl~ ..IfJtpft/; I . f S. tv'Ia.r"Lb<:..th The..lS 1()Lf- chQPQ..l lQlll Si- Jos'-Ioh Avo{.. f3o;<. 10 ~ '7. leAi ~~--J ~~~ I. '? ~~/O>8 n lo,f~ktfL '!]}VLCu ()~ B v;l~ ~ ()q!f PAl' 21 e r 11 iZr~~ 0 5,8 I()</~~I~ . 41'~/~ v To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Stearns County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council Mayor of St. Joseph St. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) St Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in St. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the St. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. ~~$d gn~ ;;;~ess Vs'~L /?",Je.rY ;3.Ra?S(e~ tf;J~~ d!r?<Gf-5'- ~ i14 /(A .5.5/'E 1<. ~ )J, -;:2....,... d,;J.. 'l7fLff Z';.sI'a;,..", !nttry ~/ OSl Jlf(<"/~~ loy ~~" 9 J'~ .:# .s s. ..J ,J: J~ (;,E, A f rUE eAGAJd 1J c4H"l;u 1J0~fl;r-' J 0'/ CfIIJfJEL lAVE sr: :JcJ5G/W( {Jf~ I;)tf U?{)pj LaJ1B Sf; Sf J I To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: S1. Cloud APO Steanis County Board of Commissioners S1. Joseph City Council Mayor of St. Joseph S1. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) S1. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the S1. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in S1. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the St. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name 'R'eJ:: SCLL-LC/cF Ro J5erl LJebeh C!,i a;(L l-hu-, J :T /rfV~ f\lh-Thn t1-7J t:l2-N t~ )>(Ebi2:i. t-L-t A It 1'1- ff&-l^i (.,; .fJ/ er-l'.t4t' {)- )jiGlwf{-A r So/~J- 4,~ Lh,~~ Signature ~ckcS~ R6~ cJLJ{6~/_ Ii /? }11(){ j ~~-- \/aL'L (II r !if; X~-- t=~ ~~:JL ~ ~ 4,.~;~ ..~W ~aJp ~i'~ ~_ ~ ...c::::--- Address '8 lei Ist-AvL;tJ 5&;J-f~_e( YJ?~f/ 5Z- ~ 77 jy" - f' J 10 ) J A u-+' U . i J.. 2 9 g 13 tv:L/.J r hfJ.{) ItflJt :;f!-.P Sf ~ q(p +4 lJ..J (C-AU.,l0o''t) DR. <::J::-. So s,(2PI-( ( f-1 I\...I S:lo ~ q i /tJ Y ~,1 ~,Sf.J I1.sr-- . 150 1- 7f - S 1.7(;) t1 t'\:; {;( Jl t\X)<..Jy ~ rg t ~ E- 111: 01\01)'" 5"b-M '"""I $4-. ,) O~'1 \ To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Steams County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council Mayor of St. Joseph St. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in St. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the St. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name Signature ilL WR~0AOfTff\ t:k~~~ 'DI~~~ .Danl\ (-:te.\\)~S La.ur'"ee.vl. V I ('V\.~ ~t)Sl) ;f~n;::A4' fQS8 ~ A~ OC;-f1.;, Address /YJG, f/avD YJEL\! LT- $,l:lE Sf, 3 7~ 7N J. UJ(~t ~~X3aL ?:>7 (L')\l~ ktt &o.\{ 1.f57 ItJ'f f!k.~~ &,JCJ~ QO~/J) ,1);t),~r~Y;b5~ 5b"2- W tvtAf 5'/- ';J-. JO~ Jl-1~37. To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Stearns County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council Mayor of St. Joseph St. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in St. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on ~he well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as,a viable option for future traffic patterns in the St. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with an affected members of the community. Printed name Signature Address ::])It~ LeA/I:: MJEL/)jjf ~fJ ~~ / , .~4U_ 'j 77.77) . gd all/ ~ del h' >>JclA LSZ~J/m ~';:~ t4~~~~ ~~ I~-S~~ ~.:-.- ~ I~ t ~-i:- ~L 51> c5:: 'lIt C(A(f..J} ~~ L ~ ~ .az' .~~ .;/q if! i.f JOW} l!;r ~~ CLI..EN {J)fl-JlLSTJl6M LjG9 y[.H/7UE.Sf;Ju'G t/-~,761;:J~c:. ~ To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: S1. Cloud APO Stearns County Board of Com:rhissioners S1. Joseph City Council Mayor of St. Joseph S1. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict COSB) S1. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the S1. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in S1. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal wouldthus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the S1. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name . Signature /~AmM j S. t;)~At. r;/~'A.- To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: S1. Cloud APO Stearns County Board of Commissioners S1. Joseph Ci ty Council Mayor of St. Joseph S1. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) S 1. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large' amount of the remaining farmland in St. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the St. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation. with all affected members of the community. Printed name JU..f ~ f l-kl/' it:< 'C Jv1 ~ I"'.z f7;.. 1ft (~11 Q EN .M AI S2-~ EJ; l8ec..ke> r' ~^Vv'.^ t7, JI -Ide S'017y at. ,!~~~,t:/ )JL:711-4tO~: A ~. ?J1 vc.~ 1t-?1/---.J "----' .' G.e-n 111 ~v . p. . Ii . ..JL../11 .r--- ~( ~// llt~ Ca4~e ok S~.~~ L /1-1&_ f/_^ 3112lP C'o, fd, ~, g :J~' ? c/ 96 c:.tJ rR<I;2 {;,r-109~ .~"'-. To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Stearns County Board of Commissioners S1. Joseph City Council Mayor of S1. Joseph S1. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) S1. Joseph Chamb~r of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the S1. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in S1. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus fromsuch areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the St. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name Signature Address ,,"" ~,Ci (0\ '[" /" S ,t (uuO cs-e :)1'71 f'1 (vyre ~~ S ju\ Ov'f l,;0~ Ck,f, ~-t ~~ CS6 sf. Joseph J /LI~ s.(- ~oh,..t~ <.1,,; V'lt'S.iv 5-\. 'Jo h ,,'s- Ll v\ \' \)-€- r'7 /" f r St- Joe le~lo"f\.1.t c~ ef~\"'" To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Stearns County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council Mayor of St. Joseph St. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Coiridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in St. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the St. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name \~'"""-s ......... Signature ~;?~!1L ~~flRbm_W . ~~~ CU'VYIA ' ~J ItJ..-z;kJU( -/'/ ./. 'k/~ /. r ~ Address fV'\ i ~ -h.( ket-zJ 0\ ~ -UlU1 nf),n W Lt.Vh0 .st t~ OvV\ ( t P71-0Y1 \A~ 'fiv1 il v\ B~w {'via r hn ~tL ---r-- . Je \~ ~ ~ 3/1 C'-if-w:.g~ Or II St. 1OS~l1h GS8 , bt-. J u ~.{;vt.\.; C S;V;; \ S.~ - Jo~ph ($ j2 51To-e ..Jo\..", ~,... 01. ~>i--'1';) tln.v-,r6'1;Y ^\.-l~(c- >/- Jut.:-i tAt,: v-{.;rJr To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Stearns County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council Mayor of St. Joseph St. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridoralternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in S1. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patternsin the S1. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name Signature' t::SS Ie t:A..... \ \e..Ai n .:\,; -...J S1-&\C1 B\.\so~ ~~ ~~~ SJJUA.lh. [m,C ~\-ClGhh\k CO \f\ ~ \tu{~,d ()+'::~,.~,,-~J- -' \.:C~~d J""~'_<_r"'C.V~s__ ~ r)AMflv ai~~~ j~ k~~ 9j~ ~-k~ .J.1M-':~~ v ,~,/_'_'-'-'--""';;;1 4"~~- >, ~ Ro.~ t.-\'iIM.M.G!.vi<:-l{ c.'):)C: h.. I r\ \o-vf' C~ i J Address LJ + Ga-:'1wh . c.sp\ U I ----' ~1. JOSt'rph I G&B ~t ,.3 odef Mt L~ ~ ~-\ . [2> IS St. JD S VI 0&'f;> c..Q.Ilq..~v:l( a.. I SJ V. eolleo,e !:Lf(J SfLl ',l (I \: a~1 ~....... To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Steams County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council . Mayor of St. Joseph St. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in St. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the St. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name Address ~ur~~. t+a~do~ Sf- . d oteph I N1N ~ . ::>Oco; 9' h J MV\) 0--r. Jo c h MN 6\LhV\\ ~ JJ Jf'SSic.<^-- I0smU~Dn cfUlN.l K0JfrlLl,J:I(JI-.-. 81. JWfl, M rJ (t h ----r- ()/~ ~ ..- I "'- ~ . ~ '/ vic;tln IleW VVV~ - U S\.cJa~~'1 VV\.N irv111<1~e~JL~~~4vC(~ /UN . /' RcS+v(J-O\S(f,~ ~_ .n i s:~ - )v e r rfrY\~ I To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Stearns County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council Mayor of S1. Joseph I ." 51. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining fannland in S1. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negati ve impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the S1. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name Signature Address 1)~>>-f~l5J1 J~b..tJ iVA,- PEZ..-k:__f:-rL, 05b ( \0tth V~eO(;dl)e ;{L Mal" .~d~"11QJ ~Ja€" ;pck >"S HtJ LA kA"tJSC.f-I~ ..SISTER . "E'R.Ef\JICE ~~A 1;&P~~~1 )0 e hrhE-Ji .)t5;er~ ~" .v;.. ~...~j),I'/k ~ (>v..t.. ")/\. ~ ,) !( " I' I, JI To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Stearns County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council Mayor of St. Joseph St. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) St. Joseph'Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in St. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and praIrie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the S1. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name Signature Address -12.J-; VA ,', k'> ' (>5B . ,. 1" )(, '1 t:fit'../. iUJq- 0/'C/aC'5 os!] -j --' /) //)j' .4.... -' #'pl &~ .,(, '7"J'~-:>t /J J'/ v:.~d/ A; ~ i.r....,-u-e ~<A'...c."..; ~ I c;::rJ< " V '/ , , / /0 tf ('(1.d.f4Z.f .6J: 4UL 1Jt/t. LC-U;{ /"'i Q fA;; " i:.y- JC~(!;u', ~~~' t-'iI , CA --'G'1} " ,!-d..~/ 1/) -;yr-, l ".' ~~"./ /J-;;/ /3 J {) ~l ,"':", .' ~ ff. ~Jv. /1/ , , .' if J ~ ~J os6 /0 t;de.fJ ;f~};!:~N/Y {' IV " , X (D p .- ;>;"5;-" v ~ Q ,~.-." , 19, P, 'y..;:t: L"., ^ .~ (.~ tI.. r{ o. - Sf ,.J>e, 14.. , .fjJ2l(/'f-IIJV1Jtel1J1 l' tlSlji4u~~~;k~ /1 // t( S'S+~r DON'+"-t 1+~'n~~,"Sj5 ~IO-~~ "1~4-,Jt;.~ 9.- f1-. .;<j-i!..lc~ " t: LIi //VE ({It-G*,' o:;B , To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Stearns County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council Mayor of St. Joseph St. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, arewriting you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in St. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community, We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the St. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community, Printed name kj .' .\ c (. ) il, '-' f:/ / ) \tv Ites Signature #t.t:U./1 /(om/ Address /N o/c(tlflU) M~ /1ei e.v1 W'Gl?e.-Y rS.g (. L J<;;'C- f3.afli/U'fL; /} L n, - #/~ (). '5 j) I If If /' f} . J tJ 1 ~ / ):i.hI-- 7/14\. . s,:n ~ ~ I v I ;t,A.~ ,);/ft;Jv DS(3 /"0 i ~J ~-1' ",' if.Joe., ~k~~ /t'Y- ~~~-#.~ S~ ~~rf,\~ /,'~,~ 'I II Vi\! /0- Ttu2-I'seY\. /(;~ ,gH' /61f.~th~ 1#.~~/I(f4 To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: S1. Cloud APO Steams County Board of Commissioners S1. Joseph City Council Mayor of S1. Joseph S1. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) S1. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the S1. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large: amount of the remaining farmland in S1. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and pniirie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community, We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the S1. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do > not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation With all affected members of the community. Printed name Signature Address lo,-v <'C~B e&uVJJ;dt1.~A IJ ....\.1 i r; \ i)..p & ,-/-.. "- n. , ''yk'. "'" 0...,. .'.. "" ./ ...... i,. -._... .d4~; -",,/L,--..;"'7:,/"') )/:r ( , I c if cJ4,-,uL Z(1...,'tb. .k ,'L, Jt 1/ ? sc ( , _.o,,'t::.::rl 1,. .;. 'Il ll~~ <:.\ -.CJ tJ- '(' ~ ij S h a J. 6~ ~ S .&, Jj .0 J I~[-,( c.... A ,---> -K' G \ l"B f\( ens 6 . \ L,. . .' ,,'. I! c._ ; . l/~f? ~,.. /, -' , 1-"'-'. .....' '.' ,/, .. . ~. ~.~ v v /). t:R ;J7~ jt'l! C/)(.p f:! L.CiIJt'. ~-1 "J C,,".. 'I t./iN ;';,'b3 7y ,ei-} C.l.."c:>1'V.J.. ~~..;. " ---':J..J,.., ....J 71,1- <:J..J,...; .o''!1....<1/,$-' :,~.5(,.>.) 7 I (; i.J t.Nf4/ I..L~ .1 ;... 1\. ~ )"lh L' I. 3 '7 4C- ':.J-<.. . .~"1Al,'/ . J ,"'" f II '" c:sg --/.:c. ,J... (.~,{Ae.'"V . . (1 ;) '" {', . 'I!' 2)'y: I V,e; I- I LY t.. Pin ~,<<... I ;,i-;J~t(IA (;';JJJ:dy. c5ll ..,? 'j.,.!~, /) ~ - (J. ...,../.-1, Ilf..~ ,.J~~' / .:,,;{:-;~~ /\'~~'~Ji"- :.. ,.i.. U ~ '-~ /I~i.'-'f~~'( L~l,.t. ...{-r- ;.~7'rt~~{. itw' J otl?l' . '_I , :;.. S / Ie,... ; hN !'~'i~! i1 / ,n' [1) f "'.fT! .-1 r .}. ) 1-~.h:"-, 'jH->: ...<h..~? / } u;! (,;~''''\'-lj",f.-(;'' ';'~.v~ .L r' :..'" "'-~f A, .:~(,.~'V. r-/ '7 79- ;) v;J ;' I To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Stearns County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council Mayor of S1. Joseph S1. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) 51. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the S1. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in S1. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this' community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the S1. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name Signature Address 'De.v-V\cuie.:ife W~beY' csB ~WJ.v-O~8 If(<f-r-Z-o!tue 1 t S+C(oud $t.?o9 S~ ~ ~.~. ~lsfevJovLCd~2tQf\ H(lnL~16)1b {8 tfs- -J.~ Ave.S~ Sf... c,lOttJ.. ~{'~t f . f'J. /~ _ 7f ,,",,9. d cttA-~Jl1 . I. ~ . (.J c-J,L,Jj. h-tJof( t\ -'> au 5/..=-P ~ ~d;t /J 11 'A '/JJ Jj"J' J I'i-</-:..--;j-&J tit. A-vC6- ~~ ~.\t,~\l+~L s..;;'~KD~ rr ~~l-:; =:....-;"" <QJ&-u...t:'>, MIJ ~'?:,04 f\ .' . \" ' 1 A ^ d ID €It .l!l{)\.tcL/ t f;. .v\cX-r)''f)~ 'T YlfliS&tJ'i /J. cfJ'-~ 1~"'llJ I ~J./.5- ,!)()TY\ Q.>>e.s~E Sl,3b+ ~~/Jt'r/4..it >"J!ttVP(.(/Lher /~~/t)~ / ?Cf3':;2~~E S--I;,4!;;t. $- ?$Uvt; ~~ ~L~f/IS'f5-;tDt/?-<-SE Sl ~ Sic 50/- To the following individuals; organizations, or groups: St. Cloud APO Steams County Board of Commissioners St. Joseph City Council Mayor of St. Joseph St. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the St. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Corridor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining fannland in St. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the St. Joseph" area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name EM!; f\FN(;~ FL!5f.$.CIIIIAc/[~g Signature Gites fle-}(er~. d. 9.Juu~ L8~a.J. J,e. . ' . L/P I ~ 0ItJJOi{ A-~lt= t 1\1 ~Y"f-S ~. ~ ~ I~I-.fj~c< '7t1,~~5-~'i3~tf . tJ '1&,4-5'- .;iIJAr/ Sf.. H~1:k~14e~hw~~jztJZ jJt!J~~/!f \D 1~45---26t:h Av~ s:e I 'b~O~ I? 'ts- - d-t> tli. ct4c,; ,sf.. . l" oJ, I ~, '-;3.?,O <f- I- B" ~ ,- _ :2..0 fA.. (i...-..k..-t. e. . Yn. '>L f.-I, 3cH I <l +5 ~tI ~>~ , d4"IbA.'ti1:. r:!.t---J(~~ b ~c:) Address ~!JJ ~~. To the following individuals, organizations, or groups: S1. Cloud APO Stearns County Board of Commissioners S1. Joseph City Council Mayor of S1. Joseph S1. Joseph Township College of Saint Benedict Order of Saint Benedict (OSB) . S1. Joseph Chamber of Commerce We, the undersigned, are writing you to express our strong opposition to the Field Street Corridor alternative as a future traffic pattern option in the S1. Joseph area. The proposed Field Street Conidor alternative would result in destruction of a large amount of the remaining farmland in S1. Joseph township, destroy natural areas (woods and prairie) in OSB land, and effectively cut off the CSB campus from such areas. We strongly oppose the Field Street Corridor alternative because of these environmental concerns and the negative impact that this proposal would thus have on the well being of this community. We encourage you to reject the Field Street Corridor alternative as a viable option for future traffic patterns in the S1. Joseph area, and instead to focus on alternatives that do not have a negative impact on the environment or the well being of this community. Furthermore, we ask that any alternative plan be designed in close consultation with all affected members of the community. Printed name Signature Address 1t1a.f/'/e 8"...a.--YJ ~t#31n<1h__~/.~ tr:U3 J9f5'-2oH<O.uJL-5~'2-f.~ tJ- . (). . .J~30 I r'" '$1 . I . fb 0>/3 ~ . ~ .0~lG-u.& ~I re/..Jd~'I 5~htl . i/ 4~ 'Ag.;--4r--- ~ ! ?'I5-~.t.il. ~~- L- bo'f1J _____ . /. '\ ~ ~$ v .' . _ . / c? tj.5' r-::t.. cr-/vt.-' c;:VV'-L- 5'. E. ~~ _)l~r GIVV21YlM.t{3i<?X1/E-{-C ~~ 4~~ !5~ P -S ; s --Ie 1"- k; [[e-, ~ cJ, l"Qn.,el S ;'.~ h Leu.. "tie ac.~ fCL Yr/ e1 {1?'tr-J.d'Q.J S &. , lr:t..~ ~, J2; ~ 'fio- I (f tf:;- -;) l> tLY-e < .J b. '711-n. .,- (. '), 5' ANilE MA L E. /U c--/-( If'f-S- , :;.-~;;. !~ J E . tff/i/ j -z;" 3 c:.> II S'/ste( !VI Q / {j [> h y J-t J.J. rl e'j;q~~-, J11.(l~ 7~/J~/O~'8 1%"I.r -2C/ljve S', F >1ft . '. '--- s67t:>'t ",-S / r:f (r- c.p I;' h p k! (Yj ke~ }t.d;:,,_ ~ {J(w~'J';, {J-fj( I &-'IS--':<t/cld...e..5e..SI. U ()u<-(:m 5', s.7er Pla.f'cfl,. V)C\t~q R~h{u:r Sl~u:-- }l~ /1 /( (/ lJJ;v In~ .~~ S. DD'rb tA e.a-le.n't.. _,l~~ I Attachment: Yes REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DA TE: April 14, 2006 Engineerin~ ORIGINA TING DEPARTMENT Tracy Ekola, PE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM Water Treatment Plant Color Selections PREVIOUS ACTION RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION FISCAL IMP ACT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDA TIONS Recommended color selections/samples for the WTP exterior and interior materials will be available for staff and council review at the April 20th City Council Meeting. X:\PTlstioe\common\D39 Req Council Action\BLANK REQ FOR COUNCIL ACTION. doc I Attachment: Yes REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 14. 2006 Engineering ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Tracv Ekola, PE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM Update on St. Cloud Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion Plans PREVIOUS ACTION None RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION None. For Information Only. FISCAL IMP ACT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS See Attached Table 2A for updated costs and Tables 3-15 and 3-16 for population and load projections. Additional information and a review of the facility plan will be provided at the Area Cities meeting on April 25,2006. X:\PTlstjoe\common\D39 Req Council ActionlBLANK REQ FOR COUNCIL ACTION.doc Table lA Projected Customer Community Capital Cost Responsibility (Cost Basis January 2006) Treatment Option 1 - Delay Nitrification Phase I" Phase 2 Total Cost Communltv BlOoP Uuerade' Exnansion Rehab' Subtotal BNR Uuerade' Per Communltv ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) St Cloud 3,029,000 0 6,599,000 9,628,000 8,803,000 18,431,000 Sartell 525,000 3,597,000 1,492,000 5,614,000 2,135,000 7,749,000 Sauk Rapids 499,000 1,463,000 1,365,000 3,327,000 1,969,000 5,296,000 StJ oseph 312,000 2,137,000 945,000 3,394,000 1,423,000 4,81 7,000 \IV aite Park 371,000 1,377,000 1,072,000 2,820,000 1,589,000 4,409,000 St Augusta" 170,000 2,819,000 727,000 3,716,000 1,141,000 4,857,000 4,906,000 11,393,000 12,200,000 28,499,000 17,060,000 45,559,000 ~ (a) Phase 1 construction completed hy 2010 to provide service through 2017. (h) Phase 2 construction completed hy 2017 to provide ..ervice through 2030. (c) Hio-P Upgrade cost a/location hased on total flow hasis u..ing 2017 projected demands. (d) Expansion cost al/ocation based on additional flow hasis from current through 2017. (e) Rehahilitation cost a/location hased on total flow hasis using 2030 projected demands. (f) BNR Upgrade cost a/location hased on total flow hasis u..ing 2030 projected demands. (g) Costs do not include buy-in to existing facilities. Table IB Projected Customer Community Flows Treatment Option 1 - Delay Nitrification (1) (2) . (3) /4\ (5) (6) I7l (8) (9) Phase 1 Phase 2 Communitv Current Bio-P UUl!rade:l ~ ~ Exnansionhc Rehab" "Pool" BNR Unerade' Contract Amount 2017 Demand 2017 2017 Contract 2017 Add'l Demand 2030 Demand 2030 2030 Contract (mgd) (mgd) (rngd) (mgd) cmgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) =(3)+(4) = (3) - (2) + (4) = (7) + (8) St Cloud 9.27 7.67 0.41 8.08 0.00 8.80 0.23 9.03 Sartell 0.81 1.52 I 0.30 1.82 1.01 1.99 0.20 2.19 Sauk Rapids 1.33 1.44 0.30 1.74 0.41 1.82 0.20 2.02 St Joseph 0.60 0.90 0.30 1.20 0.60 1.26 0.20 1.46 Waite Park 0.99 1.07 0.30 1.37 0.39 1.43 0.20 1.63 5t Augusta 0.00 0.49 0.30 0.79 0.79 0.97 0.20 1.17 - 13.00 13.09 1.91 15.00 3.19 16.27 1.23 17.50 Notes: (a) SL Cloud's 2017 demand is projected to he 7.67 mgd. St. Cloud has agreed to own the remainder of the 1.91 mgd "pool" after each .other customer community owns 0.30 mgd, or 0.41 ingd. The methodology previously agreed to by all of the customer communities was that any upgrade/rehab work. would be a/located based on the "total flow" basis, whereas any expansion work would he allocated' based on the" additional flow" b&'is. Therefore, St. Cloud's 2017 responsibility for any upgrade or rehabilitation work would befor 7.67 + 0.41 = 8.08 mgd of the 13.09 mgd 2017 demand. The cost of the $4.906 million Hio-P upgrade was therefore allocated on the totalflow basis, with St. Cloud paying (8.08/13.09)*$4.906 million = $3.029 million. The remaining $1.877 million was a/iocated to the other communities based on each other communi(v's 2017 projected demand relative to the total projected demand for the other communities. (b) Expansion costs were allocated based on the "additional flow" methodology. Therefore, St Cloud doesn't pay for any expansion in Phase 1, as theY are currently payingjor 9.27 mgd, and only need 8.08 mgd by 2017. The other communities are allocated the entire $11.393 million expansion based on a ratio of the addilionalflow each other community needs divided by the total additional capacity needed by the other communities hetween now and 2017. Therefore, Sartell's responsibility for Phase 1 expansion would be ((0. 71+0.30)/3.19) * $11.393 million = $3.597 million. In thi..fashion, any costs associated with the 1.5 mgd "pool" allocated to the other communities would be split evenly, as previously agreed. (c) St. Cloud was allocated additiona/cost for the Bio-P Upgrade to accomodate their desire to own the remaining ''pool'' capacity. The other communities are allocated the 1.5 mgd "pool" capacity equal{v and the 1.69 mgd of additional demand/rom current to 2017 based on additional flow required per community. (d) The $12.2 million rehabilitation was allocated based on the "totalflow" basis mling 2030 demands. 2030 was used becallse the rehab costs are needed only once throughout the study period. Therefore, Sauk Rapids' 2030 responsibility for $12.2 million rehab costs would be (1.82116.27) * $12.2 million = $1.365 million. (e) Includes "pool". BNR Upgrade was allocated using the "total flow" methodology for 2030. The plant will have 17.5 mgd capacity after Phase 2 is completed. The projected demand from all communities is 16.27 mgd in 2030. Therefore, the availahle "pool" capacity in 2030 is 17.5 - 16.27 = 1.23 mgd. Sf. Cloud's demand in 2030 is projected to be 8.80 mgd. . They are also allocated a "pool" capacity of 1.23 - 1.0 = 0.23 mgd, while the other communities are equally allocated their 1.0 mgd "pool" capacity due to the growth potential in the other communities vs. Sf. Cload's growth potential. Therefore, St. Cloud'.. cost allocation of the $17.062 million Phase 2 costs was ((8.80+0.23)/17.5)*$17.062 million = $8.803 million. Black & Veatch 3128/2006 Table 2A Projected Customer Commuuity Capital Cost Responsibility (Cost Basis Jauuary 2006) TreatD.Jent Option 3 - Start with Full BNR Phase 1 M Phase 2 ' Total Cost Communltv BNR UD2radec . Exoansion 0 Rehab C Subtotal Exnansion Per Community ($) ($) , ($) ($) ($) ($) St Cloud 8,067,000 0 6,599,000 14,666,000 2,406,000 17,072,000 Sartell 1,399,000 4,452,000 1,492,000 7,343,000 949,000 8,292,000 Sauk Rapids 1,329,000 1,811,000 1,365,000 4,505,000 711,000 5,216,000 St Joseph 830,000 2,645,000 945,000 4,420,000 660,000 5,080,000. Waite Park 989,000 1,705,000 1,072,000 3,766,000 655,000 4,421,000 St Augustag 452,000 3,489,000 727,000 4,668,000 964,000 5,632,000 13,066,000 14,102,000 12,200,000 39,368,000 6,345,000 45,713,000 Notes: (a) Phase 1 construction completed by 2010 to provide service through 2017. (b) Phase 2 construction completed by 201 7 to provide service through 2030, .(e) BNR Upgrade cost aIlocat!on based on totaljlow basis using 2017 projected demands. (d) Phase [ expansion cost allocation baud on additional flow basis Irom current through 2017. (e) Rehabilitat;fJn cost allocation based on total flow ba.v;s using 2030 projected demands. (/) Pha..~e 1L expansion emit allocation based on additional flow basis from 2017 through 2030. (g) Co. fits do not include huy..;n to existing facilities. Table 2B Projected Customer Community Flows Treatment Option 3 - Start with Full BNR (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Phase I Phase 2 Community ~ BNR Uu!!'radell "Pool" Total Flow Exnansion '" Rehab d Upoo)" Total Flow Expansion l' Contract Amount 2017 Demand 2017 2017 Coutract 2017 Add'l Demaud 2030 Demalld 2030 2030 Cllntract 2030 Contract (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) =(3) + (4) = (3) - (2) + (4) =(7)+ (8) =(9)-(5) Si Cloud 9.27 7,67 0.41 8,08 0.00 8.80 0,23 9.03 0.95 Sariell 0.81 1.52 0.30 1.82 1.0] 1.99 0.20 2.]9 0.37 Sauk Rapids 1.33 1.44 0.30 1.74 0.41 1.82 0.20 2.02 0.28 Si Joseph 0.60 0.90 0.30 1.20 0,60 1.26 0.20 1.46 0.26 Waite Park 0.99 1.07 0.30 1.37 0.39 1.43 0.2U 1.63 0.26 Si Augllsta 0,00 0.49 0.30 0,79 0,79 0,97 0,20 Ll7 0.38 - 13.00 ]3.09 1.9] 15.00 3,19 16.27 1.23 17.50 2.50 Notes: (a) St. Qoud's 2017 demand is projected to be 7.67 mgd. Sf. Cloud has agreed to own the remainder of the 1.91 mgd "pool" after each other customer community owns 0.30 mgd, or 0.41 mgd. The methodology previously agreed to by all of the customer communities was that any upgrade/rehab work would he allocated based on the "totatjIow;' basis, whereas any expansion work would be allocated based on the "additional flow" basis. Therefore, St. Cloud's 2017 responsibility for any upgrade orrehabilitation work would befor 7,67 + 0.41 = 8,08 mgd of the 13.09 mgd 2017 demand. The cost of the $13.067 million BNR upgrade wos therefore allocated on the total flow basis, wilh St. Cloud paying (8.08/13.09)*$13.067 million = $8.067 million. The remaining $5.0 million was allocated to the other communities based on each other community's 2017 projected demand relative to the total projected demand for the other communities. (b) Expansion costs were allocated based on the "addilional flow" methodology. Therefore, Sf. Cloud doesn't pay for any expan.~ion in Pha.~e 1, as they are currently payingfor 9.27 mgd, and on{v need 8.08 mgd by 2017. The other communUie.~ are allocated the entire $14.102 million expansion ba.~ed on a ratio afthe additional flow each other community need~ divided by the total additional capacity needed by the other communities between now and 2017. Therefore, Sartell'.~ re.vponsihility for Phase I expansion would be ((0,71+0,30)/3,19) * $/4.[02 million = $4,452 million. In thi. fashion, any cost. associated with the 1.5 mgd "pool" allocated to the other communities would be split evenly, as previoUsly agreed. (c) St. Cloud was allocated additional cost for the BNR Upgrade to accomodate their desire to own the remaining 'pool" capacity. The other communities are allocated the 1.5 mgd "pool" capacity equally and the 1.69 mgd of additiolUll demandfrom current to 2017 based on udditionalflow required per community. (d) The $12.2 miUion rehabiliJation was allocated based on the "totalflow" basis using 2030 demands. 2030 was used because the rehab cost." are needed only once throughout the study period. Therefore, Sauk Rapids' 2030 responsibility for $12.2 million rehab cost... would be (1.82/16.17) * $12.2 million = $1.365 million. (ej"Includes "pool". The Pha.fe 2 Expansion was allocated using the "additionalflow" methodologyfor 2030. The plant will have 17.5 mgd capacity after Phase 2 is completed. The projected demand from all communities is 16.27 mgd. Therefore, the available "pool" capacity in 2030 is 17.5 ~ 16.17 = 1.13 mgd. Sf. Cloud's demand in 2030 is projected to be 8.80 mgd. They are aL~o allocated a ''pool'' capacity of 1.23 -1.0 = 0.23 mgd, while the other communities are allocated equally their 1.0 mgd "poo/" capacity due to the growth potential in the other communities vs. St Cloud's growth potentiaL Therefore, St. Cloud~<; total demand in 2030 i.. projected to be 8.80 + 0.13 = 9.03 mgd. St.. Cloud'.~ allocated portion of the $6.344 million expansion is calculated a.fthe difference between their demands/rom 2017 to 2030 divided by the difference in the total demandfrom 2017 to 2030, or (9,03 - 8,08)/(17.50-15,0)'$6344 million = $2,406 million. The other communities were allocated a portion of the $6.344 million Phase 1 expamdon cosf.v in the same manner. 3/28/2006 Black & Veatch E. Population Projections 1. Introduction To forecast of the future wastewater treatment capacity needs for the City of St. Cloud and each wholesale customer, reliable population projections are required. These population projections will be used to define future flows and loads for the facility planning milestone years 2010; 2015, 2020; 2025, and 2030. The basic sources of information used to project growth and thus to forecast the need for wastewater treatment plant improvements and upgrades include the following: · Population Projections by Planning Agencies . Land Use Planning . Expansion ofthe Service Area . .:~:!; It;" :E .-. '"'i:.,. Planning documents were reviewed, including avaifa:Q~:',jF"use data, and interviews were conducted to formulate reliable population projections' -- e City of St. Cloud and for each wholesale customer. - - . . .- 2. land Use Planning and Expansion '_ -, :iii:,:: The City of S1. Cloud has experienced steadygroW1:h over-the pas(several decades. According .:- .' to the 2003 Comprehensive , between 1993 (i]1d2002.the City annexed approximately 25.3 square miles to incre a to 40.8 sqUare miles; S1. Cloud and the surrounding communities, whichi,n: de W ark, S1. Augusta, Sauk Rapids, Sartell, and St. Joseph, are expected to havec(hi~~'c hie over the next several decades. The area's existing commercial and industri '.~hing and additional businesses and industries are expected to _ mov' ensive residential growth is also anticipated, primariIY,p,:epod t growth, and economic opportunities. ..,-,.. ,.,." - W' ........, .. . ..,.......... . ~.:...i:.~:fi~~mit~~" '..; eview andf;ijii' - luati City and _ H'ty of; 1. Cloud provided historical population data as well as population t9.tions, typic!:lil,!y through year 2020, in 10 year increments. According to the researchers, a n'w, r of memtids can be used to forecast the future based on what has happened in the past.- Fu -- u!~ti6ns of St. Cloud and the surrounding cities were predicted using different methods, in ".,"Jng the exponential, the straight line, and the top down methods, as well as the demographers' "predictions. The exponential method assumes the growth of a city will continue to increase by the same percentage as it has in the past; the straight line method assumes the number of people added to a city's population per decade will be consistent; and the top down method uses population projections for a larger area and dedicates a proportional percentage of the projection to an area within that larger area. 51. Cloud, MN Draft WWTP Facilities. Pian April 2006 3-31 ~~ BLACK & VEATCH CDfpOfl:tioD a. St. Cloud. The population predictions provided by St. Cloud are as listed in Table 3-14 and shown on Figure 3~ 10. Table 3.14 St. Cloud Population Projections Year 2000 2010 2020 Exoonential 59,107 69,651 82,076 Straiaht Line 59,107 67,378 75 648 Too Down 59,107 67,370 72,697 Demoaraoher's Rates 59.107 66,808 72,091 District Plan - Low 62,781 73,623 83,745 District Plan - Moderate 62,781 74,256 85,565 District Plan - HiQh 62,781 74.919 86,780 Source: S1. Cloud Comprehensive Plan . St. Cloud Population Projection 90000 65000 85000 80000 75000 c .2 ~ 70000 Cl. o Cl. 60000 55000 i I I I 50000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year -+- Exponential __ Demographers Rates -f- District Plan - High --.Straight Line (Values Used) -r- Top Down __District Plan - Low __District Plan - Moderate Figure 3-10: St. Cloud Population Projections Different prediction methods cause variation in the results. After 2010, the results of the ex.ponential projections start to increase significantly over the results of other methods as a result St. Cloud, MN Draft WWTP Facilities Plan April 2006 3-32 ~8 BLACK & VEATCH Corporation of projecting based on exponential extrapolation. The demographers' rates and top down methods, which compare St. Cloud with the tri-county area population trends, show the projected population growth rate decreasing slightly after year 2010. The starting point for the projection also influences the shape of the curve. In 1998, a research company prepared demographic projections for 81. Cloud for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 as part of a District Plan including high, moderate, and low growth scenarios. The estimates for all scenarios were slightly higher than the actual 2000 population, resulting in higher predicted future populations.( The results of the straight line method are closer to an average of the results of the ()ther projection methods, yet still conservative. Similar results were obtained when analyzil}g"th~, published population data for Waite Park, St. Augusta, Sauk Rapids, Sartell, and St. Jos~,n:'" .. b. Waite Park,.::: "'//',., The exponential, straight line, and top down methods were used by Wtqt~;,J)ark to project area growth as shown on Figure 3 -11. >''ii,','' . Population Projection for Waite Park 6000 18000 16000 14000 .~ 12000 iii :i c.. ~ 10000 8000 4000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year -+- Exponential _ Straight Line (Projection Used) -...- Top Down Figure 3-11: Waite Park Population Projections St. Cloud. MN Draft WWTP Facilities Pian April 2006 3-33 ~~ BLACK & VEATCH CcrporlltioR As stated in the city's comprehensive plan; the 2000 population for Waite Park was 6,568; by the year 2020, it is expected to be anywhere between 9,189 and 12,529, depending on the projection method used. The top down method predicts growth based on a percentage of, the county population growth; however, in the case of the City of Waite Park, the county populations are increasing at"a slower rate than that of Waite Park. Because of the significant fluctuations, the historical trend for the past 30 years was used to calculate the exponential model. For future planning purposes, the straight line projection method was used to project a 2020 population of 12,529. c. St. Augusta St. Augusta used demographers' research for population proJ~s Straight line interpolation was used with adjacent years to pr~~jct t e' points. ,8 shown on Figure 3-12. ".ulation for intermediate Population Projection for St. Augusta o 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year I-+- Demographer's Rates -II- Sewered Population (Values Used) I Figure 3-12: St. Augusta Population Projections The 2000 population for St. Augusta was 2,873, with 300 households connected to the collection system and 600 with septic systems (900 households total). The population is expected to grow St. Cloud, MN Draft WWTP Facilities Pian April 2006 3-34 ~. BLACK & VEATCH Cnrp..alicn to 8,699 by the year 2025 according to the straight line method, and it is assumed that all new growth will be connected to the collection system. d. Sauk Rapids According to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan, Sauk Rapids has grown by 49 percent since 1990. The population has grown steadily over the past 43 years, and there is every indication that the growth will continue. Sauk Rapids used various methods to predict future populations as shown on Figure 3-13. Sauk Rapids Population Projection 22000 10000 20000 18000 .~ 16000 ... III '5 Q. ~ 14000 12000 8000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year -+- Exponential -*- District Plan - Low _ Straight Line (Values Used) -.- Demographers Rates -?lE-District Plan - Moderate _DistrictPlan - High Figure 3-13: Sauk Rapids Population Projections The exponential method shows a significant population increase after the year 2010, whereas the other curves show much lower growth than the straight line method. The population of Sauk Rapids in 2000 was 10,183, but could reach almost 18,200 by 2025 according to the straight line method which is used in this evaluation. S1. Cloud, MN Draft WWTP Facilities Pian April 2006 3-35 ~e BLACK & VEATCH Corporation e. Sartell The 2003 Comprehensive Plan shows that Sartell's population in the year 2000 was 9,641, an increase of almost 80 percent over the 1990 population. The age data shows that the City of Sartell is attracting younger residents with families, and growth will continue. Sartell used two methods of population predictions; the Joint Plan and the Revised Projections, both of which included predictions to the year 2050. The Joint Plan population projections were b~sed on current conditions and the Revised Projections were based on current and scaled percentages of growth from current conditions. As shown on Figure 3-14, the Joint Plan- predicts a population of 28,000 in the year 2050, whereas the Revised Projections suggest a 2050 population of 32,000. 35000 30000 25000 c:: 20000 0 :;:; S! ::: Q. 0 15000 Il. 10000 5000 0 1980 ~ 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 I ~ Revised Projections (Values Used) -G- Joint Plan Population Projections I Figure 3-14: Sartell Population Projections f. St. Joseph According to the City of St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan for 2002, the projected residential and employment growth for St. Joseph through the year 2020 will require that the service area be expanded to include additional land and more households. The population projections and demand for land were based on area trends, policies, economics, and demographics. The St. Cloud, MN 3-36 ~<~ Dra'!t WWTP Facilities Plan BLACK & VEATCH Apn! 2006 Co'po,etion exponential, straight line, and top down methods were used by St. Joseph to project area growth. The population in 2000 was 4,681, and as shown on Figure 3-15, by 2025, it could be close to 14,000 when using the straight line method for projection. St. Joseph Population Projection 18000 16000 14000 12000 c 0 10000 :::: lIS 'S 8000 Q. 0 0- 6000 4000 2000 . ~ ./ ~ V ..~ ~ .....; ...... .----: .- o 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year I-+- Exponential - Straight Une -.l::- Top Down I :' . FiglJr~3:"'15:St.JoSE!Ph P uiation P.rojections 4. 0 ion Projec'I9.,ms Black & ... rojected th~lopulations for the City ofSt. Cloud and each wholesale customer based on the .' t line groBfu method, where available. The results produced by this method are close to an "'e results of other projection methods, yet still conservative. A straight line interp of adjacent years was used to calculate the population for the intermediate years tha. ere not published. For planning future wastewater treatment needs, the projections presented in Table 3-15 are recommended. The published data used to develop Table 3-12 are included in the Appendix. St. Cloud, MN Draft WWTP Facilities Pian April 2006 3-37 ~. BLACK & VEATCH CClrpo'lltiGn Table 3-15 City of St. Cloud and Contract Cities Po ulation Pro'ections Year 2000 2005 (1) 2010 2015 (1) 2020 '::'202S (1) 2030 (1) St. Cloud 59,107 63,242 67,378 71,513 75,64l;r 79,783 83,919 Waite Park 6,568 7,447 9557 11 043 ,,12 529" 14,014 15,500 (2)St. Au usta 2,873 1,185 2,413 4,544 6,606 8;6g~:i';", 10,731 Sauk Ra ids 10,183 11 ,786 13,389 14,992 16,S9S 18,1 98 .:;;:m~9i801 ... . Sartell 9,641 12,135 14,700 16,95'0 19,200 21,823 "24,259 St. Jose h 4,681 6,S26;~m;~i ;;'!fuS., 117 Values obtained from straight line (2) Total population in 2000. in 2000, to the sewer, and 600 had septic syste, sewered opulations. 10,217 12,808 13,908 15,753 tion of adjacent years. 900 households were connected or 2005 and after are for F. Future Fiow~ndLoadProjection" The previous two Sub-S~()tions (DllIld E) SU"F arized the current flows and loads for residential, in, and ha.ul~' waSte contri1:)utors, and projected populations for each of the . respective ,... tribtlt9r~~ This Sub..Section uses the previous findings to defme future flows ads for "ty plaiming milestone years 2010, 2015,2020,2025 and 2030. The proj ws and loa blished in this Sub-Section will be used in Section V as the basis ofdesithe developm d ev81Uation of expansion alternatives for the facility. Residential"".~ater co utions were projected by using the straight-line population projections preseht~g,:~n Sll.o' ection E, and the per capita flow and load factors determined in Sub-Section D-l. Th~:,:;p~'capita factors were calculated based upon 2003 average data, along with the 2003 populat~pn'data. It was assumed that each of the six communities will continue to generate wastewater in the future according to the 2003 per capita values. In other words, the waste strength and the gallons generated per person in each community were assumed to remain constant through the planning year 2030. Because the per capita values for St. Augusta were very low and uncharacteristic of domestic wastewater, average per capita values were used to project St. Augusta's flow and loads based on the average of the other communities (91 gpcd, 0.142 ppcd cBOD and 0.146 ppcd TSS). The flow and load projections for the planning years 2010,2015,2020,2025 and 2030 are summarized in Table 3-16. St. Cloud, MN Draft WWTP Facilities Plan April 2006 3-38 ~. BLACK & VEATCH Corporation Because the total industrial cBOD, TSS and total phosphorus loads were determined to be less than four percent (<4%), one percent (<1%), and four percent (<4%) of the total influent plant loads, respectively, the industrial loads were not projected separately from the total plant loads. Planning discussions with each of the contributing communities did not identifY any new significant industrial dischargers in the foreseeable future. If any major industries move.into the service area in the near future, it may be advantageous to re-evaluate the industrial flow and load projections. However, at this time, it is sufficient to assume that the industrial loads will increase at the same rate as each of the contributing communities. Therefore, the flow and load projections presented in Table 3-16, which were based upon residen~~~t1>.rpjections, will be used for this facility plan. ",,,,,.;:'" .. St. Cloud. MN Draft WWTP Facilities Pian April 2006 3-39 ~e BLACK & VEATCH Corporation ... .2 ::J E E o () .c u .J ~~ .e III c o ~ ;; Ca .!ll. ::I '[t:,Cl) ~::':'ii" o i- "C C III II) II) ::J cciii '"""> ~ I~.l!! I Gl .- 1:E III l'!lO I- ; 11. II) l!! II) ~ c o 'tS II) lG In Cii t:: III III 5 (/) ~ t) Cl) e 11. "C III o ..J 'tS C ell ;:: o u... ....- lOB ....;;~.s 0.= E ::J = E mE o () ell - 11) = Cl = <( ....- o III - ~O o _ ....- o III - #.9 000 cicici 000 ............ ...... o ci o ...... ~O>NCOIOa:> IONI--......NIO tq....:<'1NC"lN 10......0 ~ ...... N N ...... ......0>1-- N~-r-= ~ ...... C")N~a:>NC") ......N~a:>IOO> ~ ci C") T"'::~ ...... ..,..... C") a:>.<O . '.'.,'. co eri.r,;;cO <6 .,..-:...:: 00 0 0> 0 0 . ';"10. a:> 10 C") ...... N lO.ci I--.N ~N 0> ...... ...... .c Q, Cl) 11) o ""') ... .....' ",.'C)' a:> 0 0,5. "" i--: .\P' ..,; ~.s _,0;,"'" III "C '0. ~ ~ = ell U) "C ::J o o ... U) ... III Gl >- E o .;:: lJ) ..... o - t) ......NMOONC").g! 0000101--0 to , 00 '~......IO......=: al oi...... N ...: fit ro ...... t)-O .....-0 Q) Q) a.~ Q) E 0)= to C Q50 1--00~OIO......ia::::l ~~~~f5~Q)"C ro-...... N N =: ~ .N C al 0.0 Q.-o ::::I c -oal ~~ .0 ~~~~g~[g1ij 0>. eri o. N co. C") .Q g ~ ~ ~ 1:5 .!Q .~ro e ~ Q.c -I -I -I -I -I to::::I "'0- "0-- -0- -0- c: "0- IU)'Q) 6 -0 C. Cl'O ~ c: '0 C. Cl -I 5'0 c. Cl-o ~ g"C C. Cl'O ~ 0'0 0. Cl-o::::: ::::I ..... :::l~c.Ec. ,gClo.ER- :::lEClo.Eo.E ._~ClEC.Ec. ._Clo.Ec. O)Q) co ..c.E coE-.o.E.!!! ciciO. w ..c.E iiiE..c.E::l:S= 01~o88~oo.^1~88~~ ~~oo~oo ~~88~ool~88~oo<~ o_mmoooo~'ogromoooo~ogroroooooIOOgromoooooogmmoooo~::l o~u...t)Ol-l-o~u...OOl-l-o~u...OOI-I-~~u...OOI-I-~~u...OOI-I-~ro N N N N N > ....- o to - ~o o _ CD 0> 0 "':oeri ...... ...... O>MIOCOMM OONNIOCOO ~..~co..~qT""' C") ...... ...... ...... ....- o III - ~o o _ 1--0 co c-.i"':<6 ...... ...... 010000>...... ONIOC") CO 10 t-.-_~~T""'I.Q..T""' ~ ...... ...... ...... ....- o III - ~o o _ C")CO...... eric-.i"': lOCO I-- OO.CD co CD v N t-OOOvI--N C").r....: "<l;.N q.M I-- ~ 00 CD ...... ...... 000 cicici 000 T""'~~ o ci o ...... O>COO>~lOv 101O~............1O C\!.c-.i~.NCC!.N O>......N co N N N ...... lOC")O> c<5c<5c-.i ~......I--OOC")C") ~~~a:>coo> tq.ciCD......CD...... ~ 10...... 0 eriericl ~~~~g~ o. ..-: 0. N)p:l. N ...... N ..,...... ...... I--NO>.-IOO ...-CONIOIO~ N.O 0. ...... 0>. T"" 0.- . ...... v oo:i "!~'<""; ...-...... co ...- ...... NOOOlDOM O>MNIOO>O C>>_~atT""'~T""' v............ ...... 1q co ...-vO> c<5"':<6 ...... ...- O~CDOO>"'- 1O~1OC")01O O)_~UlT""'~T""' CD ...... ...... ...... o eri I-- C") I-- 10 lricleri 10 10 CD C")OIOCOCON ......101--~C")N ~r....:C").N,,":M ...... 10 0 I-- ...... N 000 cicici 000 .- ...... ...... o ci o ...... CDCOCOMOO OOOOCO......~1O <'1c<5tq.Nq.N M......~ co v N N ...... 10 c-.i COMa:> oo:ioo:ic<5 C") c<5 COO.....CO~M Oco~a:>coo> CC!.ci 0>...... 0>""" CO o r....: I--MC") eriericl M r....: OHi) v 0> 0 0 N......o>C")......N ~..-: N.N .......N N N N ...... '(1) ~ C") erir....:u:i .- ..,;, CO NO......I--O 000>100>~ _~~N..~T""'_~ ~ T""' .T""'_:' .('"'. 10 ..,; CDON ~~cO ............ 00 <6 I-- Iri I-- OONN c-.ir....:<6 10 10 CD COC")~CONN ~(I)CDvON CD. r....: C\!. N C"l M 10 CD ...- I-- ...... N 000 cicici 000 ............ ...... o ci o ...... IOvCONl--lD C")ON............"=I" q.1ri ~N .......N IO......CO ...... 10 N M ...- CDNI-- lriu:ioo:i ...... ..,; 0> 0> 0> COO> C") 0> I--M CO CO 0> CC!. 0 C\!. ...... N. ...... ,co T""' T""' o CO I-- cleric) CD r....: "=I" 0> CO 0>.....0 ......NCDC")CDN 0....: tq.NM.N v N N ...... O>~M eri""':u:i CX)~~T""'O)O 0...-0100>~ q....:~......C'!....... M ...- ...... .- CD ..,; C") ......'CO 0 I-- ...... .C")CO 10M 1--10 .C")' ' (I)...... N ...... .... T""'.. _ r-: T""' N .N CO c<5 I-- NCDI-- "':u:i"'; 10 10 CO ~~1ri~~~ l'-;,eri,,":N~.C") 0> I-- N I-- .- N 000 cicici 000 T""' T""' T""' o ci o ...... jg '0. al (,.) ... Q) Q. to - lJ) ::l 0) ~ IOI--NO~CO CO NIO......lOv "": <6 10. N <'1 N O>.-a:> M co N M ...... C")Ov <6<6u:i I-- ..,; ....: ~ -0 Q) - to .-l--lDCOCOC")"5 C") O>N COCO 0> (,.) 1--. ci 10. ...... tq....... ro o ...... ...... (,.) .- Q) .c - Q) t) c '(j) NCOO> c)eric) co r....: N. ..,; ui 0(\')000>.....0 OJ OvMM......N+:; 10 'CONCDN'- ..-. . C 10 N N ::l ...- E E o t) Q) > ;:;::: ... Q) MCOCD.-NO=: ~C'!ffi~~~ 0 Lri'T""'~ .,; ~ - C")I--CO clr....:u:i ~ ..,; t-Nv ""':~cci .- .- I-- ..,; 'M'. r..: C>>NIO c<5c-.ir....: ...... ...... 10 r....: C'! N I-- CD.-N c)..,;c<5 v lOCO co g :r: U" !:to "W ;~: ~:- Uo c:(u ..J In o '<:t I !'1"1 C ell ii: III II) ~ 'u III zu... :!:D.. ~i-CD "C~o ::J 0 o N 0== . III Q. (j)c< 2006 Street Improvements St. Joseph, MN Project Update Project Team Sarah Bialke City of S1. Joseph 320.363.7201 Jerry Siegfried SEH Project Representative / Construction Observer 320.980.4107 Tracy Ekola SEH Project Manager teko1a@sehinc.com C &L Excavating Prime Contractor 320.363.1221 sljoe0603 April 2006 I Project Update NO.1 Hello and welcome to the 2006 Street ImprovementsProject Update. In this and upcoming issues of the Update, we will be updating you on the status of the project. The project team consists of the City, SEH, and C & L Excavating. SEH is the municipal engineering firm working with the City of St. Joseph and will serve as the contact between the Contractors and the residents. All questions should initially be directed to Sarah at the City of S1. Joseph. We hope to provide accurate answers to your questions and concerns in a timely manner. However, when more than one team member needs to be consulted, it may take a little longer to provide you with accurate and up-to- date information. Jerry Siegfried, SEH's Project Representative, will be on site during construction to observe project progress. He is the fastest link to problem solving because he communicates directly with everyone on the construction team. Do not hesitate to contact Jerry with any questions you may have. If you are unable to reach Jerry in the field, please contact Tracy Ekola at the SEH office at 320.229.4406. Project Status Design of the project is complete and the City of St. Joseph has awarded the project to C & L Excavating, Inc. from St. Joseph. C & L Excavating Inc. is the Prime Contractor responsible for constructing the municipal utilities throughout the project. As part ofthe project's first phase C & L will begin tree removal and milling the existing bituminous street in early May. This is done so that the bituminous can be easily removed when trenching for utilities begins and so that residential traffic can still access the site. Silt fence and other erosion control devices will also be installed. These devices are used so that debris and sediment cannot escape the site. Construction of the sanitary sewer and water main on Third A venue is scheduled to start mid-May. Further information will be sent out as to the start date, tentative scheduling, and project phasing. As you have probably noticed, the private utility companies have already begun some of the utility relocation work. Before sanitary sewer and water main construction begins, other contractors must relocate private utilities URGENT. . . . . . . IMMEDIATE ATTENTION NEEDED Special Information It is very important that anyone with any special needs or disabilities contact us as soon as possible. Weare in the process of working with emergency response to locate any residences that may have a special need so that we are fully aware of the issues throughout construction and if quick response is needed to any specific residence(s) there is a plan in place. Contact Jerry Siegfried with SEH at 320.980.4107. Project Status, cont. such as telephone, cable television, natural gas and electricity. Relocation of private utilities is often necessary to avoid construction conflicts with the proposed municipal utilities. Private utility construction will likely occur both in the streets and in the boulevards. The City's Prime Contractor does not direct the construction operations for these private utilities. Description of Project This project consists of replacing the existing sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, and streets. The project will affect the following areas: . 1st Avenue East from Baker Street to Birch Street . 2nd Avenue East from Baker Street to Ash Street . 3rd Avenue East from Baker Street to Ash Street . Able Street from 1 st Avenue to 3rd Avenue . Sanitary sewer replacement for the alley between Minnesota Street and Ash Street from College Avenue to 3rd Avenue . Sanitary sewer lining for the alley between Minnesota Street and Able Street from College Avenue to 3rd Avenue Estimated Cost vs. Bid Cost The bids came in very competitive and the project should be at or slightly below the original estimated cost. Assessments will be based on the actual project costs to be determined when the project is completed this fall. Frequently Asked Questions Q: What kind of activity can I expect during construction? A: Construction is tedious and gets old quickly. At times it may even seem like not much is getting done. Remember, patience is the biggest asset that each of you bring to the job. If you keep in mind the fact that this project will be completed, construction will seem to go faster for you! In addition to the Prime Contractor there will be numerous subcontractors working for the Contractor at various times on the site. There will also be private utility companies (gas, cable television, telephone and electric) on the site moving existing lines and installing new ones. There will also be contractors installing service lines to your house working in the area. Please bear with us; the Prime Contractor has a fixed amount of time to get the work done, and we will be working with all of the parties involved to help see that this time commitment is met. Q: Who do I call if I have questions? A: Please call SEH's Project Representative, Jerry Siegfried at 320.980.4107 if you have a question regarding the project: 2006 Street Improvements S1. Joseph, MN Project Update I April2006 I No.1 Frequently Asked Questions, cont. Q: What will be done about construction dust? A: There will be problems with dust. The contract provides for spreading water on the road to help keep the dust from creating an unsafe environment. This, however, is an imperfect solution and will not solve the problem completely. Q: What will happen to my sprinkler system or pet containment system during construction? A: Property owners who have a sprinkler or pet containment system are encouraged to remove the portion of the system installed within the public right-of-way prior to construction. Systems should also be removed from the area where your sewer and water service lines will be constructed. The sprinkler distribution pipes should be exposed and pulled up to the property line so that they are visible to the Contractor. Since the sprinkler heads are often the most expensive component of the system, consider removing them from the distribution pipes. Apply duct tape to the end of the pipes to keep out dirt and debris. The City of St. Joseph and the' Contractor will not be liable for damage to sprinkler systems that are installed within the public right-of-way. Residents should reinstall the systems after the sod and restoration work is complete. Q: What will happen to the landscaping, fences or planters that are on the boulevards? A: The Contractor will salvage any landscaping that is located within the right-of-way and will place it on your property. If you wish to have material placed in a certain area, please letus know in advance and we will try to accommodate you. The Contractor will not reinstall this landscaping until later in the project. Q: Will the water and sewer services to my house be replaced? A: Replacement of sewer and water services from houses to the city right of way is not required, However, if you are experiencing frequent maintenance issues on your service lines, you may want to have it done in the same time frame as the City project. Any sewer or water service replacement is the responsibility of the homeowner and is a separate additional cost from the assessment. A list of contractors who replace service lines is available at city hall. Q: How will I receive my mail during construction? (not applicable if you use a PO Box.) A: At the start of construction, the Contractor will remove your individual mailbox with post and place them near the property line, away from the construction activities. If you wish, you may take the mailbox indoors. The Contractor will then install mailbox banks at a location(s) directed by the Postmaster. Your mail will be delivered to the mailbox banks until construction is complete. As the project site is restored, the Contractor will reinstall the mailboxes in accordance with the Postmaster requirements. After the mailboxes have been reinstalled, you will receive written notice from the Post Office when your mail service will return to normal. Q: What will happen when the City starts chlorinating the water? A: The City of St. Joseph will begin adding chlorine to the municipal water supply in early May. Adding chlorine is a requirement of the Minnesota Department of Health as a precaution against potential bacterial growth. When the chlorine is first added to the water, it will work its way out into the distribution system (City's underground water pipes) as water is used. During this process, residents will notice some adverse effects to the quality of the water. These effects include discoloration of the water, some unpleasant taste and odor, and possibly some debris as the chlorine reacts with iron deposits that have coated the pipes over the years, allowing them to break loose. The discoloration can cause staining oflaundry, but there are products that residents can add to the wash water to prevent staining, and even remove staining that has already taken place. Residents can contact City Hall for information on these products. The newly installed water main pipes will greatly improve this situation. 2006 Street Improvements St. Joseph, MN Project Update I April 2006 I No, 1 City of St. Joseph 25 College Avenue North PO Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 Project Update 2006 Street Improvements St. Joseph, MN Construction Schedule The project should start on May I, 2006, depending on weather and road restrictions. Pavement will not be disturbed on 1st Avenue SE until after June 5 to accommodate school bus traffic. The project is scheduled to be substantially complete by September 15,2006. The final lift of pavement will be completed in 2007. 4th of July Weekend. The contractor will be required to stop any work from noon on June 30, through 7 am on July 5. There will be no trenches left open, no roads closed and no restricted parking during this time, however, the streets listed in the project description wIll be gravel during this time. With the beginning of every construction project, there always seems to be some confusion until the Contractor's operation gets completely set up. Please bear with us. If you have questions, just ask SEH's Construction Observer. We consider you a part of our overall team and respect your input. Once construction starts and you have upcoming special events planned, please inform SEH's Construction Observer, so that we can help with your access needs. J:: c.. CI> l1J o ..., '- .....CIl UJi? ~I:: O~ >.,0 _ I:: O:B CI> ~ J::(!) - o I:: -5l _I/) l.. I:: o ell 0.-' CI> 5l tt:& >., >- co 'i:.!lg'5 CI>."C "<I" _CIl. l..::t::C") CO .- co :::sE'? I"Y .!l 0 ~ ::IN I/)C") (J) CI> CI> to) >., CO ..., J:: 0. CI> (J) o .., - (f) roCDm<oo~~N'o "<I" I'-CDN 0 "<1"..-..-0) o:i-ic<:ir--:ocrj,...:cric<:i 1'-0(:<)(:<)COI.O..-..-1.O ~S--e---- $ 0> .l:C: C/) CO .D "C o J2 -C/) CO E X c Q) E 0> Q) ~ ~ ::l ::l .0 .0 E E '15 '15 I- I- "C I:: ::l Ll. a- D:: U C/) .c a. Q) C/) -I o -I -, WI:: U5 IQ) C/) C/) "- I- ~ CUt=? 0 ~ffi Eco~~.c -1-' U; E en o..t 2 0> C/)UJ Q) w "C - >. 0 Cll ::l 2' ro z C/) o...ccoo.cE.ccoo><(o -I()SI-(J)~()I-(J)-,~ .l:C: I:: CU co @) 0> ~ I- OJ I:: ";> ill 000 1ll00~ Or'1DN 1--0)0)0 '- LO co 1'-. O~~~ ..- ..- 0) 0) N LO"!..- (:<) 0) 0) N co 0 ..- LO o. N 00 ..- '-000 (l)oqo .J:l"<l"..-M EI'-"<I"M (I) LO (:<). N (.) 0) N ,...: ~C")C") 1'-"<1"0) I.OI'-CD o>co...t (:<) co 0 "!. 0). ..- LO "'000 (1)000 .J:locci...t EI'-..-It) (l)LO"<I"..... >"<I"0)u; O(:<)N Z I'-COI'- 1.0 I'- CD "<1"000 (:<) (:<) 00 CD "<1". "<I" 000 ...OO~ ]MOOIt) OLOM..... .... "<1". ..- M (.)O)..-CO 0"<1""<1" 1.0 0> CO ""':1'-1'- 0) ..- (:<) "<I""<I"N co co I'- CI) .... Co CI) '(jj "C .... o ._ Co (I) III (I) o::c.o CI) CI) (I) CI)(I)D::: e .~ -a; Ga.z .... to: ~ 0 u..><a: ca "P....CI) mrft,CI) 0""': e m.....G co<f2 co ..- 0>"<1" M LO co N<f2 0> M coC") 0) M. N co<f2 ~o NCO I'- o. (:<) co<f2 LO I'- OM I'- O. M ::0 (I) :: (1),2 (I)~ili ~ ~rft, (I) X It) Cowe ~~ (I).J:l _ C\l .J:l 3: ~,2 ,2< <(~ Ci) I'- CO LO q ..- - 88888888 00000000 oooooodo 1.00LOOCOOOO -LOC\lI.O..-LO..-O --- --- .... ..- - .c "- (.) Q) u 5 .c 0>_ ~ '0' lfi -C/) g ctB:2 "- I-~ L. '5 a. >. J2coC/):=: o (.) co C E.5(J)E::l ocu(J)-E --O.l:C:o,!QE !:i:!:i:g-6coEo __a.=::W()() C/) co E 1i) 'C .c () -I <( I- o I- >. t co a- c Q) 0> =:: i3 .Q C/) ?- m r-8 .E I ::>.c () >,C/)Ou :=: -- U U) ~ 5 5 C/) ,~ (0 E (.)>-0 .c EU)O.5.t:l'5 o .g co cu 'E- -I ()():r:().c5 .c.ce...c (.) ca.a.wa.U)U ,9 ~ Q) C/) ~ cu ~ roO~OO::l5 c-,-,-,-,.c C/) 0....;__1-....; ~ (J) oU)U)(/)U)-,~ NCJ)O..- It) 1'-1'-01.0 I'- cocooC") Lri co ..- 0 co co N ..-.0.C0. 0 "<I"NCO M - MCJ)ON It) ""':I'-o",! 'l:t COCOOM Lri CO..-OO O'l co. o. 0>. e N ..- M (:<) ~ M N ..- OM o co OM ON 0."- ..- ..- to to ..; co N coo ~q co 0 LOO (:<) 'l:t It) to O'l ..... M co co co 1.0 M ..o~w (I)~ ua. CI) (I) ..J I:: en .... ... (I) e::: e (I) Co - a. J:: X -.... W ~ 0 5l .2 o .... c.. III ... I:: ::I 0 a. c ::I - :: III ..J ... (I) > o >- ... ... III U w C. ..J ili - o I- .... to: o ... a. (J) r- ::> o "Co 5(J) LJ..>- ~O cCO coI (J)e.. ---UJ S(J) .cO (.)-, 51- -IU) 8 o o co o. e - 0) I'- <0 ..- ..- ~ c o ~ c o o , -I <( I-- o I- UJ e.. -I -I <( '- o I- ~~i~"~';<;;' t;~ . f ~'J H Ia;wl Judy Weyrens City of S1. Joseph 25 College Ave N PO Box 668 Saint Joseph, MN 56374-0668 /'1 ') Dear ~s~W eyrens, c!! (/'(..;/21 / Greetingsfrom the Initiative Foundation! The purpose ofth;is letter is to follow up on our requestfor supportfrom the City ofSt Josephfor calendar year 2006. The Foundation was created almost 20 years ago to provide Community and Economic Development services to Central Minnesota citizens. We respectfully ask that you consider investing in your community and your region with a gift in support of the Initiative Foundation's mission and activities. Our request for 2006 was $1,400; however, we would appreciate any amount you can give. o 3 2006 CiTY OF ST JO . f;EPH INITIATIVE FOUNDATION March 30, 2006 Since 1986 the Initiative Foundation has, throughout our 14-county region: . trained over 2,900 Central Minnesota citizens to better serve their respective community, lake or river association, or nonprofit organization; and . distributed $41 million in grants and loans In Stearns County alone we have: . provided $7.7 million in grants and loans; . leveraged an additional $19.4 million in private investment; . helped create or retain 1173 jobs; " engaged citizens in our capacity-building programs We have been, and continue to be, your local community foundation. In addition to the Initiative Foundation's mission'-specific work, we remain nimble to address challenges and opportunities as they arise, convening broad coalitions of citizens around such issues as affordable housing, preservation planning initiatives, and the scourge of meth labs. In these challenging times, perhaps no investment would be more significant or important than one made with us. Your gift does have direct impact on your community! Thank you in advance for supporting our programs and services. Sincerely, -;! / C,,i.<:-f/'! {.1 (tLjl../ / '" / ./ L" '/ #. j'j /J .... . // ! ll/~_/" -- l I (,.' [. I ,. Mark A. Lease Donor Services Officer tI/( . -- cc: Curt Hanson, Vice President for Donor Services PS: The Initiative Foundation will be sending a 2007 Budget Request to the City by mid-June 2006. 405 FIRST STREET SE ' LITTLE FALL~" MN 56345 w/ I,tr ,titi::,;,< .,. .'.".:':"1"". V/\Io/\N.IFOUND.ORG PHONE: ;:-320.632.9255 FA}.:: 020.C,~$2_925P, r=:O!.;AL OP1'Ur~TUl';IT-'" LENDEh. r>l~("'\'IlH::!.. /\.1'1)' ;~;:\"1f',-J;\T:I~. 2") yeAH", D'c MAI(lhl(;, MINNESa1".... Qlr::<=:)'l.Ti!"