HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-12 CC Packet Special Meeting
e
.
.
I
I
AGENDA
CITY OF STILLWATER
CITY COUNCIL MEETING NO. 95-40
December 12, 1995
SPECIAL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
216 North Fourth Street
1. This is the day and time for the public hearing to consider the City of Stillwater
Comprehensive Plan.
_ Summary of Comprehensive Phase.
_ Impact of plan on transportation systems.
_ Assessment policy and rural taxing district.
_ Results of town board/city council meetings.
- Public comment.
_ Adoption of City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan (Resolution)
2. Other business
ADJOURNMENT
\agenda\l212
.
.
.
1"'\ 0 ~I,.., t-e'
Memorandum
To:
Mayor and Council
From:
Steve Russell, Community Development Director
Date:
December 8, 1995
Subject:
Public Hearing on City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan
BACKGROUND:
The plan before you tonight is the result of over two years of community planning effort.
The plan is recommended by your Planning Commission for adoption. A swnmary of the
voluminous plan is attached along with a description of key plan elements. (Copies of the
complete plan and related fiscal studies have previously been disseminated to Council
members. )
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
On November 15, 1995, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
Comprehensive Plan. Approximately 50 people were in attendance, fourteen people spoke.
Most of the testimony was from township residents. (Minutes of meeting and speaker list
attached). As a result of that testimony, the Commission revised the city plan area to
eliminate lands bounded by Stonebridge Trail (east) TH 96 (north), Railroad right-of-way
(south), and existing city boundary on the east, from the comprehensive plan area. Members
felt that city services would not be extended to this area designated open space on the
comprehensive plan and that township planning and zoning policies and regulations for the
area were similar to city's intent.
A second area of concern raised by township residents was the economic impact to them of
city expansion. They were concerned about the increased property taxes paid by City
residents and utility assessments that they may be required to pay. Commissioners heard their
concerns and in response recommended the City's application of the rural taxing district to
existing township residents in the City growth area. They recommended that the rural taxing
district be phased in over 5 years.
The second economic concern was the cost to existing residents of extending urban services to
the growth area. Much background information has been provided on how, where and when
utility services (water and sewer) would be extended to the area. General cost per household
or area estimates are provided in the Comprehensive Plan fiscal study. This information is
useful in gauging the overall costs of the utility projects but not useful at distributing those
costs to specific properties. This can not accurately be done until an actual project is
petitioned for and a specific service district established.
.
However, to address the economic concerns of township residents, a city policies on how
assessments will be viewed by the City would be useful. A copy of recently developed South
Hill "hookup" policy, ordinance 797, is enclosed.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission after hearing public testimony and receiving the plan recommend it
for Council adoption. (Resolution attached)
REMAINING PLAN ISSUES
Phasing or sequencing of growth within the City expansion area is critical to the
implementation of the plan. The engineering studies indicate south to north phasing because
of existing utility system and conditions. The fiscal study indicates the risks of not phasing
public improvement financing or not relating development to actual development.
A third factor is forcasted or expected growth and service capacity. Over the past 5 to 10
years, the City of Stillwater has grown at a rate of 100-150 housing units per year.
The Comprehensive Plan expansion area can be divided into two areas of growth, south and
north of CRI2. Each area can accommodate approximately 600 new housing units
representing 4 to 6 years of growth. It is recommended that the City Council consider
indicating a Phase I and Phase II growth area for the 1995-2000 and 2000 -- + time periods.
This direction would be helpful presenting the Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan
Council and more specifically planning for growth over the next 5 to 10 years period.
Phasing of utilities could also be a part of an orderly annexation agreement.
.
Once the City Council takes action on this Comprehensive Plan, it will be forwarded to the
Metropolitan Council for review and approval. Staff has met several times with Metropolitan
Council staff and feel the plan is consistent with regional and County planning policies.
RECOMMENDATION: Action on Comprehensive Plan (Resolution attached)
Attachments:
Resolution and minutes from Planning Commission meeting of 11-15-95.
Comprehensive Plan and Fiscal Report (previously distributed).
Draft Council resolution adopting the City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan.
.
Clarific;Jtion of Key Stillwater Comprehensive Plan Elements
In response to the City Council Comprehensive Plan public hearing, December 12, there have been
.any articles and letters to the editor in area newspapers that contain inaccurate information
examples enclosed). This report addresses some of the misinformation and describes key plan
elements
Population Growth - The plan, if implemented, could result in the City of Stillwater growing from a
population of 15,500 (April 1994) to a population of 20,300 or a 30 percent increase over the next 25
years. Of the 4,800 population increase, 1,400 or over 35 percent of the growth would take place in
the existing city. The remaining 65 percent would result from growth in the township planned growth
area.
To give perspective to the planned growth, over the past 25 years, since 1970, Stillwater has grown
from 10,196 to 15,500 representing a 50 percent increase. The planned growth is substantially less
then the growth experienced by the city over the last 25 years. If the township area remains in the
township and develops at township zoning densities, 300 to 400 housing units and 800 to 1,000
people can be expected to live in the area.
Existing Comprehensive Plan - The City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City in
1979/1980 describes the area west of the city bounded by TH 96, CR 15 and TH 36 as an urban
transition area slated for future city annexation and development. Utilities were planned and sized to
accommodate city expansion into the area. The idea of city growth in the township area is not new.
It has been proposed for over 15 years.
Impact of Comprehensive Plan on City Taxpayer - Two extensive fiscal impact studies were
-~nducted by the city as a part of the plan development process. The reports concluded, based on
~omprehensive Plan development, the revenues generated by the development will more than pay
the costs of operating city services in the area. It is the policy of the city that new development pay
for new infrastructure (roads and utilities) improvements costs.
This means city residents will not pay for new development, capital facilities or operating costs. New
development will support itself. Based on plan buildout, the fiscal studies estimated annual revenues
to be $1 to $3 million in excess of city costs.
Need for New Schools - Growth that results from city expansion will require additional educational
facilities. This is the case for any development in the school district (most of Washington County).
The argument can be made that if growth does not occur in the City of Stillwater it will occur in other
parts of the school district requiring school facilities in a different location. School services are
provided on a school district basis not by the city.
Environmental Concerns - The Comprehensive Plan, natural resource and open space section
contains policies to preserve and protect ravines, wetlands, sloped areas, shorelands, woodlands,
Brown's Creek, Long Lake and South Twin Lake. The regulations require protection of natural
resources through setbacks and buffering. No environmental impact statement is required because
the plan is not a project although the plan does consider and address the general environmental
effects of plan implementation.
.parks and Open Space - Plan policies require the dedication of land from new development to
accommodate neighborhood and community park needs generated by the development. Besides
the park dedication requirements, the Stillwater Area Open Space Committee has inventoried open
space sites and are testing public support to increase taxes for acquisition of significant open space
lands. An extensive neighborhood and community-wide..trail system is proposed in the plan.
Sewer and Water Services - Sewer and water service capacity to accommodate planned growth
has been constructed or is contemplated in utility plans. The utility service capacity is available to
accommodate planned for growth.
.
Existing City Streets, Sidewalks, Parks and Other Facilities - Over the last four years, the city
has made substantial improvements to its existing public facilities. Examples are the street and
sidewalk improvement programs and downtown revitalization. These programs will continue with the
adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the new plan places more emphasis on
rehabilitation and preserving the existing housing stock as well as neighborhood parks and public
facilities.
Economic Development - This plan provides for economic development and growth of the local
economy by designating lands for commercial and industrial development. The plan provides for
new job growth as well as housing growth to maintain Stillwater as a "freestanding growth center", a
designation given the Stillwater area by the Metropolitan Council.
Housing - The plan provides for a range of housing types and tenures, single family large lot and
small lot, townhouse and multifamily (in the existing city). The plans housing element affirmatively
addresses the regional requirements for life-cycle housing.
Plan Preparation Process - The plan update process began in August of 1993. During the past two
years, the Planning Commission held monthly meetings on the plan revision. Plan issues were
identified, goals and objectives developed, eight alternative land use plans studied and finally a plan .
selected as the Comprehensive Plan.
Stillwater Township Viability - Based on the Comprehensive Plan, 1,900 acres of township land will
be annexed by the City of Stillwater. The township currently contains 11,647 acres.
City expansion will reduce the township land area by 16 percent. In comparison, Bay town Township
contains 6,169 acres and West Lakeland Township 7,972 acres. Both Bay town and West Lakeland
townships are much smaller than Stillwater Township yet have a tax rate 50 percent lower than
Stillwater Township's existing tax rate. Size of township does not appear to effect township viability
or tax rate.
Assessments for Sewer and Water Service - Existing township homeowners in the city expansion
area will not be assessed for urban services they do not need or use. When urban sewer or water
service is requested by existing township residences, they will pay a portion of the service extension
cost.
Rural Taxing District - The Stillwater City Council is considering the application of a rural taxing
district to reduce the tax impact of city growth on existing homeowners.
.
C:\WPWI N60\95PLANNI\COMP-F AC. RPT
e.
e
.
STILL WATER PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
November 15, 1995
The Stillwater Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update
on Wednesday, November 15, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall.
Members of the Planning Commission present were: Glenna Bealka, Duane Elliott, Rob Hamlin,
Kirk Roetman, Don Valsvik, Darwin Wald, Terry Zoller, and Chairman Gerald Fontaine.
Also present were: Community Development Director Steve Russell, City Attorney David
Magnuson, Consulting Engineer Richard Moore, and Consulting Traffic Engineer Glen Van
Wormer.
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Fontaine. Community Development
Director Russell gave background information on the Comprehensive Plan Update Process. He
reviewed the Land Use, Natural Resources and Open Space, and Fiscal Impact portions of the
plan.
Glen Van Wormer, consulting traffic engineer from Short Elliott and Hendrickson, reviewed the
Transportation section of the plan. Richard Moore, consulting engineer, Short Elliott and
Hendrickson, reviewed the Public Facilities section.
City Attorney David Magnuson explained the effect on real estate taxes for the p~operties in the
annexation area.
(The Commission took a 10-minute break at 8:05 p.m.)
Chairman Fontaine opened the meeting to comments from the public:
Tom Johnson, 12340 77th St., asked about assessments; about what effect development will have
on the water table; and why the area south of Boutwell would not be zoned for single family
homes instead of multi-family.
Rick Reidt, 7155 Melville Court, stated that the comprehensive plan update process has been a
waste of time. He also asked about green space, traffic, and the effect of development on
Brown's Creek and Long Lake.
Ed Otis, 12070 87th Street Circle, stated that the Planning Commission did not listen to the
residents. He does not want to live in the City of Stillwater.
Corey Mohen, 1112 South 2nd Street, member of the Open Space Committee, stated he is
concerned about City expansion. He would like to see the rural area kept rural. He also asked
that the City pledge tax relief to those affected by annexation. He also asked that the City
compromise on density. He asked if there would be flexibility in the plan to increase park/open
space if funding became available.
Stillwater Planning Commission
Minutes
November 15, 1995
Jerry Hicks, 10680 North Stonebridge, Town Board Supervisor, stated he is totally opposed to
any type of annexation.
Mike Anderson, 1312 South 4th Street, asked if the Rural Taxing District was included in the
Fiscal Impact Study.
Tim Sinclair, 14411 Dellwood Road, stated that Stillwater is historic, and the plan will double
the City in size, require increased services, will increase traffic, pollution and taxes. He
presented two petitions: one from six township residents directly affected by annexation, and one
with 1,000 signatures of township and city residents opposed to the plan.
Glenn Thompson, 1919 West Oak Street, stated he opposes any annexation.
Dan Herbst, Pemtom Land Company, commended the Planning Commission and encouraged the
commission to adopt the plan.
David Francis, 11080 Penfield Avenue, Town Board Chairman, stated that there is a lack of
sensitivity on the part of the commission; annexation is a hostile takeover; he requested that the
City and Township resume dialog regarding density, commercial sites, and assessment policy.
David Ruch, 1124 Nightengale, stated that as a City resident, he is not clear on why the City
wants to annex land; what are the benefits?
Barbara Chase, 7759 Minor Avenue North, stated she is concerned about the school system.
Marc Putman, Charles Cudd Co., stated that high-quality housing is planned for the Newman
homestead, and will have an effect on the local economy.
Richard Huelsmann, 12610 62nd Street North, owner of property in the Township and City,
stated that the estimated cost of extending the water main is $10-15 million and asked who will
pay that cost.
City staff responded to the public's questions. Mr. Russell stated that the area south of Boutwell
will be zoned to provide a mix of housing types. The buffer areas will be 50 to 150 feet. Mr.
Moore discussed how Brown's Creek and Long Lake levels will be maintained.
Molly Shodeen of the DNR, stated that Long Lake levels have not been regulated.
2
.
.
.
I
.
.
:.
Stillwater Planning Commission
Minutes
November 15, 1995
Mr. Russell responded to Corey Mohen's question about flexibility in the plan, and stated that
the plan will support the activities of the Open Space Committee.
Richard Schubert, 8822 North Stone Bridge Trail, stated that he has previously dealt with the
issue of annexation and stated that he does not want to be annexed to the City.
Chairman Fontaine closed the public hearing at 10:10 p.m. The Commission discussed the plan
and several amendments to the plan. Kirk Roetman stated that he was in support of the plan that
was agreed upon by the Joint Task Force. Mr. Fontaine stated that he was also in support of the
original plan, and thought that the Township was in favor ofthe compromise plan. When the
Township Board rejected the compromise plan, the Planning Commission looked at other
alternatives and he now supports the plan being presented.
Motion by Terry Zoller, seconded by Rob Hamlin to eliminate from the Comprehensive Plan the
property east of Stonebridge Trail, north of the railroad. Ayes - 5; Nays - 2, Abstain - 1.
Motion by Terry Zoller, seconded by Darwin Wald to direct staff to prepare a study of the impact
of the Rural Taxing District on the fiscal analysis done earlier by Tautges and Associates. Ayes-
8; Nays - O.
Motion by Rob Hamlin, seconded by Darwin Wald to adopt Resolution 95-1, recommending
adoption of the 1995 Stillwater Comprehensive Plan Update. Ayes - 7; Nays - 1.
Mr. Russell stated that the recommendation will go to the City Council, and the Council will
hold a public hearing sometime in December.
Motion by Darwin Wald, seconded by Kirk Roetman to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m. All in
favor.
Submitted by:
Shelly Schaubach
Recording Secretary
3
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-1
A RESOLUTION OF THE STILLWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF THE 1995 STILLWATER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
WHEREAS, the Stillwater Planning Commission is the "Planning Agency" of the City of
Stillwater, a Home Rule, City of the Third Class, within the meaning of Minnesota Statute 9462.355;
and,
WHEREAS, more than two (2) years ago, the Planning Commission with the assistance of City
staff and the public began a study of existing conditions within the City and of future trends for City and
Regional growth, identified key issues with regard to community planning goals and objectives and
thereafter studied future plan alternatives and the impacts of plan alternatives on the planning area; and,
WHEREAS, extensive community participation has been a part of each phase of developing the
plan and the Planning Commission has actively sought community participation by conferring with
volunteer organizations and meeting from time to time with representatives from the Town of Stillwater
in an effort to seek agreement and consensus to any plan update; and,
WHEREAS, on April 25, 1995, a public hearing was held by the City Council to receive
recommendations from the public on a plan and because of concern expressed at this public hearing and
because of the opposition of the Town of Stillwater Board of Supervisors that was expressed at the
hearing, the Council ordered that additional information be developed on the impact of the plan on the
existing City and a detailed fiscal analysis was therefore prepared to determine the cost of future
development and methods of allocating expenses connected with development and this information has
been incorporated into the plan; and,
WHEREAS, the process of developing the plan has been exhaustive, lengthy and painstaking and
all available, reasonable information has been collected and analyzed and the plan as presented in its
present form represents the best efforts of the community and the best plan for regulating City growth
for the next twenty (20) years; and,
WHEREAS, on November 15, 1995, the Planning Commission held the public hearing required
by Minnesota Statute 9462.355 after giving the notice required by law; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER,
MINNESOTA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the comprehensive plan presented and considered by the Planning Commission on
November 15, 1995, is hereby approved by the Planning Commission and recommended to the City
Council of the City of Stillwater for adoption along with the following recommendations:
1.1 That all of the property bounded by TH 36 on the South, Manning Avenue to the
West and TH 96 to the North except for the property East of Stonebridge Trail that is
North of the railroad right of way be annexed to the City at the present time and the
growth phased in this area over the planning period.
1.2 That the City Council adopt by ordinance a formula for the Rural Taxing
District of the City that would result in a percentage of net tax capacity for newly annexed
areas of the City that would, in the year of annexation, closely approximate the percentage
of net tax capacity that these property owners pay at the Township rate (16.695% for pay
1996) and that the percentage of net tax capacity be increased in yearly increments over
five (5) years to gradually reach the percentage of net tax capacity currently in effect
for the City's Rural Taxing District (30.12% for pay 1996). Further, that the Council
direct staff to prepare a study of the impact of the Rural Taxing District on the fiscal
analysis done earlier by Tautges and Associates.
1.3 That the City Council adopt a policy that would require a feasibility report with
regard to any public improvement, with appraisal evidence with regard to the impact of
any assessments on a property not requesting or participating in the improvement process
with an emphasis on the impact on already developed, large rural residential parcels and
that reasonable accommodations be made to any owners that would suffer hardship by
reason of the improvements or the burden of any resulting assessments.
1.4 That the City Council adopt zoning restrictions for the newly annexed area that
would legitimize rural unserviced residential parcels of 2 Ih acres and larger but that
would prohibit the further subdivision of these parcels unless platted and prohibit the
further subdivision of any large tracks unless utilities are extended to the area and the
property platted and developed into an urban density.
Enacted by the Planning Commission of the City of Stillwater this 15th day of November, 1995.
~~~"'-
/' ,~
.- // '----~~~~
,-..-,- Jerry Fontaine, Chairman
Jlh"
ArrEST:
.
.
I
.
PLANNING COMM.ISSION
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
.
NOVEMBER 15, 1995
7PM
CITY OF STILLWATER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET
Name
Address
Phone Number
2
3
4
5
6
7/5'5" /Y1GG. ...,~(..G <:,
/ J..o7o
I 17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
Lois J. Cosgrove
1472 Highland Road
Stillwater, MN 55082
hJvc/ ~ ~
II' I) -1>
~1J/
{I'/ //
p/
.
November 2, 1995
Steve Russell
City Hall
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Re: Development just south of W. Orleans
Dear Mr. Russell
I understand you are open to ideas about what to do with the land
south of the Highlands of Stillwater and the Cottages. I strongly
think that the properties should be built for purchase as opposed
to rental, like some more nice townhouses. I don I t know if
Stillwater needs this or not, but how about a facility for semi-
independent living for the elderly? It I S near the Senior Community
Center, shopping and a clinic. Although it would not be purchased
property, I feel this kind of thing would not threaten the property
values of the nearby homes.
Thank you for soliciting suggestions and I hope the ideas people
have will be a positive influence on the outcome.
.
Sincerely,
~ 9 (lfK?4~
Lois J. Cosgrove
I
.
~'~~i
tinilY" 01 Sil" 1'1,'1111111~. .\I(l1il,'("IIII,,1 1)",igl1 Ie. C,,",lructl""
.. ._.____.__~~_______.__.__. _~__._______ _______..__._ ____________. .__ ____ __on __ ___
f'=:;2 '.....C>=='=_:'\~~ =~ \".j<:)CC:~',-,~~Y ==':=:::
The NEWMAN Homestead Property
STILLWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
-- AREAS OF eONCERN-----
=:-~.=:'>,~ ",:='':=::7,=- :::3':=.= ;::-,'\'< ~e'2,-7=~ L:-2>::::::='
Mem bers of the
Stillwater Planning Commission _
do Steve Russell, Community Development Director
216 N. 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
11/15/95
Dear Planning Commission members,
It is a pleasure to be able to address several significant issues that will have substantial
effect on our involvement in a large and visually prominent part of the future western
edge of Stillwater... The Newman homestead. These are the ancestral lands of the
Newman family dating back some 143 years.
Steve Russel has made a significant impact on our work to date and much of the new
Compo Plan you've worked so hard oRwill, we feel~ help us past the threshold to do
we feel we do best...create beautiful neighborhoods. Please consider the following
tho~ghts jn yoUr final Comprehensive Plan recommendations to the Council.
VERVIEW :Our involvement with the Newman homestead parallels the city's expe-
rience in its comprehensive planning efforts: our time spent in planning has set a
record; (2 years +, Concept Site Plan 14A and counting!) This is our longest period of
time in planning to date, in over 25.years of such work.
I
This work arid time passage has'been difficult, but al~o positive... we now understand
the impacts of potential regulatory actions that will affect tQe viability of creating
various land uses, lot, street & open~pace patterns, lot sizes and home price ranges.
The policy positions that are advocated here, we feel, are most beneficial to both the
property owners involved and the City in the achievement of the mutually desired
goals of (1) minimized risk, (2) maximum predictability of quality outcome, (3) mini-
mizing traffic conflicts, (4) maximizing the aesthetic contribution that the new
developments will make toward the image, character, appearance and value of
Stillwater's new, westerly ~~front door".
Some of these issues may be dealt with in more detail when zoning/subdivision ordi-
nance refinement occurs in support of the new Comprehensive Plan. However, that
the final guidance may now be given with these final actions of the Planning
Commission and City Council leads us to list them below. Our planning responses to
I what we understand to be the #spirit" of the Plan and the possible negative impacts
.:~,,:~:~~ applications ~f some c~~p. plan guidelines are noted.
I :::::~2=- /.,r<:=-'-.-- =___~ _,-\ f.;:..- ==_...:::::::;
=-':-=.:'<~ -:::',2 L-:~7.= '2':'==~- '5':::::..::...7-=;::::-.::=.=:
. ,IiI hilt'l fur" .
I jl'~i'.:;l1 '.', 11:lI1i~lltll..l~ .- t
..rinlI11I',II,1I1011;" ,,('I\jlt' .
'1,111
"
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE NEWMAN HOMESTEAD:
Density: The 2-4 DU / Acre densities allocated to this site are able to accommodate the home types .
we anticipate. We urge flexibility "in specific application of the densities, based on market prefer-
ences as interpreted by builders and developers responding to consumer needs, wants and desires
and meeting current buyer demands. '
Park, Openspace & Generating Value to Pay for Quality and Beauty: Our plans have responded to
earlier plan commission guide plan and planning staff requests by providing be,rIning and path way'
space along Manning Ave. and a continuous path system adjacent to Long lake, providing well in
excess of current park requirements ...and much more.
We urge a parity with prior regulation: introduction of substantially more restrictive regulations
that limit phase sizes, increase park! open space amounts, increases lake set-backs, limit J'wo~d-
land" use will likely force a return to a more standard land use, road patterns, lot and home types,
eliminating neighborhood greens and numerous other amenity features. '
Multi-family uses can more easily accommodate land acquisition for public uses.' This is not the
case with single family, detached home communities'. High value neighborhoods depend heavily
on "spreading the value" from higher value lake access I lake view or wooded lots to lots not
fronting on such major homesite amenities.
Limiting the use of wooded areas, demanding strict preservation of tree lines and Bluff line
restrictions that prevent the creation of "walkout" homes on Long Lake will remove the home- .
site's aesthetic values that originally attractedJls the this land. This will, we feel, work against '
many of the City's goals and restrict the accomplishment of the highest value neighborhood.
Requiring City acquisition of land for excessively wide.buffers adjacent to Manning Ave. will'
cause a significant increase in per lot costs and result in very high per acre charges for such pub-
lic use land.
Commission members, Thankyou in advance for considering our concerns when writing the final
form of the comprehensive plan. The proper qualitative requirements and built in flexibilities advo-
cated by the Plan will enable and foster response to market demands which will, in turn, foster the
financial viability of the'developments in their ability to respond to buyer preferences & purchase
capabilities. This, of course, will reimburse the City for its capital investment in utility extensions
and other necessary infrastructure investments while enabling the creation of the best neighbor-
Chari' Cud Company .
Vice President, Planning , ,
Landscape Architect.
.
.
I.
iSTILLWATER TOWNSHIP
i
I Box 117
I Stillwater, Minne50tl 55082
I -r;:
I
I
I
. ".,y y/
VV .LD
Y
/J1 if\- L tU-R~
ti"l:ln: Mr ~'f-(. '
fkA..() '1AJ a..<t- t\ rf-L' t -
ovember 101 1995 i ~I..:O /e.!ti-~ - ~wt '<;
JI I 4~d I( ctili; ~ ill .
J K"mbl \ ~k,. (),. e.t2 (S ~.
ayor ay 1 e ~ ~ (~~
ity of Stillwat~r I CCt..I2 (JU"rA..-J..JJ.J) J. ....
16 North 4th Street a ,~- ",(j.€.Lt'-5
tilhvater I MN 55082. \ . __ _
ear Mayor Kimble, J
~e write to you with ur c~ncern~ over the course of
~he City Council has ~aken toward~ ~he adoption of an
gomprehensive Plan. T,hese actions 'stand to put us on
course with respect t9 the implementation of the Camp
p.lan. History ShoulanlteaCh.us tha~ battling out our
efore the Municipal ~oard 15 not 1n the best interes
f our communities.
ur involvement in th stillwater comprehensive plann'ng proc
ad us feeling welcom~d, ~le to contribute numerous luggesti
~nd ideas and also ab e to hear and better understand many of ~he
~roblems and challen9~s that the city is faced wi~h. We foun
lhat there were many more areas of agreement than Idis greemen .
'1"'" public statement, ~ated April 25th 1995 in opposi tlion to t
Jhen p1:oposed plan wa~ intended to corgmunicate 'that w~ were n
tn agreement, due to some specific concernS, but in nd way we we
1ntending to stop dis~ussions. I
We would like to sugge1st a different course of action, that bei;ng
J negotiated sett.leme~tthat would have both communities agre :Lng
dn the development plan for the future. While this suggested \
~pproach may cause us ;to consider some considerable cqmpromis ~ in
"'1hat our plans for the area might be, we. feel that i t li~ "lort ,the
effort to try. Skeptics among the Counc1l members may :l.nterpret
this action as yet andther time delaying tactic. This is not he
~ase at all. W~ a1:e not asking for any interruption ~o the
current schedule of comprehensive plan review and nub]ic heari ,9,
dur suggestion is to Jork on an agreement at the s~eltime. 0
\ l I !
i I
I !
I i
\
I {;;.. PrinlC'eJ on Recycled p,lpcr
..
P ge Two
Nbvember 10, 1995
M~YOr Jay Kimble
.
rrpresentatives of the Stillwater Town Board stand rea y to me
wIth two representativ~s of the City Council as soon a possib
tf determine if an agrfement can be reached.
WI look forward to yout pos,tlv~ reply.
sInCerelY. I
srillwat~r TownSh'ip BO~~d Members
~~?~~
~d ~ran::(l(Chairpelson)
Johnsp I
.
I
I-
I
I
!
i
I
I
I
I
i
\
.
(~ a #,.
.
.
.
November 22, 1995
.. (V
{J if' </
~
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Attention: Stephen S. Russell, Community Development Director
Re: Comprehensive Plan / Future of 72nd Street North
Dear Mr. Russell,
The purpose of this letter is to advise the City of our position on the future of
72nd Street North, should the City annexation plan become effective. As
indicated we have recently purchased the property located at 12620 72nd
Street North. This property is located adjacent, on the west, to the DNR Wildlife
Preserve and overflow pond for Long Lake. The property, as purchased and
valued, is in the Township and is essentially rural-like in nature with a very low
volume, vehicular traffic, dirt road(72nd Street) passing across the southern
portion of the property. That portion of the property is of particular concern and
value, since it contains the rather extensive lake shore portion of the property. A
visual check of the area indicates that this is the only property on Long Lake that
presents such a unique situation.
As owners of the property we would request to have major input to any decision
related to future changes to the nature of that road or to the volume of traffic that
may occur as a result of any future development to the area. Such changes
could drastically affect the use of our property and its value as purchased or
enhanced. In addition we have a special concern for the preservation of the
adjacent DNR Wildlife Preserve.
It is our proposal, in order to preserve the value of the property and also to help
protect the environment of the DNR Wildlife Preserve, that in the event of any
future development of the lands to the West, 72nd Street be totally closed from
Mid Oaks Avenue going west to the driveway which provides access to the
property at 12620 72nd Street. N. In other words, 72nd Street would approach
the property from the West and dead-end at our driveway. We realize that this
would place upon us a level of inconvenience in that access to our property
would be only from the West(Manning) or North(Cty #12) as any future
development access roads may dictate.
The benefits of this proposal far outweigh any negative aspects to all
concerned. For example, there is the savings to the City and taxpayers to
develop and maintain that portion of roadway. In addition this would eliminate
1
..
72nd Street from becoming an asphalt 'thoroughfare' connecting future .
developments with the existing older development. The resulting increase in
traffic flow and speed would pose a serious public safety and traffic safety
problem. That would also pose a threat to the present environment of the DNR
Preserve. In addition, that would adversely affect my ability to use the property
as purchased, plus, it would decrease the value of that property for future sale.
It is noted that there already exists a close 'connecting' roadway, County Road
#12.
Our understanding is that this position is in agreement with the City
Transportation experts as well as DNR interests.
We very much appreciate the opportunity to present our position and we
anticipate that the City will be in agreement on this issue. We also request to be
informed and involved in any upcoming discussion on this important proposal.
Sincerely,
4h$/~
~::Z'nZ~~KenZie
732 Nightingale Blvd.
Stillwater, MN 55082-5216
.
cc: City Council Chair
Minnesota DNR
.;
2
~.::.. ,r '"
I
r.
.
~~-~..
~The
Pemtom Land Company
WESTvVOOD PROFESSIONAL BUILD!NG
14180 HIGH'NAY FIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
(612)937-0716 . F,AX93i.8635
TO: ,City of stillwater
SUBJECT: ~comprehensive Plan
DATE: !November 15, 1995
Our company recently entered into an Option Agreement with
Mr. and Mis. James staloch for the SO acre parcel of land
that they ~own on the west side of Long Lake.
As a newcomer to this major issue affecting the City of
stillwatei, and after attending your workshop on Wednesday,
October 2~, 1995, I was extremely impressed with the amount
of though~, public input, thoroughness, time, and expense
that you ~ave committed to this Comprehensive Plan.
Seldom do~s a city undertake such broad ranging issues at
one ~ime that include Land Use; Natural Resources
.Protection/Open Spacei parks; Trails; Traffic and
circulatio~; Public Facilities: and Fiscal Impact. It gives
the city a chance to almost re-invent the thought processes
involved in looking at your future. I co:m:m.end you for your
effort.
Although the components are complicated, they appear to now
be in pla~ so that the process can move forward in a timely
fashion. It is important to the land owner and to us as
community pevelopers to understand the proposed time frame
so that appropriate decisions may be made.
It is also: important for you and for the housing industry
that we deliver to our stillwater consumers the most cost
efficient ~omes possible and to that end initiating
feasibility studies to determine the best cost alternatives.
Since we a~e just beginning our market analysis of the
property, we are not in a position to give you our feedback
on the land use issue as it relates to the Staloch property.
I am hopeful that there will be enough flexibility in your
Comprehensive Plan and in your implementation ordinances to
allow us to do a cost efficient, creative, and
environmentally sound proposal that will be acceptable in
the market place. In all cases, the consumer as a future
resident of Stillwater should be our most important
emphasis.
city of Stillwater
November as, 1995
Page 2
Mr. and Mrs. Staloch and our company support your efforts
and strongly recommend that the City of stillwater adopt the
Comprehensive Plan and ~ove forward with the steps that are
necessary: to gain Metropolitan council approval and eventual
annexatiop. The issue of annexation seems entirely logical
and 'Well thought out as it relates to the future of
stillwatef as well as Stillwater Township.
We stand ~eady to assist you in any way possible as you move
through this process.
!
Sincerely!,
OM LAND COMPANY
Daniel J..
President;
/C
a:OVd
SCSBl.C5c:tS'QI
^NVdWO~ QNV' wo~wad'WO~d 5t'5t 56-St-^ON
-
.
e
.
~
MAGNUSON LAW FIRM
LICENSED IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN
THE DESCH OFFICE BUILDING
333 NORTH MAIN STREET' SUITE #202 . P.O. Box 438 . STILLWATER, MN 55082
TELEPHONE: (612) 439-9464' TELECOPIER: (612) 439-5641
DAVID T. MAGNUSON
MATTHEW A. STAEHLING
LEGAL ASSISTANTS:
MELODIE ARVOLD
JODI JANTZ
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Steve Russell, City Planner
City Planning Commission
Dave Magnuson ~
November 8, 1995
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Annexation Tax Capacity Issues
--
,-
Some years ago pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statute Section 272.67, the City established by
ordinance Urban and Rural Service Districts. The assumption underlying the statute and the ordinance
is that within the city, some property has not been developed for commercial, industrial or urban
residential purposes and therefore is not benefited to the same degree as other city lands by municipal
services financed by general taxes.
I enclose a copy of Chapter 56 of the City Code and also a recent amendment to Chapter 56 found in
Ordinance 798 that establishes the current 80% ratio between urban and rural service districts. This ratio
does not include the municipal levy for bonds, interests and judgments since these amounts must be paid
by any property owner within the City and there is no authority for eliminating responsibility for payment
of these charges.
For the taxable year payable in 1995, the City's percent of tax capacity is 35.162%. To arrive at the
percent of tax capacity for the Rural Taxing District, we start with a 12.914% of tax capacity since that
is the amount attributable to bonds and interest in the City budget. The balance is 22.248% of tax
capacity. The applicable ratio of 80% or 17.798%, when added to the 12.914%, equals 30.712% tax
capacity for the Rural Taxing District.
The ratio between urban and rural taxing districts must be reviewed annually by the City Council and the
ratio is subject to change at least annually. Further, the Rural Taxing District is created by ordinance
and therefore, could be changed by ordinance. A future council could decide that there is no justification
for the difference in the provision or benefit of municipal services, and therefore, no justification for a
Rural Taxing District.
Page 1
November 8, 1995
RURAL URBAN TAXING DISTRICTS
TAX ESTIMATE FOR PAYABLE 1995
Using the Minnesota Property Tax formula for the pay 96 taxes the following comparison of the
Municipal Tax levy is made using the different net tax capacity rates:
Assuming a $150,000.00 property: The first $ 72,000.00 x 1 % = $ 720.00
Remainder of $ 78,000.00 x 2% = $1,560.00
$ 720.00 + $1,560.00 = $2,280.00
City Urban District:
City Rural District:
Stillwater Township Rate:
Tax
Capacity Taxes
35.162 % = $801.69
30.12 % = $700.23
16.695% = $380.64
$2,280.00 x
$2,280.00 x
$2,280.00 x
DTM/ds
Page 2
e
.
.
e
.
It
ORDINANCE NO. 798
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 56.01,
DEFINING URBAN AND RURAL TAXING DISTRICTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN:
1. AMENDING. The Stillwater City Code is hereby amended by amending Chapter 56.01, Subd.
6, of the Stillwater City Code that shall hereafter read as follows:
Subd. 6. The ratio which exists betvv'een the benefrts resulting from tax supported municipal
service to parcels in the Rural Service District to parcels in the Urban Service District to parcels in the
Urban Service District shall be eighty percent (80%), and in addition, any municipal property taxes
levied for payment of bonds, judgements and interest
2. Saving. In all other ways, Chapter 56.01 shall remain in full force and effect.
3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and
publication according to law.
Adopted by the City Council this 15th day of November 1994.
QIUIJ7~_ - 7/?~
Mayor '(
Attest:
fYl~ 9- (,)~ J
City Cler
Published: Stillwater Gazette
November 28, 1994
State of Minnesota,
AFF/DA V/T of PUBL/t,A T/ON
Stillwater Evening Gazede
PO Box 58, 1025 2nd St, Stillwater, MN 55082
Phone: 612-439-3130 Fax: 612-439-4713
e
County of Washington
Cit'J .,f Sti11w~t",r
216 N J.~h St
St1il''f.;t'''f.. tv1N
55082
No. of
Documents
Col. , of Days
Inches Published
Description/Dates of Publication
.:i 20
1 .75 1 nJn
Ho?';l'"in.~: C.xnpr-.;.h",r,;;ivo;. Plan
12/1/95.
.~I
.
~~~...,,1_:;~:_';1"~{:i'i< :'<.:,~1'$:- ~- ~
-rEvenlng Gu.tt."o8c~ 1, '995, ,
; 'NOnCE OF PUBLIC HEARINGd
The City CoUriCII of the City of StlDwater WiD hold \
a pubic hearing on the Comprehensive Plan .
Tuesday,December~2,l995. Themeetlngwli
start after 7 p.m. 8nd be held In the CouncR
ChambersofCIty HaU, 216 NOl1h Foul1hStreet,
StBlwater, MN. C'i' ,.... '..
The Co~iiStve Plah being considered lor
adoption was rilcommended by the Plamlng ,
. Commission ~'thelr public hearing of Novem- .
bar 15, '1995. . - .
Cop/es of the plan lire available for reVjew at .
City Hall. 216 Nol1h Foul1h Street or the StIR-
water PUblic Ublary,'r,,' L'" '.,
SleveRussell " 'f;'_, 'vic>?s?
Community Development Director
12/1
Mike Mahoney, being duly sworn, on oath says
that he is the Publisher or authorized agent end
employee of the publisher 01 the newspaper
known as Stillwater Evening Gazette, and has
full knowledge of the facts which are stated above.
A. The newspaper has complied with all of the
requirements constituting qualification as a
qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota
Statute 331A.02, 331A.07 and other applicable
laws, as amended.
)
) ss.
)
Jrnl #
2111
Date
1 2-1]4-95
Buslnes. Name
Pages
1 (If 1
Cit'J of Still", .;tet-
2i6 N 4th St
:::ti1lw .;t",r.. f'1N
55082
Unit
Rate
Total
Amount
2 AOO
Total Amount
4.:0
Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A 10 Z.
both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size
and kind 01 type used in the compositi9f' and publication
of Ih. ....,~' ~
ab'd.'.hljklm"OpqBI"'7~ ' .
By: --f - . A k ttL{.A,'il 0-(
Title: 'P'tJ lis her
Subscribed and swom to before me on this
.Jj ell day of 7:JIJ -<' tJ pt/ Jo,( 19 9(
D~~Ul 1f(3(}~~(/L-,/_
Notary Public
Received Payment
. 19
'r~- .V\
~('"
L.....
.......
~.
DEBRA I<. CClBURN
NOTARv PU~L1C. MIN:;ESOTA
My Commission Expires Jan. 31. 2000
illwater
'~ ~
-- ,~
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA 'J
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
..'"
.'. .':-t"~
::tf:p=.
..., ':'t." ',,,"
__?"~.~7~~~..~ .:;~
. ,,",',,'. "i~
j1~~~~~
~4Z;;~
-:-:1t.~:'_~_',~ '.:~
.. ~~~~1~
. :~-. ':;~~:7~-'.~:~;.~r~
..~-.'---"~'"
.._......:.,.;,.~...:.-~-"..-'-~
~p~-- . ;:~~~
~ <~~ -,,;.;- ".
..:::.7.,.....1,;.....'_.:
.~~:=:...:.'.~::....:.
w r _ _. . '~
~~~~~_._.
....:.;;-=...;oi.; .
~:~~~l:?~~'
,~.~.~ ._.;.; .
~~~-
:..~;. _A. -. .""".
".......-..".~_........
. ?_.r~_. -'<';::-1'"
.,s_ ..'w... ~..~;...
.... """""'. '-'~'."
... ':~ .;'1
.~. .....a.-
~'.':~:-
,,"""'.' :-.
"..',
---"-'" __....1
. -"""'-.-' . .~
'-', "':"..'~
"C. ',,','J"
,. '~~,!~ '-~10. ~':"~~." ....v4.;~ ':~~?
/i
"-1/
/: LL
',/ !
6L t~<L, l(
1)- - 1- 7.Y':~'
,,-"'" '-'-''''''
-( ~:';7
'~1'~,~~~:t.;!~.
\, ',,1~~..~:..i;.,;~~.,
~~~-:~;:.~.; [;5>P'
'~ff":~~-:~
..,
".r,-.,
-,
,
- .,
~-:~"':' :._~ :"<r:'--:-
, ,
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWAT~R. MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
.; ~..:.:.- 4'i..~~::
~::::c:j~.::. ~:~:~~/
..;
~..
.
.
ORDINANCE NO. 797
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
STILLWATER CITY CODE ~29.03
"REQUIRED CONNECTION TO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM"
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN:
Section I. Amending. The City Code is amended so that ~29.03 shall hereafter read as follows:
"29.03. REOUIRED CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM.
Subd.1. CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM REOUIRED.
1. The owner of all houses, buildings or properties used for human occupancy,
employment, recreation or other purposes and abutting on any right of way in
which there is now located a public sanitary sewer of the city is hereby required
to connect its plumbing facilities directly to the City sewer system. A permit
application and connection shall be made within a period of 90 days of receipt
of notification from the Public Works Director.
The Public Works Director must issue notification in any of the following cases:
a. Surface eruption of sewage.
b.
Backup of sewage from the disposal unit into other facilities of the
system.
c. Discharge of a tracer dye from the disposal system.
d. Discharge of a flowing stream of raw or partially treated effluent from
the treatment units of the system to the environment.
e. Contamination of ground water by treatment or disposal units of the
system.
f. Any part of the system located in an area demonstrated to exhibit
fluctuations in the ground water or surface water to within 3 feet
vertically of the lowest elevation of the system.
g. Any part of the system located in an area having been designated by the
County Soils Atlas or floodplain maps to be subject to seasonal
fluctuations of groundwater or surface water elevations which are less
than 3 feet in vertical separation from the system.
h. Any conventional onsite disposal system located in an area designated by
the County Soils Atlas as having soils typically exhibiting percolation
rates slower than 60 mpi.
i.
Any mounded type of disposal system located in an area designated by
the County Soils Atlas as having soils typically exhibiting percolation
rates slower than 120 mpi.
.
j. Any type of disposal system located in an area designated by the County
Soils Atlas as having soils typically exhibiting percolation rates faster
than 5 mpi.
k. Any type of disposal system located in an area designated as floodplain
by the County Soils Atlas or other governmental sponsored publication.
1. Any type of disposal system located in an area designated by the County
Soils Atlas as having soils which have typically less than four feet of
separation from bedrock or other impermeable barrier.
m. Any part of the disposal system located in an area closer than 50 feet to
any portion of a public or private water supply.
n. Any system constructed with materials prohibited or of inferior or lesser
quality than that required by the City's onsite sewer ordinance.
o. Any system exhibiting an emission of noxious odors discernible from a
separated distance of 10 feet.
p. Not later than January 1,2010.
.
Subd. 2. APPEAL. The property owner shall be permitted a period of 30 days following receipt
of the notification to request a variance from this section from the City Council. The Council
shall then issue an order suspending or enforcing the Public Works Director's notification within
a further period of 30 days.
Subd.3. IMMEDIATE CONNECTION REQUIRED. Any new building built within the City
which is on property which has City sewer service available must have its plumbing facilities
connected to the City Sewer System upon construction. The use of individual sewage disposal
systems shall not be allowed. In addition, any building in which a municipal water system is
being installed shall be connected to the City Sewer at the same time if the Sewer Service is
available.
Subd. 4. INST ALLA TION OF INDIVIDU AL SEW AGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. No individual
sewage disposal system shall be hereafter constructed without a permit issued by the Council.
In considering a request~ the Council shall investigate the feasibility of the extension of the City
Sewer System to serve the property for which the permit is requested. If it finds extension to be
feasible, the Council shall order the extension of facilities in the customary manner.
Subd. 5. PENALTIES AND CONTINUED VIOLATIONS. Any person or firm failing to
observe the provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction
thereof shall be subject to the applicable penalties therefore. Each and every day that a violation
of this ordinance continues to exist shall constitute a separate violation. "
-2-
.
e
.,.
.
Section II. SA VING. In all other ways the City Code shall remain in full force and effect.
Section III. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage and publication according to law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 1.ll- day of November
1994.
ad ~(?,~~~f?
Charles M. Hooley, Its Mayor V
ATTEST:
rrr:.1;, fJ, , /.{ ), t? d"",,- .d
Modi eldon, ts Clerk
Published: Stillwater Gazette
December 5, 1994
-3-
.
.
It
AGENDA.
CITY OF STILLWATER
CITY COUNCIL MEETING NO. 95-40
December 12, 1995
SPECIAL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
216 North Fourth Street
1. This is the day and time for the public hearing to consider the City of Stillwater
Comprehensive Plan.
- Summary of Comprehensive Phase.
- Impact of plan on transportation systems.
- Assessment policy and rural taxing district.
- Results of town board/city council meetings.
- Public comment.
- Adoption of City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan (Resolution)
2. Other business
ADJOURNMENT
\agenda\12I2
.
.
I
!.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE STILLWATER
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF THE 1995 STILLWATER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
WHEREAS, more than two (2) years ago, the Planning Commission with the assistance of City
staff and the public began a study of existing conditions within the City and of future trends for City and
Regional growth, identified key issues with regard to community planning goals and objectives and
thereafter studied future plan alternatives and the impacts of plan alternatives on the planning area; and,
WHEREAS, extensive community participation has been a part of each phase of developing the
plan and the Planning Commission has actively sought community participation by conferring with
volunteer organizations and meeting from time to time with representatives from the Town of Stillwater .
in an effort to seek agreement and consensus to any plan update; and,
WHEREAS, on April 25, 1995, a public hearing was held by the City Council to receive
comments from the public on a plan and because of concern expressed at this public hearing, the Council
ordered that additional information be developed on the impact of the plan on the existing City and a
detailed fiscal analysis was therefore prepared to determine the cost of future development and methods
of allocating expenses connected with development and this information has been incorporated into the
plan; and,
WHEREAS, the process of developing the plan has been exhaustive, lengthy and painstaking and
all available, reasonable information has been collected and analyzed and the plan as presented in its
present form represents the best efforts of the community and the best plan for regulating City growth
for the next twenty-five (25) years; and,
WHEREAS, on November 15, 1995, the Planning Commission held the public hearing required
by Minnesota Statute ~462.355 after giving the notice required by law; and, thereafter the Planning
Commission resolved that the comprehensive plan presented and considered by the Planning Commission
on November 15, 1995, be approved by the Planning Commission and recommended to the City Council
of the City of Stillwater for adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILL WATER RESOLVES
AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the Comprehensive Plan presented to the City Council at a Public Hearing on
December 12, 1995, as approved by the Planning Commission is hereby adopted.
2. That City Staff is directed to forward the Plan to the Metropolitan Council for review and
approval.
3.
That City Staff is directed to develop a phasing plan for the growth described in the Plan
with the first phase being the property South of County Road 12.
1
4.
That City Staff is directed to request from the Metropolitan Council an extension of the
MUSA or Metropolitan Urban Service Boundary consistent with the phasing plan.
5. That annexation of portions of Stillwater Township described in the Plan be done either
in whole or in part in a manner consistent with the phasing plan, and, if reasonably
possible, by agreement with affected landowners and the Town.
6. That to the extent fiscally reasonable, the recommendations of the Planning Commission
described in ~1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of the Planning Commission Adopting Resolution be
adopted by the City Council and made a part of City policy.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 12th day of December, 1995.
Jay Kimble, Mayor
ATTEST:
Modi Weldon, City Clerk
2
.
.
.
,
\.
CITY OF STILLWATER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
December 12, 1995
7 p.m.
SIGN UP SHEET
If you wish to comment on the Comprehensive Plan at this meetin2, please sign below. The City
Council will take your comments in this order. Thank you.
Please Print
NAME
1 V l2:~ttL'L~G~y---------------
. / ''Jb H-J tv\ {: LV \LLE
2\f ---------------------------------------------------------
( \,)1\ \jE .~ lA <:- Yl
~::~I[;:~~::~;;;;~::::::::::::::::::::::::::
5 ---------------------------------------------------------
(~Q~-:I;-t'0.r-~tl---------------------
~ ~_______~_~\_l~________________________
../ Cd o\-'.~
8 ____________________t_________________________________----
( ~-----K~t~JL------------------
~ _~,---~!2c~;z..----------__----------
~ --~-~l,5~---&:(_!1e.I-Q-n------------
~2 _~~~----11~-\:(}~=::--------
I ~ cl2~~--~~--------------m-----
I~ ---~!-~----~~~----------------------------
~ ~~~----;i-----i-~--~~-----------------
ADDRESS
__J:f~ka~-=-~~-&d.~.E.~
_J~I___~_~~~~~__~_~~~___~_~_~~~~_~~_
\ \;;l '\ \J \ lQ ~ -\- \ \-j (; " 1 c s-L \ \ \\; V\. \t ~
--------------/"------------------'-------------------------~
-----::;:-t-;-{,~i1:(-----::1J)J!:~-)~-~,:l-------------
}18 Q S-~
_ _______JWl________________________________________________
-l1-tl----t0-;Bvm&~---
. ).'1 ", 8,?I" Sf- (' , ...~--- l . ..
J__:.~__~~__________________,__:::.~~______J'=;.I...'::.t..2_:~_\_?-__
l~:L~L-~-~-~~----~~-!?:~-J..-fVv
--~-~-~-~--_---r---!2ljOl-(l-lj~!2\---~-----------
___1_[_{_~~____~~1-i::t=:'~,---~~-------
__.I~_ll2i..___iJ.d?.cd:~.:!_..e..___;;:..4.~___7:.fA._.:_
__~_~_~_~___~:f~_T{{___~9________
____12_~~___',:L'_____6~(___~~q__'i_blL~1f~
_~~_!_~______~~_!i_____~-_~---------------------
1
J
\.
CITY OF STILLWATER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
December 12, 1995
7 p.m.
SIGN UP SHEET
...~'" ,,~
~ -0 .~.' ',' >.' ,,:.,~~.'
:_::? ~;~:_,":'~~", -,_-,tr+;~'.~'\" ,.~~!;-:_;;,,'::' --',i::- ',";":~:': }",:..~J', .c;.' ",_; :','. :'"
If you wish to comment on the Comprehensive Plan at this meetin~, please sign below.
The City Council will take your comments in this order. Thank you.
Please Print
NAME ADDRESS
1{--~JJ~L---- I ---- ---7jJL--------------- @k_~~~-~--t!~~
~ ~kL't1l:---- ____ 'Jt,~___~_________ ;2QLilVl:.'!:j_tl-'f-<<___4!J___-::o____________-
5 -~t~l~-----;~O---------------- --~-L-J.Li---l:!!:--~~Jf.----9_-~-;----;;,---
.& __!.J}1ct.:0;._____k~:f~~---------------- -Cd-~Q-----w..-'"--IkLI1:pIt!.--St-t-':JI..1LL0!Z:.~--- ,
. [}1Cl.lf.4~1__1*t!~cJ:Jtk:--&ph(LrU7 n.~-~--lf1JL-~--'~LQ.- !J/1[;J2L_])I-;-___?f2~(!4a,f<; '~_"
(wp~Ci._(i{\.!}.-1Sf ~ {,-jLll.eKa.'f:'QICl-:.:;U:V ~i!> ~J-f {AM. ~1..dA.fH:.;;~j ..:pluw .
21 ------------------T~~-~j;;j;;~;;,0-t~j~~c1~~'~$--~j~-!1g!Ot:-~~,~-~!- Ie":;" ./
; --p~~~-=jz------n-----~~-~--------
23 ---:---~---------------~--------------------
vi4 #:;-----r\si!t~j'!1L----~--------
25 ---~~-~------------ - - C:ld-~1-------
27 ---- -L:UJ-L--!:>-er3-!Y-L(W.V-\-------------
28 ----------------------------------------------------------
I 29 - - ----------- ---- - - ----- ------ - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - ----- -- -- ---
, lIIIIi'- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
----------------------------~.--------df-- --------------------
I.?O~ S L\f:O~ ~r---
:::1~s::~::~::::::::::~2::~:::
____~_~_~_~__~_____~~___~_~Jf_:_______________
.
____~_~_l_~___Jl~-~-~t-~--~::t:------------------_-------
2
e
910 Towne Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Stillwater
ci ty Hall
Stillwater, MN 55082
December 11, 1995
Dear Mayor and members of the City Council,
I urge the City Council to adopt the Comprehensive Plan for the City of
Stillwater. It is my strong opinion that the boundaries of annexation
be T. H. # 96 on the north, C. R. # 15 on the west, T. H. # 36 on the
south and the current corporate boundaries on the east.
Some years ago Stillwater planning policies were compared to a church
without room in the pews for new members and no plans to provide for
them. I know that statement does not represent the true Stillwater
character.
.
The City is best qualified to plan and control the development in the
annexation area. The City of Stillwater has many assets to share, not
the least of which is the reserve sanitary sewer capacity that became
available through the sewer separation project in the mid-70's. The
Metropolitan Sewer Board is embarking upon a $ 71,000,000 project to
provide an interceptor sewer to serve an expanded Maple Grove area.
There is no such major need in Stillwater because of the separation
project.
After the Planning Commission meeting on November 15, 1995 at which the
Comission adopted the plan, I was confronted by a Stillwater citizen
who asked - "tell me, what's in it (the annexation) for me? What is in
it for this person and any current citizen of Stillwater is the
knowledge that you are a part of a community that does not have closed
doors and is willing to expand to create the needed space in an urban
setting.
The City of stillwater through strict enforcement of its zoning
policies will make the annexation area the show place of Washington
County. I know that you join me and the majority of the citizens of
the City in the excitement of moving forward to make this happen.
I.
.
.
.
MAGNUSON LAW FIRM
LICENSED IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN
THE DESCH OFFICE BUILDING
333 NORTH MAIN STREET. SUITE #20'2 . P.O. Box 438 . STILLWATER. MN 5508'2
TELEPHO:-':E: (61 '2) 439-9464. TELECOPIER: (612) 439-5641
DAVID T. MAGNUSON
MATTHEW A. STAEHLlNG
LEGAL ASSIST\:\TS:
MELODIE .-\RYOLD
JODI h\;TZ
December 4, 1995
Mr. Jay Kimble, Mayor
City Council and Staff
City Hall
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55083
Dear Ladies/Gentlemen:
I have received calls at my office demanding that the City do an Environmental Impact Statement
before they approve the Comprehensive Plan or decide upon an annexation alternative.
To determine the readiness for environmental review, we look to the Minnesota Administrative
Rules that provide a time table for doing either an Environmental Assessment Worksheet or an
Environmental Impact Statement. This work is done before final approval of a project and a project is
defined by the Rules as "governmental action which would cause physical manipulation of the
environment directly or indirectly. The determination of whether a project requires this environmental
review shall be made by reference to the physical activity to be undertaken and not to the governmental
process of approving the project. "
The Comprehensive Plan decision and a decision about annexation is a governmental process and
will not directly or indirectly cause physical manipulation of the environment. This manipulation will
no doubt take place after a plat has been approved and, therefore, the proper time to require either an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet or an Environmental Impact Statement would be when the platting
process is under review and before any improvement project or other work on the ground would take
place.
We, on the Staff, are very aware of the threshold requirements for environmental review and we
will advise the Council well in advance of either an Environmental Worksheet or an Impact Statement
being required.
Respectfully submitted,
DTM/ds
"
.
Existing Township
Proposed Phase I
Proposed Phase II
Remaining Areas
Total
-
.r
Phase I Density
Phase \I Density
URTPA DENSITY
Gross Overall Density*
250 DU's
600 DU's
600 DU's
100 DU's
1,550 DU's on 1,900acres
or
1 DU/1.27 acres
600 DU's 280 acres
(2.14 DU's/Acre)
600 DU's 340 acres
(1.77 DU's/Acre)
*includes wetlands, sloped areas and oepn space buffers
I-
URTPA PHASE 1 FISCAL IMPACT
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 10
Revenues
Property Taxes:
Urban 6.444 6,637 167,216 259,739 358,562 957,399
Rural 85,916 88.493 91,148 93,882 96,698 112,100
Other 0 24,300 25.800 27.500 29.300 41.500
Total 92,360 119.430 284,164 381,121 484,560 1,110,999
Expenditures
Payment to Township 73,736 57,350 40,965 24,579 8,193 0
Operating 100,000 103,000 106,100 "109,300 112.600 130,600
Total 173,736 160,350 147,065 133,879 120,793 130,600
Deficit (81,376) (40,920)
Amount available for
appropriation (CX0986 fCVOn:ues) 137,099 247,242 363,767 980,399
Assumes 61 HUlYear
Rural = Township tax capacity rate 16.6950/0 + 2.3070/0
"
?C !..,riDUL.,(~ 7 Olz- r;4vr(jJ!f.;;
.
.
.
.
.
i
I.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICY,
REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES -
Detailed Environmental Inventory
Environmental Impact Review
Special Area Planning
Planned Unit Development Review
Subdivision Design and Review
Bluffland/Shoreland Ordinance
(Sloped lands, setbacks, buffers) (in place)
Stormwater Ordinance (in place)
Floodplain Ordinance (in place)
Tree Protection Ordinance (in place)
Ravine Development Restrictions (developing)
Park Dedication Requirements IOpen Space
Stillwater Area Open Space Committee - possible acquisition
e
.
'.
c'
RURAL TAXING DISTRICT
$200,000 House
T axes Rate
Tax Capacity Tax Bill
Stillwater
35.162 1153.00
Stillwater Rural
30.12 988.00
Stillwater Township
19.002 623.00 .
Tax difference between city and township for $200,000 house - $530
. .~
Planning Commission Recommendation: Phase city rural taxing district in
over 5 years.
Five Year Tax Bill for $200,000 House
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
623
714
805
896
988
....-: \.
.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
URTPA PHASED GROWTH (MAXIMUM)
School Age
HU POP E S
Phase 1 600 1,590 206 238
..
. Phase 2 600 1,590 206 238
Total 1,200 3,180 412 476
NOTE: Typical elementary school size 800
Lily Lake 870 pupils
Stonebridge 775 pupils
Lake Elmo 860 pupils
OPH 680 pupils
.
.
ARTHUR V. AND MAUREEN O'B. PALMER
102 North Second Street
Stillwater MN 55082
612/439-1102 (Inn Office)
December 13th 1995
TO: Stillwater City Council Members:
BEALKA
CUMMINGS
KIMBLE
THOLE
ZOLLER
Gentlemen,
Maybe it was Will Rogers who said, "the reason I can't care about what people think of me is simply
because it is...none of my business." One can wonder if Will Rogers would say the same thing if he
were a member of the City Council this evening.
Each of you, as individual council members, will soon and again be concluding what is in the long-
term, best interest of the City of Stillwater...better known as the "public interest." This is both a power,
transferred to you by voters, and a responsibility you accepted by running for and attaining public office.
Each of you may wonder, at times, if your meeting-to-meeting judgment has enabled you to think and
vote consistently in the public interest.
The city's future relationship with the township as well as the degree of independence the council's
consensus allows--may determine the extent by which the city will be able to retain over the next dec-
ades, its autonomy in dealing with the future growth. All of this is clearly dependent upon your indi-
vidual views and, of course, your ultimate decision.
.
The necessity and political difficulties of your forthcoming vote is a direct result of the comprehensive
planning process. Your awareness of the 25-year history of the inability or unwillingness of past
councils to cope with the township's militancy is important. It is important because it has made your
job harder. It has made your job harder because the level of militancy increases and accelerates each
time even the smallest of the city's annexation needs arise. The increase in militancy is a result of the
encouragement township residents observe from the erosion of the city's resolve. Maybe Otis is an ex-
ample of how quickly the last in want to close the door behind them. It may take a leap of some kind of
faith to believe that such involvement is in the public interest. Maureen and I sold the Otis' their lot
last year. They were informed by Gary Vizenor that annexation was "probable." When they asked me
"when" I told them I didn't know until that our proposals submitted to the city were acted upon.
The effect your combined decisions will have upon the flexibility of future councils to act effectively and
honestly in accommodating growth by way of the city's public interest may take years Maybe you can
see already that politically you will receive little credit for making a decision independent of township
pressures even though such a decision could give future councils the freedom from political harassment
to follow through with a plan which makes sense and is fiscally sound simply, purely and strictly from
the standpoint of the City of Stillwater. The time and money you have now invested to get the facts is
admirable. The only shortcoming is if the facts do not carry the day. They cannot carry the day if you
allow political pressures and compromises to potentially stifle the city's future ability to manage its own
affairs independent of any special, self-serving interests as may be represented by township efforts to
"stall, stifle and stop" the expansion of the city.
cityde5.doc
~;p~
.
l'
-4
,
\,.
~ BERNARD J GAFREY
~ 9989 ARCOLA COURT N
I::! STIllHATER ttl 55082-9523
.
From: Dr. Bernard 1. Gaffiley
To:
The Mayor and
the City Council Members
of the City of Stillwater
Re:
Public Hearing
re Comprehensive Plan
Gentlemen:
Looking back over the years to when I was a member of the Stillwater Township Board,
the rumblings of City expansion and cooperation with the Metropolitan Council on long
range planning were ever present as they are today. Re "City looks at new boundaries" -
Thursday, November 23, 1995 feature article in the Courier, as were others of November
30 and December 7th. These were well written articles and provoked some thought.
.
It was a time when a proposed golf course incorporating housing on quarter acre lots was
presented and rejected by the Stillwater Township. This led to a takeover by the City of
said jurisdiction. The result one sees today with houses crammed together, and that
required a large expenditure for roads, sewer and water, etc. and later funding
requirements and bond indebtedness by the City, which I am sure was an embarrassment
and clearly unforeseen. All of this after the township had rigorously cooperated with and
satisfied the Metropolitan Council in its planning including 'zoning restrictions. It really
makes one think what kind ofa charade is all of this planning. Also, for the City, what
now is the financial projection next few years if no land annexed?
The Courier article reports the City of Stillwater will grow by about 4,000 to 5,000
residents and 1,200 more housing until by the year 2010, some 15 years from now. I am
not sure the basis for this projection, but if one were to take the available city land and
posture one house per one quarter acre, how many homes would that accommodate.
Based on, say, 250 acres, once could add to the present concentrated ring of houses by
1,000 homes, versus the forecast need for 1,200, just as an example. Further, the income
would undoubtedly exceed that from the golf course.
The stark contrast one comes upon driving along 96 with houses on one side cramped in,
shutting out a view of the Oak Glen golf course on the south and open country spaces on
the north bespeaks of the insensitivity of city planning to values of township planning and
regulations very much influenced by Metropolitan Council dictum. One might ask has not
the Council overlooked preventing such stark, abrupt conflict of interest and regulations?
:.
I
Thinking about the natural beauty of the natural landscape we have, there should be some
guidelines and/or regulations that provide keeping some natural look to city's land
developments. Maybe, maybe one might possibly find a tree planted or other landscaping
to offset the stark contrast with township developments, if indeed the city powers have
- 1-
<<
4
.
any sensitivity to a living environment for its citizens. Or is it purely a matter of dollars
needed now to keep the city viable?
Also, any change in township/city boundaries and land use must certainly consider the
effect on school and educational requirements, and future costs.
On Tuesday, December 5, 1995, a consultant firm, according to reports, presented six
different growth scenarios based on varied land acquisition. The report clearly showed a
significant degree of uncertainty and several years before the city would be in the black
after annexations. One really in any justification should fully explore what the situation
might be if there were no more annexation. Could not the city be viable and function
satisfactorily to meet any building (commercial and homes), leaving it to surrounding
townships and adjoining cities to satisfy any housing requirements?
By the way, not having more land did not deter Andersen Corporation from employing
more people than apparently the city of Stillwater will ever do, and the majority, it seems,
live ittother towns or cities in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Apparently the city of Stillwater
is merely looking at the housing segment as one prop for aiding financial conditions -
surely not a valid point of contention.
.
Re~alling history, we have the Metropolitan Council making sure townships stay rural and
approve the township's plans and regulations to conform to Metropolitan wishes ifnot
essentially decree. And then it turns around and says, "Oops! We now judge it
appropriate for the city to take over such and such under its population concentration and
growth criteria." If it makes sense, then such foresight and provisions should have been
written into the agreements it has with a township. What indeed are the rules of the
game?
Undoubtedly, cities must somehow keep viable or decline in services rendered. It seems
that to justify the need for more land, one needs to project the whole economic and living
climate. Look at how Stillwater has taken over farmland mainly for industrial
development - many, many acres now extending to western city limits along and bordering
Highway 36. What is the decreed ratio of living vs. business area one might ask?
i
.
And then look at the number of home sites there are in Stillwater and other townships to
satisfy anyone who wishes to work in Stillwater. Consider that Stillwater City could be
mainly commercial orientated and have adequate home sites in adjacent towns and
townships - even across to Wisconsin which presently houses many workers in the
Stillwater area. And how does approving more golf courses come into the equations, or is
that irrelevant? At 1/4 acre lots, a nominal IS hole golf course area could accommodate
1,000 homes. Maybe homes should be subsidized as was a golf course. Thinking about it,
maybe golf is the answer, "to play ball by the rules honestly."
- }!-
~
,
eo
.
Also, I suppose high rise apartments are not a consideration. Most cities seem to have
them.
And look at all the acreage being tied up in commercial property thatAtould be residential.
Is such expansion necessary for city viability? This never seems to be in the planning
equation, at least from what I have seen reported. Which comes first - or do we have the
cart before the horse?
If one addresses the subject of learning curves the past actions related to the city land use
appear to rely on its past ability to keep a sound financial picture while satisfying housing,
recreation and other needs of its residents. Presently it decrees only land for housing,
having in my opinion, perhaps relegated too much to a sprawled commercial area. One
can contrast this with what the Stillwater Township has done on a limited budget only to
see a city eager as ever to snatch another significant portion which would have a real
negative impact on the townships required income to adequately satisfy the needs of its
citizens under the guidelines of a Metropolitan Council. What indeed is the value of such
guidelines if they are transient and nullifiable through no fault of the township planning,
only through that of the city's planning, if such in that case can be so-called.
.
As a Stillwater Township citizen for some 36 years, serving on its planning and its board
for .several years, including the time that Oak Glen property was annexed, I have
witnessed the frailty of Metropolitan Council guidelines. For any area they are transient
subject to annexation procedures.
..;''''
Historically, the Stillwater City over the years created by annexations an : irregular
boundary. I recall in one case there was a parcel bordered on three sides by the city. The
whole history of annexation relates to a lack oflong term policy not supported by a vote
of its citizens. Today we need such a vote. I would make a case and a plea that there is
not credibility of the need now for further annexation to keep the City of Stillwater viable,
certainly not to the broad scope and great uncertainty of economics and the anticipated
large burden thrust on the township, as well as financial burden on the city.
Let there be developed the scenario of the city's viability within its present borders, as a
starter. Possibly some tax: increases might, in time, be justified. That could be contrasted
to the huge debt and increased taxes that have been projected for annexation plans or
scenarios. The last few years has seen substantial cities acreage go commercial with huge
buildings, employing many outside citizens. An appraisal of the financial effect on the city
could be very revealing.
I.
In recapitulation, it is my judgment that the city and its concerned citizens need to step
back a bit, and reconsider the brash, bold takeover scenario which might well lead to
another financial fiasco. And let there be developed more brotherly love and
understanding of people's needs and rights that transcend just financial matters. I believe
in a democratic society and the city citizens should be permitted to vote on annexation
"- j-
I
.
I.
.
.
matters that effect them and their neighbors. Perhaps even the Metropolitan Council
should reanalyze its responsibility in preventing inequalities and undue burdens.
Respectfully yours,
~~~
- 4-
\ !
~ December 8, 1995
~
Ie
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Attention: Stephen S. Russell, Community Development Director
Re: Comprehensive Plan / Pathways
Dear Mr. Russell,
The intent of this letter is to advise the City of our position related to the
proposed walking and biking pathway as noted in the November 15, 1995
Comprehensive Plan and to suggest changes to that proposal. As indicated
previously, we have recently purchased the property located at 12620 72nd
Street North. This property is located adjacent, on the west, to the DNR Wildlife
Management Area and overflow ponds for Long Lake. This residential property,
as p.urchased and valued, is in the Township and is essentially rural-like in
nature.
As owners of the property we would request to have major input to any decision
related to future changes to the nature of our property that may be proposed as
a result of any plans for future development to the surrounding area. Such
changes could drastically affect the use of our property and its value as
purchased or enhanced. In addition we have a special concem for the
preservation of the adjacent DN R Wildlife Management Area.
In trying to update ourselves on the Comprehensive Plan, we noticed that it
contains a proposal to introduce a walking and biking, paved pathway in the
Long Lake area. Most of the pathway proposal appears to be on lands that are
planned to be developed if sold. However, we did notice that a portion of the
proposed paved pathway is shown stretching across our front yard, thus forming
a separation of our lake shore from the rest of our yard. The pathway is then
shown to extend through the DNR property and makes a second connection to
the already existing East-West pathway along 75th Street North(County Road
#12). The first connection to the 75th Street pathway is shown a short distance
to the West and is contained on the undeveloped land.
If the proposed paved pathway were to extend around the entire lake through
each existing private property, that may be a situation tolerable to us for the
good of the masses. But, to be almost singled out, to have a walking and biking,
path paved across our front yard most definitely cannot be tolerated. The
present value of the property to us as owners, as well as the property's present
1
'\ ,
,
monetary value, would both be adversely affected and the situation suggestive .
of significant reimbursement. That would not be of benefit to the City or its
residents.
It is our suggestion that the proposed pathway be planned only on those lands
that are yet to be developed and avoid paving across existing residential lake
shore property or through the DNR wildlife protected property. If that segment of
the proposed pathway is eliminated, there still exists the first 'connection' between
62nd Street and the existing(75th Street) pathway and thus between possible
future pathways to the North as shown on the remaining proposal in the Compo
Plan.
The benefits of this suggestion are evident as to preservation of the property
values, the peace and tranquillity of the current residential property owners as
well as to the important environmental preservation aspects. There is also the
monetary savings to the City and taxpayers to develop, maintain and clean that
portion of pathway and surroundings in question. That will be a considerable
expense over time. especially considering that pathway portion is a redundant
'connection' between North and South in the Long Lake area.
We very much appreciate the opportunity to present our position on this
important issue and we anticipate that the City and others will be in agreement
with these suggestions. Again, we also request to be informed and involved in
any upcoming discussion on this and other issues that may affect our property
or the adjacent DNR property.
.
Sincerely,
/-:J ./1 ',~/ -
L __:YY/;Xlh/-/l! iY!{!f'//
Don H. McKenzie I Rosemary McKenzie
732 Nightingale Blvd.
Stillwater, MN 55082-5216
cc: Mayor Kimble
.
2
---- --".-- --.. -
'l
illwater
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
SWOOSBAA. JH -1995, Insight Mapplrig & Demographics. lnc..
BIKEWAYS - PATHWAYS
... STATE TRAIL
.... COUNTY ~
111111I11 CITY STAIRWAY
____ CITYPATHWAY/BIKEWAY
...... CITY P ATHW AYS
~ LINEAR PARKWAY
"' .
'.
.
I
I.
12/19/95 08:47
IPC 5T PAUL ~ 6124390456
NO.886 P001/008
City Council Members
and for the
Public Record
13 December 95
The following text is a copy of the comments that I made at the Comp Plan Public Hearing on 12
December. The attached 6 pages (8 pages in total) are the copies of the letters-to-the-editor that I
have sent in to date regarding the Comp Plan! Annexation process.
I am not here to complain hroadly about the Camp Plan. There are good elements that have
been incorpcJrated and that will be appreciated/or generations to come. But you guys are way
off/he mark in terms of annexation and the will ofyoW' constituents. the taxpayer.~ of the City of
Stillwater. I have a few statements, a few rhetorical questions (which I am not asking you to
answer now--hull would appreciate an answer to sometime soon), and a few seeds oflhoughtto
plant.
You have held hearings, but you haven't always heard.
You have asked for input. but sometimes it feels like only window dressing.
You began this planning process by assuming the forecasts for growth must occur. Based on that
incorrect and faulty assumption, you then set about plannin, to ItUlke the forecast happelt
A forecast is just that-- a forecast and nothing else. A plan is a plan. You shQuld forecast 10 help
plan. But this group (the Planning Commission) is planning to create theforecastnso naturally
they will be right.
What would you leUows do if you found out th4t the majority of your constituents do not want
to ,row Stillwater beyond the cu"ent geog1aphlcal boundaries ?
How broad-based do you think the citizenry is in suppOrt of your decision to annex ?
Why don't you amend the city charter, ifnecessary, to allow for non.advisory referendums and
then ask your constitllents if they are infavor of your annexation plan? You should have done
this a long time ago. The fact that you are as far along in the process as you are without having
done this is your fault. not Qurs.
I don't believe, despite your studies, that the increase in tax revenues created through
annexation will cover all of the associated C()st.~.-both direct and indirect-- that the citizens of
the ciry will be asked to pay jor. You are not using the numbers with understanding, and we don't
know what they mean. All this Qdd~ up 10 is semantic nonsense. (A well-wrapped statistic is
better than Hitler's ''big lie"-it misleads, yet it cannot be pinned on you)
"
'.
.
.
12/19/95 138:48
IPC ST PAUL ~ 61243913456
NO.886 pee2/ee8
The problem becomes one of accountability. You will not be accountable if you are wrong--you
will he long-gone from the posit ion.ft you now hold The rest of us will have to live wilh the
accuracy afyour predictions.
You should spread the risk of being individually wrong by making sure that you are annexing
only because your constituents want you to do so.
Part of the problem that citizens such as myself have had with expressing our concerns more
clearly is due to a sense of disenfranchisement. Your unilateral propoliQllO annex serves only 10
heighten thai sense and causes me to wonder--what is your motivation? It certainly doesn't
seem 10 be to represent your constituents.
cc
Jay Kimble-Mayor, City of Stillwater
Terry Zoller-Coun<;il Member
Richard Cummings-Council Member
Eric Thole-Council Member
Gene Bealka-Council Member
Dave Magnuson-City Attorney, Stillwater
Michael Zalk-Oppenheimer, Wolff. and Donnelly
Eric H. Jackson
resjdent/voter/taxpayer
City of Stillwater
..
.
.
12/19/95 08:48
IPC ST PAUL ~ 6124390456
NO.886 P003/01Zl8
Courier News.-Editor
126 South Second Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
13 December 95
To our City Council--
Regarding annexation ... it's the process tbat is important. I am still not sure the Stillwater City
Council gets the point. The constituents whom you represent expect you to handle the routine
affairs of the city without requiring our input. On more complex matters, we expect you to elicit
our input and then make decisions accordingly. On the grandest matters facing the city, we
expect you to follow our specific direction and do what we tell you to do. This is local
governance. That is why you hold elected offices. But being voted into office doesn't make your
opinion more important than ours.
It cannot be compared to matters of state, national security, or other issues in which the "local"
concept is a minor voice. But on those local matters that require significant legal action or
change significantly any portion of the city's financial statements or require residents to carry a
long-term responsibility as the result of your actions-on these issues-- the City Council must, if
you are to act in good conscience, seek specific support and/or approval from the city residents.
It is simply not enough to claim "significant input" from the residents. You must then behave as
our collective conscience. acting as the majority rules. and truly represent the desires ofyoW"
constituents. Time and again I have heard from Council members the argument that "the citizens
don't know enough to vote intelligently on major issues". This is also your responsibility. When
required to garner public input in order to act appropriately on major issues. it is your
responsibility to make the public as aware and issue-intelligent as possible.
But you folks are also residents, for the most part with no more experience Or intelligence than
the average taxpayer. However, you have chosen to become our voice. You have chosen to
become our governing body, responsible and responsive to our collective mind. Act accordingly.
Create whatever tools you need to get the job done--but get the job done.
Regarding specifically the issue of annexation facing the Cityfrownship right now, do what
we--the City residentsltaxpayerslvoters- tell you to do. This is one of the largest issues to ever
face the City (much less the Township). Change the City Charter, if necessary, to enable you to
get our input fonnally. by referendum. Then go out and do what we tell you to do. You have
collected infonnation, presented a plan, and done your job. But don't try and be more than we
want from our government. Don't think you know better than we do what is best for our future.
It's the process that is important. Take a vote- and then act according to the outcome of the
vote.
It is your responsibility. It is our future.
Eric H. Jackson
resident/voter/taxpayer
City of Stillwater
..
.
.
12/19/95 08:49
IPC ST PRUL ~ 6124390456
NO.886 P004/008
8tiJ lwater Gazette-- Editor
102 South Second Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
10 December 95
In response to the Editorial by John Gillstrom in the December 7 Gazette, and in general
frustration with our Mayor and our City CounciL....
Dear Mr. Gillstrom,
You have half of the point regarding the proposed annexation by the City of Stillwater of lands
currently in the TO'Mlship. The Township residents mayor may not be able to defend against the
armexation by themselves. But if the intent of the City's residents were brought to bear. I am sure
that the annexation would never occur. Although it may seem an unlikely alliance,l truly believe
that the City's residents don't want the annexation any more tban tbe Township residents
do. You simply have to deal with a renegade and non-cooperative Stillwater City Council. These
five people are brushing aside everything they hear in their blind desire to do what they want to
do. They have no support from their constituents and yet, somehow, behave as if their mandate is
preordained. The Ward Network and Public Hearing process apparently has been just a
smokescreen. The Ad Hoc Committee between the City and the Township was a waste oftime.
The City Council of Stillwater has always been able to hide behind two very convenient
situations to justify not seeking the truth. On the one hand, the MN Attorney General has issued
an opinion against the use of advisol)' referendums for purposes of voting on local issues. On the
other hand, a non-advisory referendum could be used to ascertain public opinion, but not in
Stillwater. Stillwater is one of a handful of cities remaining in the state that does not provide for
the right of referendum in its Charter. (Although the Charter could be easily amended to allow
for non..advisory referendums. the council members obviously have no interest in admitting to
what the city residents really want, preferring instead to act as an autocratic body.)
So how is a poor group of five individuals (a.k.a. our City Council) supposed to know what to
do ? Listening to their constituents would be a great place to start. If the City Council really
wanted to do what their citizens wanted them to do. they would find a way of getting the job
done (they have proven their resourcefulness). There are other motivations here, however. and I
am not sure what they are. But remember, the only reason the city council exists is to
implement the plans of the electorate. There is no other purpose for any govermnent official.
And yet, here they are, heading down the path of annexation, completely contrary to the desires
of the electorate, and they don't even have the gumption to face the issue in an open and
forthright manner. Why don't they ask us if this is what we want?
..
.
i.
12/19/95 08:50
IPC ST PAUL ~ 6124390456
NO.886 P005/008
r
So the other half of your point should be liOn whose behalf is the Stillwater City Council
working 1" Certajnly not the Township's--and also not the City's residents. They are just five wild
and crazy guys having fun dojng what they want to do, under the misguided direction of OUf
beloved City Attorney Dave Magnuson and City Planner (1) Steve Russell. Are the desires of the
citizens (residents/voters/taxpayers) of Stillwater being represented? Absolutely not.
The planning process should be as follows~ a) determine public wants and needs, b) create a plan
to implement such, and c) give the lawyers and planners the charge to get the job done
(remember that these guys work/or us--we pay them to do what we want them to do ). Right
now, the process is; a) get the developers plans, b) find all the legal (albeit unethical) ways in
which you can confuse the public, and c) have the laWyers and planners act accordingly, and
with stealth (and this methodology is a disgrace to the intelligence of the constituents).
Our current City Council has the opportunity to become part of history. If they seek and follow
the demands of the electorate, they can become forevermore the ones that are remembered as
having done the right thing at the right time-taking the high road. Alternatively, they can
continue in the direction they are going, without heeding the public input that they are constantly
receiving against this planned growth and annexation program. In this case, they will always be
remembered as the ones who helped destroy our community and make Stillwater into just
another Woodbury.
Mr. Gillstrom, please join me in asking the Stillwater City Council to take the following simple
steps in deciding what to do regarding annexation and the Comprehensive Plan :
1. Amend the City Charter to allow for non-advisory referendums to determine public
opinion on local issues of critical importance.
2. Conduct such a referendum to determine the follOwing 3 issuesh
a. Do the residents olStillwater want the City of Stillwater to grow?
(After an. it is OUT city)
b. Do the residents want /0 annex part of the Towrt.\'hip to facilitate ,hat growth?
(After all. it is our city)
c. Are the residents of the City willing to pay for annexation through a higher tax
burden 10 support such growth?
(After all, it is mg money)
3. Act accordingly--the City council has one master, the people of Stillwater. The
Council has no authority to vote against the will of their constituents.
FIND OUT WHAT YOUR CONSTITUENTS W ANT--THEN DO IT !!
Eric H. Jackson
residentlvoterltaxpayer
City of Stj]lwater
.e
.
.
12/19/95 08:50
IPC ST PAUL ? 6124390456
NO.886 P006/008
Community Development Department
clo Comprehensive Plan
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
3 May, 1995
Dear City Council-
I moved to Stillwater in 1993 with my wife and two small children. We moved back to
Minnesota after spending five years on the East Coast I have also relocated the company which I
joined (and am now president of) to Saint Paul from New Jersey. In addition, I am president of a
local company named Minnesota Mercantile & Land Company (Stillwater) which operates a
vegetable farm, an orchard, and two country stores in Chisago County. We moved to Stillwater
specifically due to our knowledge of the area and all ofthe good things that we have heard about
Stillwater's community spirit and family values.
Since we have been back I have become very involved in the current effort to craft the
Twenty-Five Year Comprehensive Plan for the City of Stillwater. I have attended virtually all of
the public meetings on the subject, including the Planning Commission meetings, and have been
active with the Ward Network. We even had a little ad-hoc meeting of our own with Dave
Johnson (Stillwater Twnshp), Gerry Fontaine (Planning Commission) and several members of
the Ward Network. My point oftetling you all of this is for you to understand that these
thoughts I am putting forward are not knee-jerk reactions to what I heard on Tuesday, April 25th,
when Steve Russell made the formal presentation of his plan to the City Council.
The Planning Commission has worked hard to get their hands around the difficult task of
planning for the future of the local population. Nobody is an expert in this field, therefore it is
very important to involve the citizens affected. I believe that .the Commission has seriously
missed the mark, however, in tenns of its understanding of the people's desire to remain a small
tOWIl. Mr. Russell believes that growth in Stillwater is inevitable.lt is Inevitable only if you plan
to grow. The 1993 survey told you emphatically that thi.~ was not what the cili=ens afStillwater
wanted, and we voted you into office to protect our desires. not to mollify the City Planner. What
has been presented to you as the Comp Plan simply ignores this fact, while the City Planner
continues to behave as though he has a popular mandate to grow Stillwater beyond its current
boundaries and in defiance of the overwhelming call to "preserve our small town character".
The lack of imagination used in this proposal is frightening. It is basically a regurgitation
of the plans that have been proposed by the developers wishing to build houses
fencerow-to-fencerow in the northwest comer of Stillwater and the adjacent township area
referred to as the URTPA. This is not what we want. and I am not speaking as a lonely citizen
out here. There is a very large group of City and Township residents who are adamantly opposed
to virtually every aspect of this Comprehensive Plan, primarily because it is not comprehensive
and appears to be the plan of one individual primarily focused on growing Stillwater.
.e
.
.
12/19/95 08:51
IPC ST PAUL ~ 6124390456
NO.886 P007/008
As you go through the Plan, the objectives stated at the beginning of each section give you a
good feeling. But as you read through the policies and all of the rhetoric you begin to realize that
the objectives are only being stated to pacify the citizens concerned about maintaining Stillwater
the way it is. Very little in the way offtnn planning has been done regarding the current city. All
of the effort has been spent in dealing with the "growth area" that the city planner feels is
inevitable. This leads me to wonder why have the citizens spent so much of their precious time
trying to convey their message of sincerity and commitment to the small-town concept when the
City Planner simply follows his own agenda anyway. It's time to point this project in the right
direction.
The Comp Plan is perhaps the most significant item of local legislation you will vote on
as Councilmember. Many ofus have thought that a referendum on the issues raised in the plan
would be very helpful to the Planning Commission and the Council. But in meeting after
meeting we have been told by the Planning Commission and the fonner Mayor that Minnesota
law does not pennit "advisory referendums". We have therefore explored whether a non-advisory
referendum could be called to repeal, if necessary, any action of the Council approving the
Comp Plan in its present fonn, only to learn that Stillwater is one of a handful of cities in the
State that does not provide for the right ofreferendum in its Charter. This is too bad. Although
the Charter could be amended to add this right in order to take these issues to the citjzenry, this
should not be necessary to strike down a policy that is opposed by virtually all the citizens who
have been asked and should never be put into law in the first place. Please hear me when I tell
you that the citizens are opposed to growth in this town and will definitely not allow the Comp
Plan to be adopted as proposed without taking further action.
At one point in this process, I became somewhat committed to the concept that the City
needed to annex part of the Township in order to allow for orderly growth and make sense out of
the extension of city services etc. But growth is not necessary at all-or desired. Whereas I am
opposed to the concept of consuming 2.5-5 acres of real estate in order to build a house because
this denies the use of precious open spaces by the public, Dave Johnson ( Stillwater Twnshp) has
told me that the Township is very willing to consider using the 8/40 or 16/40 density concept
coupled with the cluster housing concept. This would then provide for large open spaces that
would be common areas for the local residents, while allowing the Township folks to still feel
"in the country". This would be an excellent solution when combined with an aggressive plan to
preserve open spaces and create a greenbelt through a parks system around Stillwater. But it
wouldn't sit well with the developers, who clearly have their 0\\011 interests foremost in mind.
It is important that the City Council take charge in this matter and send the Planning
Commission back to the drawing board with the directive to plan according to the people's
wishes. Use your imagination and creativity to craft a plan that implements the objectives of
maintaining small town charaCler while preserving open spaces and improving the local
infrastruclure. This will be a far more important legacy to leave this town than simply taking the
easy way out by declaring that growth is inevitable and therefore we must plan for it. Let
Woodbury grow, this town wants no part of that. We can maintain OUT separate identity, but only
if we are proactive and put our foot down now. If we wait, it's too late.
.e
.
I
12/19/95 08:52
IPC ST PAUL ~ 6124390456
NO.886 P008/008
I make a special plea to Terry Zoller, council member from my ward, to consider all of
the things that I know he has heard from the citizens because I have seen him at the meetings.
And you too, Mr. Kimble, with all due respect, have been present and have heard the people say
that this is not what we want. Think about the large meeting last year in the SARS auditorium.
How about the input stated loud and clear at the meeting held in the SAHS Symposium Room
last fall? Please create a way to find out what the people want if you still feel that you are not
sure. How many signatures do you need in order to receive the message "Stillwater does not
want to grow" ?
You are an upstanding body of publicly elected officials. You can choose to do the right
thing as requested by your constituents. Alternatively, do not be surprised if your constituents
seek other remedies due to your refusal to help us. Planning to grow better rather than bigger is
not necessarily easy. But this is your call now. Very best of luck.
Just Another Voter
Eric H. Jackson
422 West Pine Street
Stillwater
cc
Jay Kimble-Mayor. City of Stillwater
Terry Zol1er-Council Member
Richard Cwnmings-Council Member
Eric Thole-Council Member
Gene Bealka-Council Member
Dave Magnuson-City Attorney. Stillwater
Michael Zalk-Oppenheimer. Wolff. and DonneHy
The Courier News
Stillwater Gazette
..GI ~:. ~Io.l ...;'.....) .10;;,). ...1':;"
.~ '''...... oJ i
..;)....::..I;..,..~..I''-'..~~,...1
'_. ''''_'- I I....W.;" W!...'-
~..>
r~ tb -J,,\ ~\M.ble.,
4 j\{ CA5b
j,
e
Stillwater Gazette-Editor
102 South Second Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
10 December 95
In response to the Editorial by John Gillstrom in the December 7 Gazette, and in general
frustration with our Mayor and our City CounciL....
Dear Mr. Gillstrom,
You have halfofthe point regarding the proposed annexation by the City of Stillwater of lands
cWTently in the Township. The Township residents mayor may not be able to defend against the
annexation by themselves. But if the intent of the City's residents were brought to bear, I am sure
that the annexation would never occur. Although it may seem an WlIikely alliance. I truly believe
that the City's residents don't want the anne~ation any more tban tbe Township residents
do. You simply have to deal with a renegade and non-cooperative Stillwater City COlU1Cil. These
five people are brushing aside everything they hear in their blind desire to do what they want to
do. They have no support from their constituents and yet, somehow, behave as if their mandate is
preordain~; The Ward Network and Public Hearing process apparently has been just a
smokescreen. The Ad Hoc Committee between the City and the Township was a waste of time.
.
The City Council of Stillwater has always been able to hide behind two very convenient
situations to justify not seeking the truth. On the one hand, the MN Attomey General has issued
an opinion against the use of advisory refcrend\l111s for purposes of voting on local issues. On the
other hand. a non-advisory referendum could be used to ascertain public opinion, but not in
Stillwater. Stillwater is one of a handful of cities remaining in the state that does not provide for
the right of referendum in its Charter. (Although the Charter could be easily amended to allow
for non-advisory referendmns, the coWlcil members obviously have no interest in admitting to
what the city residents really want, preferring instead to act as an autocratic body.)
So how is a poor group oHive individuals (a.k.a. our City Council) supposed to know what to
do? Listening to their constituents would be a great place to start. If the City Council really
wanted to do what their citizens wanted them to do, they would find a way of getting the job
done (they have proven their resourcefulness). There are other motivations here, however, and I
am not sure what they are. But remember, the only reason the city council exists is to
implement the plans of the electorate. There is no other purpose for any government official.
And yet, here they are, heading down the path of annexation, completely contrary to the desires
of the electorate. and they don~ even have the gwnption to face the issue in an open and
forthright manner. Why don~ they ask us if this is what we want?
.
, "-
.
.
'.
ld/l1/~:l :~ ( : Idld
.I ~'C 0 I -H,-'_ ~ b:.2"-.S.::;II,::I<:.:lb
\~. ~~='I=, r-',:>',,~/ ,"!;~
So the other half of your point should be "On whose behalf is the Stillwater City Council
working ?" Certainly not the Township's...and also not the City's residents. They are just five wild
and crazy guys having fun doing what they want to do, under the misguided direction of our
beloved City Attorney Dave Magnuson and City Planner (7) Steve Russell. Are the desires of the
citizens (residents/voters/taxpayers) of Stillwater being represented? Absolutely not.
The planning process should be as follows; a) detennine public wants and needs, b) create a plan
to implement such, and c) give the lawyers and planners the charge to get the job done
(remember that these guys workloT us~-we pay them to do what we want them to do). Right
now, the process is; a) get the developers plans, b) find all the legal (albeit unethical) ways in
which you can confuse the public, and c) have the lawyers and planners act accordingly, and
with stealth (and this methodology is a disgrace to the intelligence of the constituents).
Our current City Council has the opportunity to become part of history. If they seek and follow
the demands of the electorate, they can become forevermore the ones thatare remembered as
having done the right thing at the right time-taking the high road. Alternatively, they can
continue in the direction they are going, without heeding the public input that they are constantly
receiving against this planned growth and annexation program. In this case, they will always be
remembered as the ones who helped destroy our community and make Stillwater into just
another Woodbury.
..
Mr. Gillstrom, please join me in asking the Stillwater City Council to take the following simple
steps in iieciding what to do regarding annexation and the Comprehensive Plan :
1-'"
1. Amend the City Charter to allow for non-advisory referendums 10 detennine public
opinion on local issues of critical importance.
2. Conduct such a referendum to determine the following 3 issues...
a. Do the residents of Stillwater want the City of Stillwater 10 grow?
(After all, it is QYl city)
b. Do the residents want to annex part of the Township tofacilitate that growth?
(After all~ it is 2m: city) .
c. Are the residents of the City willing 10 pay for annexation through a higher tax
burden to support such growth?
(After a1t~ it is our money)
3. Act accordingly-the City council has one master, the people of Stillwater. The
Council has no authority to vote against the will of their constituents.
FIND OUT WHAT YOUR CONSTITUENTS WANT-THEN DO IT!!
Eric H. Jackson
resident/voter/taxpayer
City of Stillwater
.
.
.
\
\
METRO MEETINGS
A weekly calendar of meetings and agenda items for the Metropolitan Council, its advisory and lttJlnding committees, and
three regional commissions: Metropolitan Airports Commission, Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, and
Mdropolitan Spats Facilities Camnissioo. Meeting times and agendas are occasionally changed. Questions about meetings
should be directed to the appropriate organization. Meeting information is also available on the Metro Information Line at
229-3780 and by computer modem, through the Twin Cities Computer Network at 337-5400.
DATE: December 8, 1995
WEEK OF: December 11 - December 15, 1995
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Joint Meeting: Community Development and Environment Committees - Monday, Dec. 11, 12 (noon),
Room lA The committees will consider the Elm Creek Cluster planning agreement
Community Development Committee- Monday, Dec. 11, 1 :45 p.m., Room lA The committee will consider
a Livabl~ Communities update.
Blueprint Blue Ribbon Task Force - Monday, Dec. 11, 2:30 p.m. or immediately following the Community
Deve10pmcm Cnmmittee, Room IA The task force will consider: comprehensive plan review guidelines; report
. 'of the Growth Management Work Group-Growth Guidelines; and other business.
Environment Committee - Tuesday, Dec. 12,4 p.m., Chambers. The committee will consider: authorization
to file condemnatioo petition - Uno Lakes intm:eptor; approval of 1996 emergency contractor list; authorization
to award and execute a contract roc Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant full-scale centrifuge demonstration
project; authorization to execute an amendment to professional services, Metropolitan Council Environroef'ltal
Services cootract C-2S95 for treatment plant secondary treatment improvements, Step m construction support;
authorization to negotiate. and award a professional services contract for Southeast Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant, Step-l facility planning; approval of positive varian<:e criteria; Sewer Rate Task Force
recommendations; progress report on Blue LakelSeneca solids project; and other business.
Housing and Redevelopment Authority Committee - Wednesday, Dec. 13, 8:30 a.m., Room IA The
committee will consider: public meeting on Local Preference Policy; consideration of Local Preference Policy;
Livable Communities update; action planning; conforming rule-policy options, process and timelines for
implementation; Hollman v Cisneros consent decree; and other business.
PUBLIC MEETING: On Metro BRA Adoption of Local Preference Policy for Use in Section 8 Rental
Assistance Program Participant Selections (as part of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority Advisory
Committee meeting) - Wednesday, Dec. 13, 8:30 a.m., Room lA.
Providen Advisory Committee - Thursday, Dec. 14,10:30 a.m., Room IA. The coqunittee will consider:
Metropolitan Council 1996 legislative agenda; ADA plan update; transit capital funding request process; Transit
~~~otherbusiness. '
,
(CANCELED) Land Transportation Committee - Thursday, Dec. 14, 1:30 p.m., Room 2A.
.
Legislative Coordingtiqg Committee - Thursday, Dec. 14,2:30 p.m., Room IA. The committee will consider:
legislative initiatives for Committee of the Whole; legislative package update; calendar review; and other
busiN!S-c;.
Special Finance Committee Meeting- Thursday, Dec. 14,4 p.m, Room 2A The committee will consider:
approval of 1995 Metropolitan Agencies personnel, ethical practices and cnmnnmications activities report for
tr-mitta1 to Minoesota Legishmue; deIegatim of autIaity with respect to real property matters to the Regional
Administ:rata; authorization for general counsel to take and initiate legal action to clear title to real property of
real pIq)tlty interests owned by the Metropolitan Council; closed meehT of the Finance Committee to discuss
labor negotiations issues; closed meetings of the Finance Committee to discuss pending or immineflt litigation
involving personal injury and w<Xkas ca).pe-lS~ claims; approval of 1996 Sewer Service Availability Charge
(SAC) rates; audoization to purchase replacement vehicles utilizing state or county contracts; authorization to
close Wyatt Cootract C-2803 issued for employee flex. benefit processing; approval of positive variance criteria;
approval ofupgrade to computec equipment and software -Enviromnental Services and Regional Administration
and Planning; and update to Metropolitan Council's non-presented plan. The next portion of meeting may be
closed to the public pursuant to 471.705, subdivision IA to discuss labor negotiation issues. The meeting will
be n>opeoed to the public following labor negotiations discussion to consider approval of amendment to change
benefit contribution level in Metropolitan Council Non-Represented Plan.
Special Metropolitan Council Meeting - Thursday, Dec. 14,5 p.m. or immMiate1y following the Council
meeting. Room 2A. This meeting may be closed to the public pursuant to MN Statutes section 471.705,
subdi~ Id (e) for discussion of litigation issues.
Special MetropoHtan Council Meeting -Thursday, Dec. 14,6 p.m. or 1ll11nMiately Special Couucil "lCetine
. ,at 5 p.m., Room 2A. The council will consider the legislative package.
TENTATIVE MEETINGS THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 18 THROUGH DECEMBER 22, 1995
.
Transportation Committee - Monday, Dec. 18,4 p.m., Chambers.
Metropolitan Airports Commission Informational Meeting on Dual Track Environmental Impact
Statement documenting the environmental consequences on MinneapolislSt. Paul airport development,
. new airport, and no action alternative - Tuesday, Dec. 19, 7:30 p.m., Mendota Heights Hall.
Oaair's Small Group Breakfast Meeting - Wednesday, Dec. 20, 8 a.m., Sheraton Midway, Bigelow's, 1-94 at
Hemline, Sl Paul.
Transportation Advisory Board - Wednesday, Dec. 20,2 p.m., Chambers.
Metropolitan Airports Commission Informational Meeting on Dual Track Environmental Impact
!':tatement documenting the environmental consequences on Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport development,
~. dew airport, and no action alternative - Wednesday, Dec. 20, 7 p.m., Bloomington City Hall.
Metropolitan Council- Thursday, Dec. 21,4 p.m., Chambers.
Committee oftbe Whole - Thursday, Dec. 21,S p.m. or immediately following the Council meeting, Room IA.
.1
.
.
.
Public Hearing: On Affordable and Life-cyde Housing Goals Agreement Negotiated with Twin Cities
, Area Communities Participating in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Program - Thursday, Dec. 21,
6 p.m., Chambers.
The Metropolitan Council is located at Means Park Center, 230 E. Fifth St., St. Paul. Meeting times and agenda
are subject to change. For more information or confirmation of meetings, call 291-644 7, (T .DJ29 1-0904). Call
the Metro Information Line at 229-3780 for news of Council actions and coming meetings.
METROPOLITAN SPORTS FACILITIES COMMISSION
Capital Improvements Committee - Thursday, Dec. 14,10 a.m., Commission Conference Room. The
committee will consider: approval plans for banner and graphics addition; award contracts for-1996 Twins
curtain project, 1996 restroom and production office addition project, and 1995 floor scrubber replacement
project; and other business.
The Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission office is located at 900 South Fifth St., Minneapolis, MN
55415. All meetings are held in the Commission office conference room, unless noted otherwise. Meeting
times and agendas occasionally may be changed. To verify meeting information, please call Judy Sobers, 335-
3310.
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
Metropolitan Airports Commission Informational Meeting on Dual Track Environmental Impact
Statement documenting the environmental consequences on Minneapo1islSt. Paul Airport
development, a new airport, and no action alternative - Monday, Dec. 11, 8 p.m., Prescott, WI City Hall.
MetropOlitan Airports Commission offices are located at 6040 28th Av. S., Minneapolis, MN 55450. For
more information, call Lynn Sorensen at 726-8186.
.
.
,.
'@
METRO DIGEST
@
A digest of the activities of the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Metropolitan Parks and Open
Space Commission and Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission for the month of November. Call the appropriate
commission or operations area with any questions.
December 8, 1995
Metropolitan
Council
The Metropolitan Council is located at Mears Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth St, St Paul, MN, 55101. For
more information about Council items, call 291-6359 (1DD: 291-0904). Call the Metro Information
Line at 229-3780 for recorded information about Council activities. For information via computer, you
may dial (by modem) 337-5400, the Twin Cities Computer Network (TCCN); customer service is
332-2101.
~
Metropolitan Council
Metro BRA Celebrates 10 Years of Service
Council's Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(Metro HRA) is proud to celebrate 20 years of
service to the region. When Metro HRA began
operations in 1975, it was charged with achieving
greater diversity in housing types and costs
throughout the metro area. At the time, nearly 90
percent-of affordable units were located in the
central cities.
. .Because high concentrations of low -cost housing
in Minneapolis and St. Paul contributed to
neighborhood and central city decline, housing
officials worked toward affordable housing that is
less dense and scattered throughout the Twin
Cities area to improve communities, family
housing and the region's economy.
"In additi~" said HRA Manager Thomas
McElveen, "many communities didn't have the
staff or expertise to take advantage ofhousing
funds available through the state and federal
governments. One major accomplishment has
been technical assistance and planning to help.
communities provide more housing options to
low- and moderate-income families already living
in the area. It
Today, the efforts of Metro HRA continue to be
part of an overall regional strategy to provide
housing and support services throughout the Twin
Cities area that is affordable to people of all
incomes and all stages of life.
Metro BRA Services:
-Metro lIRA serves 13~ cities in the Twin Cities
area by providing assistance to households with
low incomes. So far in 1995, Metro HRA helped
more than 5,000 households pay their monthly
rent. The lIRA's federally funded Section 8
. certificate and voucher program helps people pay
for market-rate housing in the community of their
choice.
-Metro lIRA collaborates with local governments
and nonprofit organizations to tie together rent
assistance and additional support services. For
example, Metro HRA, together with the
Minneapolis and St. Paul public housing agencies,
is engaged in a demonstration program to help
100 families relocate from distressed areas in
Minneapolis and St. Paul to central city and
suburban locations with low poverty rates. The
HomeChoice program gives participants more
choice in where they live, work and send their
children to school.
Another example is East Metro Place, a nonprofit
transitional housing program in White Bear Lake.
Metro lIRA provides rent assistance to families
with children who live at East Metro Place.
Parents at East Metro Place are enrolled in
education or training programs designed to lead to
employment. An on-site program director
provides support to parents and their children.
-Metro HRA also provides rent assistance to
hundreds of households enrolled in other self-
sufficiency programs, people with mental illness
who live independently and families left homeless
@
METRO DIGEST
@'
water service.
. Approved funds of $1 04,000 for water-quality
projects at four additional watersheds.
. Authorized purchase of a spectrometer from
Perlcin Eimer Corp. for $171,000 to be used in
waste water treat1nel1t analysis.
. Authorized a contract of $550,000 with
Polypure, Inc. for polymer to be used at the
Seneca waste water treatment plant.
. Authorized solicitation of bids for application
on land of N-Viro Soil and Nutralime; both
products are derived from solids remaining from
the waste water treatment process.
.
after leaving an abusive household.
Other Council housing activities:
The Metropolitan Council is also responsible for
implementing the Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act, an affordable housing and
community development program. The new law
provides financial incentives for communities to
support housing that's more affordable and
diverse, clean up polluted land and encourage
development and redevelopment that is more
dense and transit-oriented. The law also includes
income tax breaks to families who move into
certain neighborhoods ofMinnP.apolis, St Paul
and Colmnbia Heights.
CollncilllCtivities ;" November:
(Note to readers: ThcMetro Digest sorts Council
actions into four areas, reflecting the four Council
standingcommiUees: Community Development,
Transportation, Enviromnent and Finance. It
should also be noted that full Council actions are
reported here, not Committee actions.)
Communitv DeveloD~ent
. Adopted a local-preference policy for the
Section 8 program. The policy will permit the
issuance of IS housing vouchers for the Eden
Prairie HOPE program; the policy can also be
applied to similar housing programs in other cities
in the future.
. Approved a Maple Grove request to remove 9.8
acres of land within the urban service area and add
8.4 acres ofland. The land trade would allow the
construction of 48 rental town home units to
provide affordable housing in the city.
Environment
. Approved a mission and expected results for the
Environmental Services Division. The division has
two roles:
. supporting the Council function of guiding
regional development
. protecting public health and the environment
through water resources planning and waste
Finance
. Authorized a contract with Coleman Consulting
Group, Inc. for $355,000 for consulting services
on the collective bargaining agreement with Local
1005 of the Amalpnated Transit Workers union.
. Approved the workers compensation claims of
. Grace Cooper against the former Metropolitan
Transit Commission.
. Approved continued employee insurance
coverage for the Metropolitan Area Agency on
Aging.
. Authorized a retention limit (deductible) for its
workers compensation coverage; the coverage is
provided by the state's Workers Compensation
R.einsurancc Association.
. Approved a draft 1996 work program and
budget
. Approved the scheduling of a public hearing for
discussion of the Council's 1996 work program
and budget; the hearing date is December 7 at 6
p.m. in the Council chambers.
. Approved the scheduling of a public hearing
for discussion of the 1996 to 2000 capital
improvement program and 1996 capital budget for
December 7 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council chambers.
. Approved a two-year contract of $460,000 with
the General Security Corporation for security
services at the Metro waste water treatment plant.
.
The Council also:
. Approved a draft 1996 capital budget and
capital improvement program for 1996 through
2000; the drafts will be discussed at a public
.
.
.
.
'@
METRO DIGEST
@
bearing.
Public Meetings, Bearings and Board
Openings:
Public Meeting on Metro BRA Adoption of Local
Preference Policy for Use in Section 8 Rental
Assistance Program Participant Selections! As part
of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Committee: Wednesday, December 13 at 8:30
a.m., Room IA.
Public Hearing: On Affordable and Life-cycle
Housing Goals Agreements Negotiated with Twin
Cities Area Communities Participating in the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Program will
be held Thursday, December 21 at 6 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
New Publications
COWlCil publications are available from the Data
Center,.iDcluding the Regional Blueprint and
Council newsletter, Council Directions. For a
free and complete list of publications, write the
. Metropolitan Council Data Center, 230 E. Fifth
Sl, Sl Paul, MN 55101, or call 291-8140. There
is a charge for some publications.
Council publications can be read at major public
libraries in the Metro Area. Recent publications
are listed on the Metro Info Line at 229-3780. A
list of publications is available via a computer
modem at 337-5400 on the Twin Cities Computer
Network (TCCN).
Council Directions provides information on
regional issues and Council programs. If you wish
to receive a copy of Council Directions. call
Carol Berens at 291-6447.
A reminder: News about new publications,
Council actions, coming meetings and subsidized
housing referrals is available by dialing the Metro
Info Line at 229-3780.
Similar information and an interactive forum on
regional issues are available on TCCN. You can
get access to TCCN through your computer
modem by dialing 337-5400. TCCN customer
service is 332-2101.
Metropolitan Commission
Activities
Metropolitan Airports Commission
(MAC)
The Commission:
. Approved ~ine the $25,000 contract with .
APCOA, a parking management firm, for
inspection of certain types of vehicles to safeguard
the Lindbergh Terminal from.bombs.
. Approved a five-year lease for outdoor
advertising at 1-494 and Cedar Ave. to Adams
Outdoor Advertising Co..
. Approved a request from Business Express
Airlines to provide new service from MSP to
. Aspen, Colorado. The Commission must ratify
the agreemel't.
. Re-referred consideration of funding for the
Part 150 home insulation program to the Planning
and Environment Committee to explore funding
alternatives in light of a decrease in airport
improvement program funding;
Metropolitan Airports Commission offices are
located at 6040 28th Av. S., Minneapolis, MN.
55450. For more information, call Lynn Sorensen
at 726-8186.
Metropolitan Sports Facilities
Commission (MSFq
The Commission:
. Approved plans and specifications for a
motorized curtain to cover certain upper deck
areas during Twins games.
. Approved transfer of $2 million for a sound
system from the 1996 budget to the 1995 budget.
. Approved an additional $55,857 for replacing
the sound system at the Metrodome.
. Rescinded approval to request proposals for a
@ METRO DIGEST
@~
lobbyist to represent the commission before
government bodies.
. Authorized request-for-proposals for
Metrodomc management services.
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission offices
arc located at 900 South 5th St, Minneapolis, MN
55415. For more information, call Judy Somers at
335-3310.
Metropolitan Parks and Open Space
Commission (MPOSC)
The Commission:
. Rec~ approval ofa grant of $35,000
for trail development in North Mississippi
Regional Park.
The Parks and Open Space Commission offices
are located at Mears Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth St,
St Paul;55 101. For more information, call 291-
6363.- .
.
.
.1
I
W ASIllNGTON COUNTY
Dennte C. Hegberg
Di.trlct 1
Mery Hau.er
DI.trlct 2
Wally Abrahamson
DI.trlct 3/Chalrman
COUNTY BOARD AGENDA
DECEMBER 12, 1995, 9:00 P.M.
Myra Pete...on
Di.trict 4
Dave Eng.trom
DI.trict 6
1. 9:00 ROLL CALL
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
3. 9:00 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - D. PAPIN, DIRECTOR
TRANSITION OF THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FROM METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL TO A PRIVATE AGENCY (MAAA)
4. 9:10 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION - J. SCHUG, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - J. HARPER
5. 9:20 DISCUSSION FROM THE AUDIENCE
10.
11.
12.
13.
6.
7.
8.
9.
9:35
9:45
TO
1"1: 15
VISITORS M.4f S1WlE 71lElR CONCERNS W111I71lE COUNfY BOARD OF COMMJSSJONERS ON ANY lIF:M NOT ON 71lE AGENDA. THE CHAJR WllL DIRECT THE
COUNrl ADMlN1S11fATOR TO PREPARE RESPONSES TO fOUl! CONCERNS. YOU ARE ENCOURAGED NOT TO BE REPE:TTI10US OF PREVlOUS SPEAKERS AND TO
UM/T fOUl! ADDRESS TO FIVE MlNlJ1E:S.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS - COMMENTS - QUESTIONS
77l1S PERIOD OF 77ME SHAlL BE USED BY 71lE COMMJSSJONERS ro REPORT TO 71lE 1VlL BOARD ON COMMl11FE ACT1Y1TIES, MAKE COMMENTS ON M.4TrrRS
OF INTEREST AND INFORMATION, OR RAlSE QUES1l0NS TO THE STAFF. 77l1S ArnON IS NOT INIENDED ro RESULT IN SUBSTAN11VE BOARD ArnON DURING
77l1S 77ME. ANY ArnON NECESSARf BECWSE OF DISCUSSION WllL BE SCHEDULED FOR A FU1TJRE BOARD MEETING.
BOARD CORRESPONDENCE
:ADJOORN
BOARD WORKSHOP WITH OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION
2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION
BOARD WORKSHOP WITH OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION - ROOM B
1995 SALARIES FOR ELECTED DEPARTMENT HEADS
BREAK FOR LUNCH
REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY WORKSHOP - ROOM B
BURLINGTON NORTHERN LINE CORRIDOR FROM SOUTH COUNTY LINE TO
CSAH 8 IN THE CITY OF HUGO
TRUTH-IN-TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MEETING NOTICES
Date
11:15
TO
12:00
12:00
1:00
TO
1:45
7:00
12
13
13
13
14
14
14
Committee
Time
Location
Public Health Advisory Committee
HRA Board
Mosquito Control Board
Library Board
Community social Services
community Corrections
Private Industry Council
5:30 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
9:00 a.m.
6:30 p.m.
7:30 a.m.
8:00 a.m.
8:00 a.m.
Washington county Government Center
Washington County Government Center
2099 University Ave. W. - St. Paul
Woodbury Library
Lake Elmo Inn
Lake Elmo Inn
Washington county Government Center
If you need .ui&tance due ro di""bility 01' language barrier, pi.."" c.1143o-6003 (TDD 439-3220/
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CONSENT CALENDAR*
DECEMBER 12, 1995
'.
The following items are presented for Board approval/adoption:
.
DEPARTMENT/AGENCY
ADMINISTRATION
ITEM
A. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 21 AND 28, 1995 BOARD MEETING
MINUTES.
B. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WETLAND
CONSERVATION ACT.
AUDITOR-TREASURER
C. APPROVAL OF ABATEMENT APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
D. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT THE AMENDED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE MINNESOTA STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND WASHINGTON
COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR PROGRAM YEAR 1995.
E. APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT OF COOPERATION BETWEEN COMMUNITY
SERVICES AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR THE PROVISION
OF FRAUD PROSECUTION SERVICES.
HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND
LAND MANAGEMENT
F. APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN AN
APPLICATION FOR CY 1996-1997 DISTRIBUTION OF RECYCLING
DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND LAND MANAGEMENT TO FORWARD THE
COMPLETED GRANT APPLICATION TO THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSISTANCE.
PUBLIC WORKS
G.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AWARDING THE 1996 FUEL SUPPLY CONTRACT
TO KATH BROTHERS FUEL OIL COMPANY, CONDITIONED UPON THE
APPROVAL AND FULL EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
H.
APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO.4 WITH TKDA, INC. FOR
THE REDESIGN OF THE CSAH 2 PROJECT FROM 1-35 TO 1/4 MILE WEST
OF EVERTON AVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,925.
.
I. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION, FINAL PAYMENT TO TODD COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,354.53 FOR BOARD ROOM
MODIFICATIONS.
J. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION, SUPPORTING MN/DOT APPLICATION FOR
ISTEA FUNDING OF TH 10 IMPROVEMENT FROM THE ST. CROIX RIVER
TO TH 61.
RECORDER
K. APPROVAL OF A PLAT FOR HIDDEN VALLEY ACRES, DENMARK TOWNSHIP.
L. INFORMATION ONLY - RECORDER FEES FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER,
1995.
SHERIFF
M. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION SETTING THE SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIVISION
FEES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1996.
.COI1Jcn1 Calendar ilcn1s are generally defmed as ilcn1s of routine business, not requiring discussion, and approved in one vote. Commissioners may elect 10 pull a consen..
Calendar itcm(s) for discussion and/or separate actioo.
W ASIDNGTON COUNTY
Dennie C. Hegberg
Oletrlet 1
Mery Heueer
Oletrlet 2
Weny Ab...hemeon
Oletrlet 3/Chlrmen
COUNTY BOARD AGENDA
DECEMBER 12, 1995, 9:00 P.M.
My... Petereon
Oletrlet 4
Oeve Engetrorn
Oletrlet 5
1. 9:00 ROLL CALL
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
3. 9:00 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - D. PAPIN, DIRECTOR
TRANSITION OF THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FROM METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL TO A PRIVATE AGENCY (MAAA)
4. 9:10 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION - J. SCHUG, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - J. HARPER
5. 9:20 DISCUSSION FROM THE AUDIENCE
6.
VISlTORS AUf SHAJ/E T1lE1R CONCERNS wrm 11lE COUN7T BOARD OF COMMISS/ONERS ON ANY lIF:M NOT ON 11lE AGENDA. 11lE CHAIR MIL DIRECT 11lE
COUNTY ADMlN1S11IATOR TO PREPARE RESPONSES TO YOUR CONCERNS. YOU ARE ENCOURAGED NOT TO BE REPElTl10US OF PREVIOUS SPEAKERS AND TO
UMlT YOUR ADDRESS TO 11VE M1NU1l:S.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS - COMMENTS - QUESTIONS
71lIS PERIOD OF TIME SHAlL BE USED BY 11lE COMMISS/ONERS TO REPORT TO 11lE FUU BOARD ON COMMl17F:E ACT1VT11ES, MAKE COMMENTS ON AUTTERS
OF IN1EREST AND INFORMATION, OR lWSE QUESllONS TO 11lE STAFF. 71lIS AC110N IS NOT INTENDED TO RESULT IN SUBSTANTIVE BOARD AC110N DURING
71lIS TIME. ANY AC110N NECESSARY BECAUSE OF DISCUSS10N MIL BE SCHEDULED FOR A FV7VRE BOARD MEEllNG.
7. BOARD CORRESPONDENCE
9: 35 - ADJOURN
9:45 BOARD WORKSHOP WITH OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION -
TO
,],~: 15 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION
BOARD WORKSHOP WITH OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION - ROOM B
10. 11:15
TO
12:00
11- 12:00
12. 1:00
TO
1:45
13. 7:00
1995 SALARIES FOR ELECTED DEPARTMENT HEADS
BREAK FOR LUNCH
REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY WORKSHOP - ROOM B
BURLINGTON NORTHERN LINE CORRIDOR FROM SOUTH COUNTY LINE TO
CSAH 8 IN THE CITY OF HUGO
TRUTH-IN-TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Date
Dec. 12
Dec. 13
13
13
ec. 14
Dec. 14
Dec. 14
MEETING NOTICES
Committee
Time
Location
Public Health Advisory Committee
HRA Board
Mosquito Control Board
Library Board
Community Social Services
Community Corrections
Private Industry Council
5:30 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
9:00 a.m.
6:30 p.m.
7:30 a.m.
8:00 a.m.
8:00 a.m.
Washington County Government Center
Washington County Government Center
2099 University Ave. W. - St. Paul
Woodbury Library
Lake Elmo Inn
Lake Elmo Inn
Washington County Government Center
/I you n..d eus""". d.,. II> di.bi/ity or IengUl/g. berrier, pi... cen 430-6003 (TDD 439-32201
EaUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CONSENTCALENDAR*
DECEMBER 12,1995
e
The following items are presented for Board approval/adoption:
DEPAR'DIEH'.r I AGENCY
ADMINISTRATION
ITEM
A. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 21 AND 28, 1995 BOARD MEETING
MINUTES.
B. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WETLAND
CONSERVATION ACT.
AUDITOR-TREASURER
C. APPROVAL OF ABATEMENT APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
D. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT THE AMENDED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE MINNESOTA STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND WASHINGTON
COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR PROGRAM YEAR 1995.
E. APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT OF COOPERATION BETWEEN COMMUNITY
SERVICES AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR THE PROV:ISION
OF FRAUD PROSECUTION SERVICES.
HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND
LAND MANAGEMENT
F.
APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN AN
APPLICATION FOR CY 1996-1997 DISTRIBUTION OF RECYCLING
DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND LAND MANAGEMENT TO FORWARD THE
COMPLETED GRANT APPLICATION TO THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSISTANCE.
PUBLIC WORKS
H.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AWARDING THE 1996 FUEL SUPPLY CONTRACT
TO KATH BROTHERS FUEL OIL COMPANY, CONDITIONED UPON THE
APPROVAL AND FULL EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT AS REQUIRED BY LAW. .
APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO.4 WITH TKDA, INC. FOR
THE REDESIGN OF THE CSAH 2 PROJECT FROM 1-35 TO 1/4 MILE WEST
OF EVERTON AVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,925.
G.
I. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION, FINAL PAYMENT TO TODD COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,354.53 FOR BOARD ROOM
MODIFICATIONS.
J. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION, SUPPORTING MN/DOT APPLICATION FOR
ISTEA FUNDING OF TH 10 IMPROVEMENT FROM THE ST. CROIX RIVER
TO TH 61.
RECORDER
K. APPROVAL OF A PLAT FOR HIDDEN VALLEY ACRES, DENMARK TOWNSHIP.
L. INFORMATION ONLY - RECORDER FEES FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER,
1995.
SHERIFF
M. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION SETTING THE SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIVISION
FEES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1996.
.ConSCllt Calendar items are generally defmed u items of routine business, not requiring discussion, md approved in one vote. Commissioners may elect to pull a cons.
Calendar item(s) for discussion and/or separate action.
.
12-11-199510:24AM FROM STILLWATER TWSP #2 612 439 3877
Stillwater Township
December 14, 1995
Chair: Hicks
7:30 p.m. Regular Meeting
Aaenda: adopt.
Minutes: approve minutes - November 9 and December 6, 1995.
Treasurer: Claims & Checks
Attornev: 1. Zoning Ordinance #115
2. Update Bergmann Property Recording
3. Drug Testing Policy
4. Baler Option
5. Rivard Update
. Planner: 1. Evenson-Dodge Presentation
Enaineer:
Public Works: 1. Stone bridge Survey
2. County Sharing Equipment Plan
Clerk: 1. Miscellaneous Items
Committees: 1. Appoint members - Remick, Untiedt, Ordahl, Schubert.
i.
PeoDle - 8:30 PM:
1. Mike Maroney T.M.T. - Recycling Contract
2. Mike Polehna - Sports Complex
3. Corey Mohan - Survey Results
4. Cathy Buck - Curtiss Hills Outlot
5. Ron Gavaleck - 120th Street Flooding
Old Business:
1. Update various meetings attended
New Business:
Note:
P.2
12/8/95
Pat Bantli
12/08/95
13:31
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS ~ 6124390456
NO. 047
~01
.
Po't-Itll Fax Note
Tft.
7671 Oale
;""\
AGENDA
.
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1995 -- 5:30 P.M.
5; 30 AGENDA
I. Co~n~il Workshop - propo~ed Fire Substation
Enclosure 1, lA, & lB
6:30 AGENDA
I. Call To Order
II. Visitor Comments. Oue~tiQns, o~ COD~~~n5
III.
Department Report~
1. Police 3. Building
2. Utilities 4. Parks
S. Administration
6. Cable
.
7 ~ 00 AGENDA
.
IV.
Unfinished Business
1. City Logo
Enclosure 2
2. Proposed 1996 Employee Salaries
Enclosure 3
3. Resolution 95-12-52 - Adopt 1996 Tax Levy
Enolosure 4 & 4A
4. Resolution 95-12-53 - Adopt 1996 Budget
Enclosure 5
5. ADA plans & Specifications
Enclosure 6
6. Proposed Changes in Brown's Creek Joint Powers
Agreement
7. Update on Design Review Committee
Enclosure 7
.
8. Bay town Comprehensive Plan Report
Enclosure 8
9. Screaton Property - Request for Annexation
Enclosure 9
12/08/95
v.
13:32
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS ~ 6124390456
[;102
NO. 047
.
Review Minutes - NovemQ~r '{? 1995
Enclosure 10
Review Mi.U\.lkes - November 29. 1995
Enclosure 11
VI. P~blic Hearings
1. Proposed Goose Removal - 53rd & O'Brien Pond
Enolosure 12
2. Stillwater Ford - Request for Conditional Use
Permit, Variance, and Re-Zoning.
Enclosure 13, 13A, & 13B
3. Ordinance 95-402-04 - An Ordinance Amending
Chapter 402, Section 402.07 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Oak Park Heights to add a Section
402.07, Subdivision H Relating to Building Permit
Issuance
Enclosure 14
4. Ordinance 95-207-05 - An Ordinance Establishing a
Four Year Term for the Office of Mayor within the City
of Oak Park Heights, effective January 1, 1997.
Enclosure 15
.
VII. ~ew Business
1. Resolution 95-12-54 - Adopting Goals to Implement
the Livable Communities Act
Enolosure 16
2. Junker Sanitation - Request to Change Garbage
Pickup Day for Oak Park Heights to Thursdays
Enclosure 17 & 17A
3. Request for Payment - Novak Avenue Improvement -
Danner, Inc. - $52,076.91
Enclosure 18
4. Resolution 95-12-55 - A Resolution Authorizing
Fund Transfers
Enclosure 19
5. Resolution 95-12-56 - A Resolution Authorizing
1995 Budget Transfers
Enolosure 20
6. Jerry's Auto Detail - Request for Variance -
Establish a Public Hearing Date
Enclosure 21 & 21A
.
7. Resolution 95-12-57 - A Resolution Approving
Walmart Cigarette & Amusement Licenses
Encloaure 22
.
.
.
12/08/95
13:32
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS ~ 6124390456
NO. 047
[;103
8. Resolution 95-12-58 - A Resolution Approving
Request for Gambling Premises Permit - VFW Post 323 -
5880 Omaha Avenue
Enclosure 23
9. City Administrator Review
Enclosure 24
VItI.
Pay :eill!$
lx. Corr~sponpence
1. Letter from Sheriff Frank - Washington County
Communications Plan
Enclosure 25
2. Letter from St. Croix Valley Press
Enclosure 26
3. Letter from Stillwater Area School District
Partnership Plan
Enclosure 27
Closed Meeting: The meeting will be closed for an update on
union negotiations and an update on pending litigation.
, -Adjournment:
W ASIllNGTON COUNTY
Dennis C. Hegberg
District 1
Mary Hauser
District 2
COUNTY BOARD AGENDA
DECEMBER 12, 1995, 9:00 P.M.
Wally Abrahamson
District 3/Chalrman
Myra Peterson
District 4
Dave Engstrom
District 6
1. 9:00 ROLL CALL
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
3. 9:00 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - D. PAPIN, DIRECTOR
TRANSITION OF THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FROM METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL TO A PRIVATE AGENCY (MAAA)
4. 9:10 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION - J. SCHUG, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - J. HARPER
5. 9:20 DISCUSSION FROM THE AUDIENCE
10.
11.
12.
13.
6.
7.
8.
9.
9:35
9:45
TO
11:15
V/S/TORS MAY SHARE '11lE1R CONCDWS WI71l77lE COUNTY BOA1//) OF COMMISSIONERS ON ANY ITEM NOT ON 77lE AGENDA. 77lE CHAJR WlU DIRECT 77lE
COUNTY ADMlN1S1'RATOR TO PREPARE RESPONSES TO YOUR CONCERNS. YOU ARE ENCOURAGED NOT TO BE REPE1TT10US OF PREVIOUS SPEAKERS AND TO
LIMIT YOUR ADDRESS TO FIVE MlNUIFS..
COMMISSIONER REPORTS - COMMENTS - QUESTIONS
1HJS PERIOD OF TIME SHAlL BE USED BY 77lE COMMISSIONERS TO REPOKT TO 77lE FUlL BOA1//) ON COMMnnE ACTlV1T1ES, MAKE COMMENTS ON MA1TERS
OF lNTEREST AND INFORMATION, OR IWSE QUESTIONS TO 77lE STAFF. TIllS AC110N IS NOT INTENDED TO RESULT IN SUBSTANl1VE BOARD AC110N DURING
1HJS 71ME. ANY AC110N NECESSARY BEC4USE OF DISCUSSION WlU BE SCHEDULED FOR A FU1VRE BOA1//) MEE17NG.
BOARD CORRESPONDENCE
ADJOURN
BOARD WORKSHOP WITH OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION
2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION
BOARD WORKSHOP WITH OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION - ROOM B
1995 SALARIES FOR ELECTED DEPARTMENT HEADS
BREAK FOR LUNCH
REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY WORKSHOP - ROOM B
BURLINGTON NORTHERN LINE CORRIDOR FROM SOUTH COUNTY LINE TO
CSAH 8 IN THE CITY OF HUGO
TRUTH-IN-TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MEETING NOTICES
11:15
TO
12:00
12:00
1:00
TO
1:45
7:00
Date COlDIDittee Time
Dec. 12 Public Health Advisory Committee 5:30 p.m.
Dec. 13 HRA Board 5:00 p.m.
13 Mosquito Control Board 9:00 a.m.
13 Library Board 6:30 p.m.
14 Community Social Services 7:30 a.m.
14 Community Corrections 8:00 a.m.
14 Private Industry Council 8:00 a.m.
Location
Washington County Government Center
Washington County Government Center
2099 University Ave. W. - st. Paul
Woodbury Library
Lake Elmo Inn
Lake Elmo Inn
Washington County Government Center
If you need euistance due to di_biliry or IIIng/RJge berrier, pi.... <:ell430.6oo3 (TOD 439-32201
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CONSENT CALENDAR *
DECEMBER 12, 1995
.
The following items are presented for Board approval/adoption:
DEPAltTMEHT/AGEHCY
ADMINISTRATION
I~
A. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 21 AND 28, 1995 BOARD MEETING
MINUTES.
B. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WETLAND
CONSERVATION ACT.
AUDITOR-TREASURER
C. APPROVAL OF ABATEMENT APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
D. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT THE AMENDED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE MINNESOTA STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND WASHINGTON
COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR PROGRAM YEAR 1995.
E. APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT OF COOPERATION BETWEEN COMMUNITY
SERVICES AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR THE PROVISION
OF FRAUD PROSECUTION SERVICES.
HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND
LAND MANAGEMENT
F.
APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN AN
APPLICATION FOR CY 1996-1997 DISTRIBUTION OF RECYCLING
DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND LAND MANAGEMENT TO FORWARD THE
COMPLETED GRANT APPLICATION TO THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSISTANCE.
PUBLIC WORKS
H.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AWARDING THE 1996 FUEL SUPPLY CONTRACT
TO KATH BROTHERS FUEL OIL COMPANY, CONDITIONED UPON THE
APPROVAL AND FULL EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT AS REQUIRED BY LAW. .
APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO.4 WITH TKDA, INC. FOR
THE REDESIGN OF THE CSAH 2 PROJECT FROM 1-35 TO 1/4 MILE WEST
OF EVERTON AVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,925.
G.
I. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION, FINAL PAYMENT TO TODD COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,354.53 FOR BOARD ROOM
MODIFICATIONS.
J. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION, SUPPORTING MN/DOT APPLICATION FOR
ISTEA FUNDING OF TH 10 IMPROVEMENT FROM THE ST. CROIX RIVER
TO TH 61.
RECORDER
K. APPROVAL OF A PLAT FOR HIDDEN VALLEY ACRES, DENMARK TOWNSHIP.
L. INFORMATION ONLY - RECORDER FEES FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER,
1995.
SHERIFF
M. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION SETTING THE SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIVISION
FEES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1996.
.Consent Calendar items are genera11y dcfmed as items of routine business, not requiriDg discussion, and approved in one vote. Commissioners may elect to pull a COlIS.
Calendar itcm(s) for discussion mdlor separate action.