HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-01-25 CC Packet Special Meeting•
i1
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA 14 )
January 22, 1993
M E M O
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: MARY LOU JOHNSON, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1993, 4:30 P.M.
This memo is a reminder to Council that a Special Workshop Meeting has been
• scheduled for Monday afternoon, January 25, 1993 at 4:30 P.M. in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 216 No. Fourth St., Stillwater, Minnesota to discuss the
following:
1. Planning Issues:
a. Comprehensive Plan Update.
b. Update on UBC Project.
c. Update on Acquisition of Railroad /Riverfront Property.
2. Finance Bonding Considerations.
3. Special Assessment Policy.
4. Any other business Council may wish to discuss.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612 - 439 -6121
• iliwater
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
MEMORANDUM
2. Update on purchase of UBC site for parking.
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVE RUSSELL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: JANUARY 22, 1993
SUBJECT: PLANNING ITEMS FOR WORKSHOP DISCUSSION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
The Community Development Department Work Program for 1993 is attached to this
memorandum for your information. The Work Program outlines planning activities
for 1993 and accomplishments for 1992.
As time permits, I would like to discuss the overall Work Program with the
Council. For today's meeting three items will be presented for discussion:
1. The Comprehensive Plan Revision Work Program and update process.
3. Update on purchase of riverfront land.
Comprehensive Plan Work Program: Preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Work
Program was originally directed by the City Council September 22, 1992 when
the City was approached by land owners west of Stillwater to annex their land.
Since that time, Planning Staff has worked with the Commission to develop the
Comprehensive Work Program with input from the Planning Commission. The
attached work program describes the update process work items and accompanying
budget.
UBC Site: The Downtown Plan identifies the need for parking in the South Main
Street area. The plan identifies the corner of Olive Street and Second Street
as the location for a parking structure. Staff has been working with UBC and
the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority on purchase of the
UBC site and relocation of UBC to the West Stillwater Business Park. The plans
for the UBC relocation was approved by the City Council January 19, 1993.
The City Council directed Staff to work with the Washington County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority on using the Tax Increment Financing from the new UBC
site. The WCHRA has been working with Planning Staff on a variety of housing
projects at alternative Downtown locations. Some of the potential housing
sites are owned by the City and could help pay for the UBC site. At today's
workshop, Downtown housing project concepts will be presented to the City
Council for comment and direction. Dennis Balyeat, Executive Director of the
WCHRA will assist in the presentation and discussion.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612- 439 -6121
Railroad Land: The third discussion item is regarding the purchase of land
from the Railroad. The land is located between the Brick Alley and South Main
Public Parking lot and the St. Croix River. Staff was directed by the City
Council to negotiate purchase of the property. City Staff is working with the
owners of adjacent land! (Dock Cafe and Andiamo) in purchasing of the land
from the Railroad. The details of the purchase proposed will be presented at
meeting time for Council review. The purchase is critical to the City because
it provides a pedestrian connection between the Aiple property and Lowell
Park.
ATTACHMENTS:
- 1993 Community Development Department Work Program.
- Comprehensive Plan Work Program and Budget.
- Map showing UBC site.
•
•
•
•
row � 6
-
w
■
6
700 r
.720
4.e./no7
MAIN
//L57 S tar
F--
w
w
A il
i �
-LI • : . 1 :`.
r w
1 . 7....-72..:
L�,� y ,�
`• y� /�1 X72 .. — �.� \ .` \�
• . ,-) ' i .''�
\ � -72C- -
/
(4 jC. • s;t •
STREET
-- 721- -- • , 7+. - --
i
c
1
- -��� ▪ THIRD
▪ . �.
000
) •.
F STREET
ti
a Oil
m
cn
m
1
tl e o f o v e L �� • S :,
a Y Y N J N
—_` _ ` _ o e a a w O z q o a
I (I. . N, ; ; ( 1 ,,
1 - � \ ' ■'l ! ) ' "L \\ ka � t `- — i t
\, It' r 1 1 1,
, , /i -
//%
/ l.-
77,/,/,
:NJ
l / 'i,i
.......,,1
!� ill
•' ,f • ' ) _ '
• ,
• ' ''.'
d !/, / _ : ,, s '
i
n
r J
0
•
J
1 ; 1
,
% /%�/l��j
es,
u. -
z
m
• , , j1 twater
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVE RUSSELL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: JANUARY 13, 1993
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET
Background:
The existing City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City in
August of 1979. Since that time, the plan has been amended to include three
specific area plans. These include the Brick Pond Area Plan (1987), the
Downtown Plan (1988) and the West Stillwater Business Park Plan (1989). These
updates studied areas of the City that needed immediate attention: the
Downtown and Business Park. These plans did not examine overall City -wide plan
policies and conditions. The plan is currently out of date and does not
address some current planning issues which have been brought to the attention
of the City in recent months. The plan also must be amended to be consistent
with Metropolitan Council Development Policy.
• The Planning Commission and City Council have identified the areas of parks
and open space, ravines and natural areas, community appearance, historic and
cultural resource protection and City expansion as areas that need to be
addressed in the Comprehensive Plan Update.
The attached Work Program addresses these areas as well as overall land use,
community growth and development, City -wide infrastructure, (circulation,
sanitary sewer, water) and water resources.
The Work Program describes five phases of plan development. The Planning
Commission will play a key role and be the lead agency in plan development.
The Planning Commission will work with other City committees, commissions and
City staff in developing the plan.
Public participation in plan development is important to make sure the plan
meets the needs of the community and the community is aware of changes that
may occur in the future. To obtain community input, a series of neighborhood
meetings will be held and a City -wide questionnaire administered. Advertised
public meetings and public hearings will also be held during plan development
and Plan adoption.
It is estimated that, if the Work Program is approved by the City Council in
January 1993, the plan will be completed by early 1994. A budget for the
plan update is attached. The total update cost of $25,000 requires $15,000 in
funds in addition to those set aside in the 1993 planning budget. The Metro
• Council Comprehensive Sewer Plan will be amended as a result of the plan
update and be a part of the overall City Comprehensive Plan. An area plan with
development guidelines will be prepared for new City growth areas.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612 - 439 - 6121
1
The Council may want to hold a special meeting on the Comprehensive Plan
Update process and plan content before approving the Work Program and budget
request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Work Program and budget for Comprehensive Plan Update. (resolution
required) and request Water Board to pay for water service planning estimated
at $6,000 - $7,000.
ATTACHMENT:
Stillwater Comprehensive Plan Work Program.
1
•
•
•
•
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
WORK PROGRAM 1993
I. Background for Comprehensive Plan update and approval of work work program.
This item includes developing the work program for the Comprehensive Plan Update
and providing the Planning Commission and City Council with background material
regarding the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan will be described and
defined, functions of the plan described, recent examples of Comprehensive Plans
provided along with planning documents from other regional or local
organizations that will be considered in the Comprehensive Plan update. The
legal requirements for the Comprehensive Plan will be provided. This item will
generally familiarize the Planning Commission with the Comprehensive Plan and
Update Program.
The overall work program and schedule for the Comprehensive Plan Update has been
reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission to the City
Council.
Product: Approved overall Comprehensive Plan Work Program and budget.
II. Define Existing Conditions
In this phase of plan update, information in the following areas will be
reviewed and existing conditions documented. Deficiencies or needs in the
following subject areas will be identified.
Land Use ( residential / commercial /industrial /public /vacant)
Parks and Open Space
Land Ownership Patterns
Demographic Trends and Forecasts
Employment Projections
Infrastructure
Sanitary Sewers
Water Services
Storm Drainage
Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation (Pathways)
Historic and Cultural Resources
Natural Resources
Wetlands
Sloped Area
Soil Condition
Biotic Resource
Scenic Resources
Community Character
In collecting the information City Departments, and source organization will be
contacted ie: DNR, Stillwater Township, MWBAC, Washington County. The City
Engineers (Short, Elliott and Hendrickson), Public Works Department, Planning
Consultant and City Staff will prepare the Existing Conditions Report.
Product: Existing Condition Report
1
III. Issue Identification and Goal Setting.
Some issues will be identified as a result of examining existing conditions.
Other issues will be identified through neighborhood meetings and information
collected from a community questionnaire administered through the City
Newsletter or utility billing.
The Planning Commission will hold neighborhood meetings where residents will
have an opportunity to Express their likes and dislikes about their neighborhood
and the development of the community at large.
From the meeting and questionnaires, a report will be prepared describing the
planning issues, regarding the future of Stillwater and what the residents would
like the future to entail. Goals will be formulated by the Planning Commission
based on the community input, past City planning policy, existing conditions
and planning issues.
The issue identificatiorl and goals report will be prepared by City Planning
Staff with assistance from the City Engineer (SEH), Planning Consultants.
Product: Issue identification and City goals report.
IV. Alternative Plan Development, Review and Selection.
From the above phases o= plan development; existing conditions, issues
identification and goal development, alternative future plans will be developed
that have different effects and cost to the community.
These alternative futures will be developed, and presented to the Planning
Commission, neighborhood groups and the City Council. From the review of
alternative and impacts, a final Comprehensive Plan will be prepared.
The alternative plans will be developed by the City Planning Staff with
assistance from the City Engineer (SEH) and Planning Consultant.
Product: Alternative Plans Report and description of plan impacts.
V. Final Plan Development and Adoption.
The last phase will include final plan preparation based on goal statements,
alternative plans and camments and impact of alternative plans. The final plan
will include information describing existing conditions and proposing policy
that will reach the desired future. The plan policy may call for Zoning
Ordinance revisions, changes in land use designation, orderly annexation
agreements, capital improvements, land purchases, or other action required to
implement the plan.
The Planning Commission shall hold public hearings on the Draft Revised
Comprehensive Plan and based on the review and input from the public, recommend
a plan for adoption to the City Council. The Council shall hold a public hearing
and adopt the recommended Comprehensive Plan.
9
•
•
•
•
The Final Comprehensive Plan will be prepared by City Planning Staff with
assistance from the City Engineer (Short, Elliott and Hendrickson) and Planning
Consultant.
Product: City Comprehensive Plan.
VI. Plan Implementation.
A plan implementation program will be a part of the Comprehensive Plan. Once the
plan is adopted, follow -up action will be required over time to carry out the
plan.
Planning Staff will coordinate and prepare plan implementation items.
VII. Comprehensive Plan Review and Update.
To keep the Comprehensive Plan current, it should be reviewed yearly or on a
regular basis to make sure it reflects the desires and needs of the community.
The Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed on a regular basis by the Planning
Commission with Planning Staff assistance. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
will be necessary as conditions change.
SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
The Comprehensive Plan Update began in October 1992 with the Planning Commission
discussing the Comprehensive Plan and Work Program. The Comprehensive Plan
Update is a major work item for the Planning Department and will take consultant
assistance from the City Engineer (SEH) in the areas of circulation,
infrastructure and wetlands and natural resources. Planning Consultant
assistance is proposed for the City expansion area so that when the
Comprehensive Plan is complete, the City will have a special area plan,
including design and development guidelines for that area. Also, plan graphic
and production assistance is necessary to prepare presentation material and
graphics for the final documents.
A budget for the Comprehensive Plan Update is attached. The budge includes costs
over and above the City Planning Staff costs. Ten thousand dollars was set aside
in the 1993 budget for the Comprehensive Plan Update activity. (To give some
perspective of plan development cost, the Downtown Plan cost $85,000.)
This budget request does not include funding to comprehensively study the water
utility needs of the future expansion area. It is estimated by the City Engineer
that $6,000 - $7,000 in addition to the above costs would be needed to include
the water utility in the Comprehensive Plan. It is suggested the City Staff be
directed to request the Water Board to fund the Water System Study cost so they
can be a part of the Comprehensive Plan.
3
BUDGET
The budgets cost; related to Work Program item:
II. Existing Coniition Report:
a. Existing City
Engine3ring
Circulation
Infrastructure
b. Expansion Area
Engin ?ering
Circilation
Infrastructure
Wate Resources
Planning
TOTAL BUDGET
Circulation
Infrastructure
Wate- Resources
Planting
Production
Othe
4
$1,500
1,500
1,000
2,500
3,000
1,500
III. Issue Identification and Goal Setting:
Engineering
Infrastructure 1,000
Circilation 750
Wate- Resources 500
Planning 2,000
VI. Alternative )evelopment and Review
Infrastructure 750
Engiieering 750
Planning 2,000
V. Final Plan Eigineering Preparation:
Infrastructure 750
Circilation 750
Planning 2,000
4,750
6,500
3,500
5,000
2,500
2,750
TOTAL $25,000
$10,000 has been set aside in this years budget for the Comprehensive
Plan Update.
•
•
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOALS, OBJECT1VES AND 1993 WORK PROGRAM
Comprehensive Plan:
Guide the use of land through the preparation of a City Comprehensive Plan
consistent with local development needs, community resources and good planning
practices and principles.
Objectives:
1. Develop and maintain and up -to -date Comprehensive Plan.
2. Prepare a more detailed plan as a part of the Comprehensive Plan for areas
of the City or subject area needing special attention and policy direction.
Work Program:
1. Begin preparation of major City -wide Comprehensive Plan Update (detailed
work program attached).
2. Coordination preparation of plans for Lowell Park reconstruction and
expansion.
3. Implement Water Shed Management plans for Brown's Creek and Middle River.
• 4. Assist in preparation of Capital Improvement Program and coordinate with
the comprehensive Plan.
5. Prepare application for state or regional agencies grants to help pay for
levee wall reconstruction.
6. Develop a city annexation growth policy as a part of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Land Use Regulations:
Administer land use regulations for benefit of overall community.
Objectives:
1. Develop and maintain Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
Work Program:
1. Amend Zoning Ordinance as needed (text and map).
2. Update and amend Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Review planning and planned related permits as required by the Zoning
Ordinance (PUD`s, variances, subdivisions, street vacation).
4. Administer State Environmental Review requirement.
5. Review design of naw development in West Stillwater Business Park and
Downtown.
Historic Preservation:
Recognize and preserve St'illwater's historic resources.
Objectives:
1. Identify historic resources, building, sites and places.
2. Develop Historic Preservation Policy and implement program.
3. Develop information to assist property owners recognize and rehabilitate
historic and older structures.
4. Educate the public Of the importance of the cities historic resources.
5. Implement Work Program.
Work Program: 1993 Work Program
1. Work with private groups /individuals to assist in the preservation and
restoration of Downtown Stillwater and the surrounding residential
neighbors.
2. Continue as Design Review Committee as regulated by the Design Review
Regulations and Preservation Ordinance.
3. Comment on Phase II and Phase III of the Downtown Plan and related projects
with special emphasis on design and sensitivity to the historic integrity
of the area.
4. Support and assist in the adaptive reuse study of the Stillwater Junior
High School facili
y.
5. Develop and adopt tie Historic Context Study for inclusion in the Historic
Resource Section o the Comprehensive Plan.
6. Assist the City in upport and consideration of various methods to preserve
the Stillwater /Houl.ton Lift Bridge.
7: Assist in the restcration and reconstruction of the Levee Wall and Lowell
Park.
8. Continue as Design Review Committee for the Stillwater Business Park.
Economic Development:
Support economic development consistent with City needs:
2
r
•
•
Objectives:
1. Promote City economic development and provide assistant consistent with
City Economic Development Policy.
Work Program:
I. Assist in reviewing requests for economic development assistance and make
recommendations regarding the requests to the City Council.
2. Represent the City on the Stillwater Area Economic Development Corporation
and provide assistance as needed.
3. Assist Cub Food find a new office location in the downtown.
4. Monitor /assist in coordination of completion of Phase II Downtown
Improvements.
5. Assist developers of Woodland Lakes Site.
6. Maintain Industrial /Commercial Vacant Land Survey.
Public Information and Participation:
Provide the opportunity for public participation in planning related issues and
decisions.
Objectives:
1. Develop and distribute public information on planning permits and building
requirements.
2. Provide maximum opportunity for public involvement in plan development and
implementation process.
Work Program:
1. Write public interest articles on planning issues and projects for City
tabloid, new articles and Chamber publication.
2. Staff Planning Commission, Design Review Committee -, Downtown Plan Action
Committee, Heritage Preservation Commission and other City Committees and
task forces regarding planning activities.
3. Present current planning projects to cormuunity groups as needed /requested.
4. Present community development updates to various community groups.
Coordination:
Cooperate with other City departments and other local, regional and state
agencies on projects that benefit the City.
Objectives:
1. Provide planning staff assistance as needed for activities that are related
to planning activities.
2. Effectively and clearly represent the City to other local, regional and
state governments and organizations.
Work Program:
1. Review Metropolitan Council policies and plans to see how they affect the
City, inform the Council of the effect and draft and present comments as
directed.
2. Review county, regional, state and national documents that impact
Stillwater planning and as appropriate present to the City for comment.
3. Work with other City departments in development of planning related
projects.
In carrying out the work program the Community Development Department works
primarily with the City Council, Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation
Commission. In addition to these bodies, other City Committees and Commissions
are provided staff assistance in carrying out the work program. The Planning
Commission is responsible for developing and maintaining the City Comprehensive
Plan. City Comprehensive Plan documents include the City -wide comprehensive
plan, Brick Pond Area Plan, 1987, Downtown Area Plan, 1988, West Stillwater
Business Park Plan, 1989, Brown's Creek and Middle River Watershed District
Plans, 1992 and Lowell Pax c Renovation Plan 1992.
Besides the City Comprehensive Plan Policy, documents that provide general
direction for the future development, planning regulations provide specific
direction for development projects. The development regulations include the
following: Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Bluffland /Shoreland
Ordinance, Downtown Design Guidelines, West Stillwater Business Park Design
Guidelines, other related codes, policy regarding development of lots without
public access, Building Mcving Regulations, Street Vacation policy. The City
has adopted a Tax Increment Assistance Policy to provide direction for the use
of Tax Increment Financing consistent with the purposes and objectives of the
City Redevelopment Plan.
The Planning Commission reviews subdivision of land, planned unit development,
special use permits, variances, street vacations, zoning ordinance amendments,
annexation requests and comprehensive plan amendments, building moving and
permits. The Planning Commission receives a staff report regarding the planning
permit request including an analysis of the project as it relates to site
conditions, planning policy and regulations and other public utility impacts.
For most cases notice is sent out to owners of properties within 350 feet of the
project.
For a typical planning project, the Planning Commission holds a public meeting,
4
•
•
•
reviews the staff report, receives a project presentation form the applicant,
hears public comment, discusses the project and takes action making a
recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission's charge is to
review the project as it relates to City planning regulations and policy and make
recommendation for final decision to the City Council.
The City Council receives the staff report and recommendation from the Planning
Commission, holds a public hearing in most cases and makes final decision
regarding the project. All projects are finally decided by the City Council.
Planning staff records any conditions of the approval and reviews building plans
for conformance with conditions of approval.
The Planning Commission is also charged with preparing and maintaining the
Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Department provides staff assistance and
direction for the development and update of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Heritage Preservation Commission reviews the design of projects in the
Downtown Historic Commercial District and the Stillwater West Business Park.
Design guidelines have been established for those areas. The guidelines provide
the basis for project review. The Heritage Preservation Commission makes
recommendation regarding consistency of project design to the Planning Commission
and City Council The HPC makes final decision regarding store signs in the
downtown if they meet the Sign Ordinance regulations.
The HPC also designates and maintains a list of locally significant historic
sites. Once sites are designated, they require HPC approval for building
modifications.
The primary purpose of the Heritage Preservation Commission is to ensure that
new development is consistent with the historic character of downtown and adopted
design standards in the West Stillwater Business Park.
The Community Development Department provides staff assistance to the following
committees and commissions. Below each committees, commissions and special_task
force is listed along with its membership /roster, a summary of department
accomplishments during 1992 and work program for 1993.
Planning Commission
Members: Gerald Fontaine, Chairperson; Dorothy Gilbert Foster; Darwin Wald;
Glenna Bealka; Duane Elliot; Don Valsvik; Jay Kimble; Kirk Roetman; Robert
Hamlin.
Meeting Date: Second Monday of each month.
Heritage Preservation Commission
Members: Tim Stefan; Marlene Workman; Kathy Francis; Shawn Draper; Robert
Kimbrel; Howard Lieberman; Jeff Johnson.
Meeting Date: First Monday of each month.
Downtown Action Committee
Members: Don Valsvik; Diane Rollie; Jeff Johnson; Mike McGuire; Fred Brass;
Wally Milbrandt; Dick Slachta; David Pohl; Katherine Francis; Paul Simonet;
Linda Hinz.
Meeting Date: As scheduled.
Downtown Special Projects Review Task Force
Members: Darwin Wald; Tim Stefan; Paul Simonet; Diane Rollie; Glenna Bealka;
Bob Kimbrel; Karl Ranum; Dave Pohl.
Meeting Date: As scheduled.
Downtown Parking Task Force
Members: Richard Chilson; John Bourdaghs; Karl Ranum; Dick Slachta; Dave
Swanson; Police Chief; Parking Enforcement Officer; City Attorney; David
Anderson; Cooie Mellen; Paul Simonet; Gordon Maltby.
Meeting Date: As scheduled.
Stillwater Economic Development Commission (SAEDC)
Steve Russell - City of Stillwater representative.
Meeting Date: As scheduled.
Brown's Creek Watershed Management Organization
Members: Ann Pung- Terwedo - City of Stillwater representative.
Meeting Date: As scheduled.
Middle River Watershed Management Organization
Members: Ann Pung - Terwedo - City of Stillwater representative.
Meeting Date: As scheduled.
City Council Committees
Economic Development Committees
Councilperson Ann Bodlovick and Gary Funke coordinate City input on
economic development projects on the task force.
Meeting Date: As scheduled.
New Armory Task Force
Members: Anr. Bodlovick; John A. Cox; Jay Kimble; Tom Ryan; Steve
Russell; Nile Kriesel; Gary Funke; Lyle Doerr; Major Dennis Shields.
Meeting Date: As scheduled.
6
1
•
•
Comprehensive Plan
1992 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Prepare work program and provide background information to Planning Commission
for comprehensive plan amendment for area bounded by City of Stillwater, Highway
96 and Oak Glen Development.
Process annexation request for area bounded by City of Stillwater, Highway 96
and Oak Glen.
Direct and coordinate preparation of Lowell Park Expansion Plan.
Amend City Comprehensive Plan to include Brown's Creek and Middle River Watershed
Management Plan Policy (state requirement).
Assist in preparing legislation and grant request for grant to reconstruct and
extend the Lowell Park Levee Wall.
Land Use Regulations
Administer zoning ordinance by process sixty (60) planning permit requests
(variances, subdivisions, special use permits, building moving permits).
Amend zoning ordinance regarding political signs, outside noise in the downtown
and bed and breakfasts.
Issued 13 sign permits
Issued 4 grading permits.
Administer State Environmental Review Requirements.
Review design of 39 developments in the downtown and West Stillwater Business
Park for design permits.
Historic Preservation
Assist in preservation alliance reuse study of the junior high school site.
Review design permits for 39 developments in the Nationally Designated Downtown
Stillwater Commercial Historic District.
Participation in the preservation of the Lowell Park Plan to ensure historic
resources are protected.
Direct preparation of Historic Context Study.
Apply for and receive grant from state office of historic preservation for
Stillwater Historic Context Study.
Represent City's interest in preserving the Historic Stillwater Lift Bridge (the
bridge is on the National Register of Historic Places).
Assist property owners apply for tax credits for certified restoration of
historic structures.
I I I
Meet with local historic preservation groups for the preservation and recognition
of Stillwater Historic Resources.
Member of Sesquicentennial Committee to organize for the year long event.
Economic Development
Represent City on Stillwater Area Economic Development Commission.
Represent City in negotiations with developers regarding the use of tax increment
financing consistent with the City approved tax increment financing policy.
Public Information and Participation
Write articles regarding City planning and historic preservation for City
Newsletter.
Respond to publics need for future plan activity and zoning administration.
Staff City Council, Planning Commission, Heritage Preservation Committee,
Downtown Action Committee, Downtown Special Project Review Task Force, Downtown
Parking Commission and represent City on Brown's Creek and Middle River Watershed
Management Organizations.
Coordinator City Departmsnt review of planning projects.
8
•
•
•
•
HANDOUTS
CITY OF STILLWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHAT IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FUNCTIONS
METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK
STILLWATER TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
•
•
•
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHAT IS STILLWATER'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
Stillwater's Comprehensive Plan is the official public document,
adopted in 1979, by the City Council as the policy guide to
decisions regarding the physical development of the community. This
document, required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act by
Minnesota Statues, Section 473.851, encompasses all geographic parts
of the community and all functional elements which relate to the
physical make up of Stillwater.
The Comprehensive Plan is a vision statement for the future
development of Stillwater. The Comprehensive Plan's primary emphasis
is on land use, the type of development, its location, timing and
related public services and facilities needed to accommodate the
development.
Conditions have changed since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in
1979. Residential and commercial development has occurred and the
supply of vacant developable land has been depleted. The 1990 census
provides the City with a statistical picture of the City that can be
used to describe changed conditions. A Land Use Survey was conducted
in 1990 that describe the various land use activities in the City.
Besides the physical changes, the attitude of the community and
their feeling about the future may have changed and need to be
reestablished.
The Planning Commission will play a key role in providing an
opportunity for community input into the update of the Comprehensive
Plan through special meetings, neighborhood meetings, question-
naires, and public hearings.
The remainder of this report describes the Comprehensive Plan; its
functions and criteria, describes the comprehensive planning
process, describes the function of the Comprehensive Plan and lists
the elements or components of the Comprehensive Plan.
Each Commissioner is requested to review the enclosed background
information. The Planning Commission will be the key City commission
in coordinating the development of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff
will work directly with the Commission and the Commission will meet
and receive input from the affected and interested community.
At Monday's meeting we will begin discussing planning issues you
feel need to be considered in the Comprehensive Plan.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan is an official public document
that is adopted and aoproved by the Stillwater
Plan Commission and -.City Council. The plan itself
is a composite of many coordinated and consistent
elements including transportation, land use, community
facilities, environmental protection, and so on.
In tt previous section, it was stated that planning
is a ongoing, dynamic process. The Comprehensive
Plan lis a report documenting the result of the planning
proc ss.at one or several specific points in time
(thu the plan requires regular reviews and updates).
The urpose of the plan is to guide decisions concern-
ing the physical development of the community. It
therefore addresses social and economic aspects of
the city as well. The plan is a statement of how
the city should develop over the next 20 years and
what can and should be done to increase the likeli-
hood of that happening.
Comprehensive plans have also been called "general
plars" or "master plans." All three terms have
at times been used interchangeably. However, as
the planning profession has developed, the term
"mater plan" has been looked on less favorably
than the other two because it has been misused in
the past to describe many plans which are neither
comprehensive (master park plan) nor general (master
street plans). Comprehensive plans are general
in the sense that the plan summarizes the goals,
objectives and policies of the city, and provides
•
•
•
•
proposals which do not, and can not, include detailed
information on all aspects of the urban environment.
The plan is comprehensive because it includes all
the geographic features of the city and planning
area and establishes strategies concerning all of
the natural and man -made factors which effect the
continuing development of the city.
The two lists below identify the functions that the
comprehensive plan will fulfill and the criteria
that are used as a guide to develop a good plan.
Functions
Statement of City Policy
- Guide to Decision Making
- Long Range Perspective
Improving the Quality of the Environment
Promoting the Public Interest
- Technical Expertise /Conveyance of Advice
- Communication
Education
- Legal Document
Criteria
- The Plan and Process Must be Present /Future-
Oriented
- The Plan and Process Must be Anticipatory
- The Plan and Process Must Balance Exactness
With Flexibility
The Plan Must be Realistic and Financially
Feasible
The Plan Must Be Implementable and Implemented
Functions of the Comprehensive Plan
Having listed
dtthe functions ooftthe plan, this section
will briefly describe t
• Statement of City Policy. The plan is a state-
ment of the community's goals, or "what the
community wants." It offers a vision of what
might be. It also identifies shorter term ob-
jectives which will lead to achievement of the
goals.
• Guide to Decision Making. The plan is a means
for gu ding and influencing a variety of pu blic
and pr vate decisions that eventually create
the fu ure city. The regular ongoing public
decisi n making process includes land develop-
ment c ses (rezoning, subdivision etc.), capital
improvhment programming and specific capi
expenditure decisions, redevelopment plans and
proposals and so on. These decisions can be
made on an ad hoc basis or perhaps with a view
of other factors in mind. Or, they can be made
in the light of a comprehensive plan represent-
ing a relatively clear picture of what has been
deemec to be the desirable future development
of they community. A more effective, efficient
and attractive city will result when a plan
is developed- -and used to guide decision making.
• Long Range Perspective. Comprehensive Plans
are spmetimes critized for their long range
orientation. It is pointed out that it is
difficult, if not impossible, to predict 20
years into the future with certainty. This
is true, however, an effective plan does not
provide a "blue print" of the future city: rather
it provides the general direction and guidance
for the future which can be adjusted to changing
conditions. A good plan should be slightly
utop It should inspire and challenge us
•
•
•
•
with a vision of what Stillwater might become.
A long range plan allows decision makers to look
at current decisions in the light of their long
term consequences and in terms of their impacts
on other related systems. This is is oimporrtt
n are
made affecting
because the reg the r devel development of the city are
m
long range decisions robably will all with
for 20 years an dp
• Improving the Qualiy of to the Environment.
improve
function of the plan
of the urban and natural
ment of the quality
environment. The plan accomplishes this through
review of regulations, control of the use and
development of land, and also through
ft
lities
provision and expansion of community
and services.
• Promoting
the Public Interest,. By basing the
plan upon facts and conclusions developed
an through
background stu This helps
reasonable and imp ther than
promote the interest of all persons r ir a interest
ia
the interest of individuals or special
groups. Decisions based on a plan or ea
likely to be made in an arbitrary
manner.
• Technical Expertise and the Conveyance of
fke dvice.
The comprehensive plan provides policy rs
with the opportunity to receive the counsel of
its advisors in a coherent, unified form. The
advice is based upon a comprehensive examination
of the data and technical evaluation
sef the
action.
impacts of alternative plans
The coordination of technical studies ands advice
with the political decision making proces
necessary to bring about the desir in tne p
ment in accordance with the plan a
efficient and economic manner.
• Communication. Through the comprehensive plan
the City Council presents a unified picture
of its long range strategies and policies to
all those concerned with the growth and develop-
ment of the community. That audience includes
the City Plan Commission, planning staff, the
City Manager and other municipal departments,
other governments and public agencies, the private
development community, civic organizations and
the general public. The plan enables the actors
in the city development process to anticipate
decisions of the Council and to develop projects
supportive of the plan rather than in conflict
Sri th it.
• Education. The plan is educational for all
Ictors in the development process and anyone
aho reads it. It should: arouse interest in
:ommunity affairs; offer factual information
on present conditions in the community and
p robable future trends, awaken them to the
ossibilities of the future, tell them something
about the operations of their city governments,
4nd impart some of the ideas of city planning.*
• Legal Document. In recent years court decisions
End new legislation adopted by state legislatures
have strengthened greatly the importance of
the plan as a legal document. In deciding the
litigation of development cases, the courts
re beginning to increasingly rely on the
ompleteness and reasonableness of comprehensive
plans as a basis for enforcing land development
regulations. Courts have also begun to require
a higher degree of consistency between the plan
and the development regulations.
•
•
•
•
•
The concept of comprehensive planning has been
supported by the courts in a series of notable
land use cases. Many cases across the country
have given greater support to planning as a
legitimate function of local government. While
legal interpretation may vary somewhat from state
to state on individual cases, several points
are abundantly clear:
- The degree of legal activism and court
intervention has accelerated.
- Courts are exploring new areas of constitu-
tional tests such as the right to travel,
in addition to traditional taking and equal
protection tests.
- Courts are becoming more sophisticated in
the way they review land use cases.
- Planning is playing an increasingly impor-
tant role in the resolution of land use
litigation.
- Courts generally support the community if
sufficient data are presented in justifying
the control mechanisms.
Thus, planning has become central to questions
of growth and development from the standpoint
of both the courts and policy making bodies.
10.A) Plan Monitoring
and Update
DETAILED PLANNING PROCESS
9. Plan
Implementation
8. _Planleyiew and
Adoption
1\
7. Develop Plan
--1. Background
._
For Planning
4
10.B) Comprehensive
Plan Refinement
, - •
6. Alternative ,.
Selection
Objectives
2. Research and
Analysis
3. Set Goals and
4. Identify
Alternatives
5. Evaluate
Alternatives
1
4
J
•
•
Step 1, Background for Planning
This step introduces planning to all participants.
It will set forth the rationale and basis for the
development of the plan, and will provide an overview
of the planning process and program used to complete
the plan.
Step 2, Research and Analysis
This step consists of existing and anticipated
(projected) conditions affecting community planning
including: population, housing and economic factors,
land use and environmental factors, transportation,
utilities, community facilities, a central city analysis
and financial resources.
Step 3, Set Goals and Objectives.
Review, and as appropriate, refine long term goals
and objectives for the city.
Step 4, Identify Alternatives
This stage brings together the findings and implications
for the plan which were derived from the composite
research and analysis stage. These findings will
be used to reassess current city policy and serve
as a basis for the formulation of growth and develop-
ment alternatives, particularly concerning the
direction of future growth.
Step 5, Evaluate Alternatives,
In this step, all alternatives are evaluated against
a common set of criteria.
Step 6, Alternative Selection
Based on the evaluation and input from the public,
City Plan Commission and staff, the City Council
will select an alternative plan concept.
Step 7, Develop Plan
After the selection of alternatives, which will
set the overall direction of the plan, individual
plan elements will be prepared which will describe
more fully, transportation, community facilities,
etc.
Step 8, Plan Review /Adoption,
This step involves the public, Plan Commission and
staff review and refinement of the plan prior to
its adoption by the Plan Commission and its review
and endorsement by the City Council.
Step 9, Plan Implementation
This step involves the development of a 5 or 6 year
capital improvement program which encourages the
location and type of development called for in the
plan and the development or rewriting of develop
ment regulations which will help implement the p lan.
Moreover, this step involves using the plan as a
guide in making a variety of decisions - -on rezonings,
on capital budgeting, and on many other public policy
questions.
Step 10A, Plan Monitoring and Update
This step is the crucial ongoing stage in the plan-
ning process. It outlines the procedure which will
be used to keep the plan up -to -date, to ensure that
it is used as a flexible tool. This step will focus
on an annual measureable assessment of progress
•
What Makes a Good Plan?
Clearly, any effort to plan for the long range future
of a city is fraught with difficulties: it is
difficult to project 20 years into the future; and
it is difficult to coordinate the interrelated
community systems. Beyond those technical problems,
the many functions that a plan should serve further
complicate the planning effort. Because of these
difficulties, it is important to recognize what
the plan can and cannot be, and develop a plan
accordingly. The following criteria for the plan
and planning process are intended to help outline
how a plan can be developed which recognizes both
the benefits which can be derived from planning
and the limitations to planning.
• Thq plan and process must be present /future-
or ented. The objectives for the future are
ro ted in the problems of today. The plan identi-
fi s the most critical problems of the day and
th n correlates these with alternative solutions
to those problems. As progress is made in the
pl nning process, the solutions involve pro -
gr ssively more detailed and more time specific
objectives and actions. The simple listing
of proposed actions within specific time frames
is one of:the basic methods of determining the
future plan.
• Tha plan and process must be anticipatory.
Stillwater is a complex urban system within
which there are interdependencies between parts,
whither those parts are physical, social, economic,
or governmental. A change to one part must
be balanced by an appropriate change in the
others. Trends are an expression of the probable
effects of natural change. Anticipating these
trends is an important method of adding future
dimensions to the plan and process.
• The plan and process must balance exactness
with flexibility. It is essential that the
.plan is flexible enough to meet the needs of
a changing city. Sometimes a difficult balance
must be struck between this flexibility and
mEking the plan so general that it becomes
•
•
•
•
useless as an aid to decision making. Contrasting
that problem is a plan which is so specific that
it becomes out of date a few years after it is
prepared.
Where specific actions can be defined and agreed
on (frequently on actions in the first five years
of the plan), the plan should provide detailed
steps for realizing such actions. The plan then
becomes a program rather than an illustration.
The plan must be flexible to allow innovations
or alternatives, where general strategies can
be agreed on and specific actions cannot. The
plan should not risk being invalidated because
of rigidity.
• The plan must be realistic and financially,
feasible. The plan should not be based on
unrealistic expectations or costly proposals
which cannot be achieved. The financial implica-
tions of each proposal and its political acceptance
must be assessed.
• The plan and process must be implementable, and
be implemented. In order for the plan to be
implemented it must be implementable. It must
provide useful guidance to decision makers faced
with regular decisions on development and on
municipal facilities and services. Also, the
plan implementation must be capable of being
measured, and then periodically monitored to
see that it is working. Such a process keeps
the plan "alive."
Metropolitan
Development and
Investment Framework
Development and Investment Framework
CONTENTS
1
SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 5
Purpose and Authority 5
Background Trends 5
A Resource Management Strategy 7
Regional Goals 7
GOALS OF THE FRAMEWORK 9
PLANNING AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY OF THE FRAMEWORK 11
Managing Existing Regional Resources 11
Planning for Growth on the Basis of Council Forecasts 12
Directing Growth within an Urban Service Area 13
Council Review of Special Facilities within the Region 15
Preserving Agriculture 15
GEOGRAPHIC POLICY AREAS 17
Metropolitan Urban Service Area 17
Metropolitan Centers 17
Regional Business Concentrations 19
Fully Developed Arez 20
Developing Area 20
Freestanding Growth Centers 21
Rural Service Area 22
Commercial Agricultural Area 22
General Rural Use Aaea 23
Rural Centers 23
PLANNING AND INVESTMENT PROCEDURES: Council Internal Actions 27
Investment Decision -mak ng Process 2
Economic Evaluation Criteria 28
Monitoring Investment Dzcisions 30
PLANNING AND INVESTMENT PROCEDURES: Council and Metropolitan Systems 33
Metropolitan System Guiielines 33
Metro Governance Process 35
PLANNING AND INVESTMENT PROCEDURES: Council and Local Units of Government 41
Regional /Local Planning 'rocess 41
Intercommunity Planning Process 42
School District Capital Iriprovement Programs 42
Local /Regional Cost - Sharing 43
WORK PROGRAM 45
iii
•
•
•
iv
Development and Investment Framework
APPENDICES
A. Forecasts of Population, Households and Employment 47
B. Procedures Affecting the Metropolitan Urban Service Area 52
C. Maps of the Metropolitan Urban and Rural Service Areas 60
FIGURES
TABLES
1. Generalized Urban and Rural Service Areas, 2000 14
2. Generalized Geographic Policy Areas 18
B -1. Metropolitan Area Sectors 53
C -1. Metropolitan Centers 61
C -2. Regional Business Concentrations 62
C -3. Levels of Congestion in the Metropolitan Highway System, 2000 63
C -4. Lands in Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves, March 1, 1985 64
Generalized Geographic Policy Areas Map, one inch to four miles inside back pocket
1. Monitoring the Fiscal Health of the Region 31
2. Metropolitan Council's Relationships to Other Regional Agencies 36
A -1. Forecasts of Population, Households and Employment, by Community, 1990 and 2000 48
B -1. Demand for Urban Land, by Sector and Land Use 55
B -2. Urban Land Demand and Supply in the Urban Service Area, by Sector 56
POLICY INDEX
Subject Policy Page Subject
Agriculture 10 16 Freestanding growth centers
17 24
18 24
Fully developed area
Commercial agricultural area 17 24
General rural use area
Developing area 14 22
15 22 Investment priorities
Directing growth 6 16
7 16
8 16
Economic development 5 16
Environmental quality 7 16 Maintenance and upgrading of
existing facilities
Excess capacity in regional systems 2 15
Forecasts 3 15
4 15
5 16 Managing regional resources
14 22
Policy Page
6 16
16 22
13 22
18 24
1 15
5 16
11 21
12 22
13 22
15 22
16 22
1 15
11 21
12 22
13 22
1 15
2 15
Subject Policy Page
Metro centers 11 21
Metropolitan urban service area 6 16
8 16
11 21
12 22
13 22
14 22
15 22
16 22
Rural Service Area 10 16
17 24
18 24
19 25
20 25
Regional business concentrations 12 22
Rural centers 6 16
19 25
20 25
Special facilities 9 16
The Metropolitan Council coordinates the
planning and development of the seven -county
Metropolitan Area. The Council is authorized by
state and federal laws to plan for highways and
transit, sewers, parks and open space, airports,
land use, air and water quality, health, housing,
aging and the arts.
V
•
Development and Investment Framework
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL DISTRICTS
IS ....1111.1 0
20 GREY C1000
E1 ...IA.
22 1.13.1.011
23 ml
z•
.A032
ORR UR
/.3030
100123511E
00!54.
*0.070.
I54rl/ r.
SIN. I.N.N
12
Mg
333 ate
▪ G . l°1
O RMOS
IMMO 0.V.
E
AN KA County Boundary
Municipal Boundary
SP"" Township Boundary
.4z.Nn0..
20.1.1000 1 ..l1R50.0
C..
.10.2 •.1RK• I SENT..
Chair —Steve Keefe
33 E. tall
n 02!1 REAR
2, SAT..
3......
30 54. Vs. 1.10.1
31 LA
32 N. OAR, I ran
.»54!3554•
+32005* 104150•
'32
CAM/311 CO.
54..54ar'I. 1 ENN.� 0..1621.
p � 1
w. i.u.G J - y 1 3....12C0
MILES
3..0 CREEL 12,105*1A*E I C.7:
. ...MG( 1^•••54 SCOTT CO. I
St u. RrvIR
--- 1 ---- 7 - - - -L—
I
NSN hu3 I
NILE ALAN1
Liz Anderson, District 1
Mike McLaughlin, District 2
Charles William Wiger, District 3
Carol Flynn, District 4
<0..O11/ .m<c.541
010.0.0
Rang Ili.
10
HENNEAN CO.
h5 /W!x 154
14
r
13
CEO. ...1
St N.K. E
A
0•R 0200E
ANOKA CO.
.+001.3 R••ul<
SUL
COO* SAMOS
!..NUR r...
1 2100..°.1!
1 54
nom_
MRS
ti
Y.E..
AS
NUT N.I
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MEMBERS
David F. Fisher, District 5
Joan Campbell, District 6
Mary Hauser, District 7
Donald E. Stein, District 8
Josephine D. Nunn, District 9
John Evans, District 10
1154.000
Cwu..us
.0
DAKOTA CO.
2545.01132 3110N0E•
E0n0E
GRE1 /0y1 10.r1R 0*0
RA
(03103 I CA30IE 7005
•a< 5100C• +054
00 "— /w•RR.0 1,
u
1
00
.ER.
54854
'0+1501..0
0 5 *
.0.2,0.
1
r
•
WASHINGTON CO.
s.Y.in.
604.5 1
N E.N..Lc
53754 $541. N.....
.YNwi.
L-
OA. l.H.
3
Dorothy Rietow, District 11
Gertrude Ulrich, District 12
Dirk deVries, District 13
Marcy J. Waritz, District 14
Mary K. Martin, District 15
Patrick J. Scully, District 16
vii
Development and Investment Framework
SUMMARY
The Metropolitan Developmerft and Investment
Framework is a plan that sets a g neral direction for
future development patterns in thtit Metropolitan Area
and establishes guidelines for making decisions
about major regional facilities like sewers and
highways, that are needed to support the commer-
cial, industrial and residential development of the
area.
The framework replaces two ether development
guide chapters —the Metropolitan Development
Framework, adopted in 1975, and the Metropolitan
Investment Framework, adopted in 1977. The
development framework focused on guiding growth
into a compact development pattern to make it more
economical to extend regional facilities. The invest-
ment framework focused on mcnitoring the fiscal
status of regional agencies to Delp carry out the
development framework policies The Metropolitan
Development and Investment Framework combines
most of the concepts in the two earlier documents
into a single one that emphasizes a broader
strategy— managing regional resources in the form
of existing regional facilities and public dollars
used to maintain or expand them.
That strategy is a response to ma or trends that will
affect the Metropolitan Area in future years. The
primary one is an expected slowdown in the area's
growth compared with the population "baby boom"
of the 1950s and 1960s. That baby boom triggered
a very large demand for jobs, housing, goods and
services. But the Council estimates that the area's
population will grow much more slowly in the
future —only five percent in the 1990s, compared
with 10 percent in the 1980s. The result will be less
of a demand for regional facilities than envisioned
in the Council's 1975 framework. At the same time,
maintenance and reconstruction of existing regional
facilities are expected to become more important in
future years because many of them are reaching the
end of their useful life.
Like the 1975 development framework, the
Metropolitan Development and Investment
Framework divides the region into a metropolitan
urban service area and a rural service area. The focus
of the Council's strategy on directing growth in the
region is to encourage development to occur within
the urban service area. Improvements in the regional
systems for sewers, transportation, parks and airports
would be made to meet the needs of people living
in the urban service area. For example, central sewers
would not be extended into the rural service area,
and highway projects would not open new and to
development.
The framework reflects the boundaries for the urban
service area that developing communities designated
in their comprehensive plans prepared under the
1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Because the
Metropolitan Area's growth is expected to slow
down, however, the framework designates the 1990
urban service lines of a majority of the communities
as their boundaries for the year 2000.
Under the framework, the Council will use its
forecasts of population, households and employment
as an indication of where growth will be occurring
in the region, and to guide plans for growth and
subsequent investment decisions within the urban
service area. The Council is committed to serving
growth throughout the urban service area based on
these forecasts, the Council's system plans for
regional facilities and comprehensive development
plans prepared by local communities. However,
1
• 1
•
•
2
Development and Investment Framework
before recommending investment in expansion or
upgrading of any particular facility, the Council will
expect that maximum use has been made of the
facility. Where growth exceeds the Council's
forecasts, the Council will also place a high priority
on regional facilities to support economic develop-
ment, but retains its commitment to serving residen-
tial development as well.
The Council's first priority is to maintain and upgrade
existing regional systems throughout the urban ser-
vice area. The Council will also assign a high priority
to maintenance projects that support planned
economic development. Development not
forecasted by the Council would generally get a
lower priority for investment in regional facilities. But
not all maintenance needs would be met before new
development is served with such facilities.
The framework calls for the Council, local govern-
ments and the metropolitan agencies to act jointly
to protect the capacity of regional facilities by pro-
tecting them from premature overuse. At the same
time, some parts of the region have excess capacity
in regional systems. The Council would like to see
development occur first in those areas provided with
the greatest complement of metropolitan and local
public facilities and services. However, the Council
will not itself direct development to areas with ex-
cess capacity.
The Council intends to expand its role significantly
in reviewing and commenting on special facilities
with the potential for major impacts on the
Metropolitan Area. These special facilities are large,
often one -of -a -kind projects with a specific function
or focus, such as sports or international trade.
Preserving agriculture is a major goal for the rural
service area. The Council is committed to the policy
that the highest and best long -term use for much of
the region's land is agriculture.
The framework also includes development policies
for geographic areas within the Metropolitan Area.
The metropolitan urban service area contains the
following "geographic policy areas."
The metro centers are the Minneapolis and St. Paul
downtown areas. The framework supports maintain-
ing the metro centers as vital centers of economic
activity and housing. It supports new development
in the metro centers that requires high density, good
accessibility via major highways and good levels of
public services. Maintaining regional facilities serv-
ing the metro centers is the framework's highest
priority for public dollars.
The regional business concentrations are areas that
have a large employment base, such as office com-
plexes, or that produce a large sales volume, such
as regional shopping centers. They are clusters of
economic development, like those around major
shopping malls and along major highways. The
framework supports the continued growth of these
concentrations, including increased development
densities in these areas. Maintaining regional
facilities that serve regional business concentrations
has a priority second only to that for the metro
centers.
The fully developed area is the built-up, centrally
located portion of the region, including the cities of
Minneapolis and St. Paul and many adjacent
suburbs —for example, Bloomington, Hopkins, Col-
umbia Heights, Roseville and South St. Paul. The
framework calls for maintaining and upgrading
development in the fully developed area and the
regional facilities serving it. Maintaining and replac-
ing such facilities will take priority for public dollars
over investing in facilities to serve new development
in the developing area that exceeds the Council's
forecasts of population, household and employment
growth.
The developing area is the part of the region Tying
within the metropolitan urban service area that will
receive most new development to the year 2000. Ex-
amples of communities in this category are Eagan,
Burnsville, Minnetonka, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids,
Shoreview, Maplewood and Oakdale. In this area,
the framework says that new development will be
supported with regional facilities in line with the
Council's forecasts.
The freestanding growth centers are 11 cities in the
rural portion of the region, outside the urban ser-
vice boundary, but are a microcosm of the urban
area, with their own economic base, housing, and
range of public services. Examples include Hastings,
Prior Lake, Chaska and Forest Lake. The Council is
committed to providing regional facilities to
strengthen the older parts of the freestanding growth
centers and to provide services to new development
that occurs outward from existing development.
The "rural service area" contains three policy areas.
The commercial agricultural area consists of land
that is covenanted or certified eligible to be
agricultural preserves by local governments under the
Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act. The Coun-
cil supports agriculture as a long -term land use in
the rural service area.
The general rural use area is the area outside the ur-
ban service area that contains a wide variety of land
uses, including farms, residential development and
facilities that mainly serve urban residents, such as
regional parks. The Council suppors agriculture and
low- density residential development in the general
rural use area but not the extension of regional
facilities to serve development at densities like those
found in the urban service area.
The rural centers are 35 small cities that used to serve
primarily as retail and transportatidn centers for sur-
rounding agricultural areas, but are now home to
many residents who work in the urban area and the
location for many industries with few ties to
agriculture. Examples include Your g America, New
Market and St. Francis. The framework says these
cities should pace development with their ability to
provide their own urban services, but without
regional facilities.
The framework also includes proce lures for guiding
the Council's decisions about investing in regional
facilities and in its review of development proposals.
As a first step, the Council will determine whether
there is a regional need for the facility and what
benefits it will produce, in light of it costs and possi-
ble alternative ways of meeting the seed. The Coun-
cil will also rank the projects a:cording to the
priorities established for the different geographic
policy areas and the Council's policy plans for
regional systems — highways, transit, sewers, airports,
parks and solid waste management.
The Council will also consider how the facilities are
financed and how operating and d ?lot service costs
are paid for. For special projects and major develop-
ment proposals, the Council will examine how they
affect the regional economy —for example, the
number of new Tong -term jobs created and expected
increases in total income, tax base 2nd tax revenues.
In carrying our this process, the Council will con-
sider several factors: the question of equity, or
fairness about who pays for and recE ives the benefits;
whether the revenue - raising methois to finance the
facility will encourage the best use of the facility;
whether funds from outside the region, such as
federal or state grants, will be used for financing; how
the project affects the total debt of metropolitan
agencies and whether the sources of public revenue
are appropriate in light of the purpose of the project.
The Council will prepare a metro investment review
report that examines how well its decisions on in-
dividual proposals reflect its overall regional
priorities. The Council will also produce a fiscal pro-
file report that examines the expenditures, revenues
and debt of various levels of government in the
Metropolitan Area. In addition, the Council will use
a set of fiscal indicators to help give it a picture of
fiscal trends in the region.
The framework establishes guidelines that provide
direction to the Council's more detailed policies and
programs contained in its individual system plans
for sewers, highways, parks and airports. It describes
a "metro governance" process that spells out the
relationship of the Council to metropolitan agencies
responsible for these regional systems and the role
these agencies play in carrying out the Council's
plans for those systems.
A third set of procedures addresses the Council's
relationship with local governments. These pro-
cedures focus on how to resolve issues that result
from changes in a local government's expectations
about its own growth. The procedures deal with:
• Updating the Council's plans for regional systems
in response to new census data:
• Making changes in the metropolitan urban ser-
vice area boundary; and
• Sharing the cost of providing regional facilities
with local governments.
To support the framework, the Council intends to do
several things. It will establish a monitoring program
to help determine whether its decisions and those
of other regional agencies and local governments are
working toward framework goals. The Council will
also compile information about the need for main-
taining regional facilities and how those needs may
reduce funds available for expanding those facilities.
In addition, the Council will include policy direc-
tions on human services in the framework.
Another area the Council will explore is alternative
sources of funding for regional facilities. They could
include new metropolitan -wide sources, local-
government contributions, private sources or a com-
bination of these.
The Council intends to change its procedures for
reviewing major amendments to local communities'
comprehensive plans to clarify what information
3
1
a
•
4
Development and Investment Framework
needs to be submitted to the Council for review. The
Council will also spell out how it will use the
framework in reviewing proposals such as grant ap-
plications and planning assistance loans.
The Council will refine the framework's concepts of
the regional business concentrations and the
freestanding growth centers, including the criteria for
defining these geographic policy areas. It will also
reexamine the framework's policy for the general
rural use area, focusing on areas that are not suited
for agriculture and addressing such issues as hous-
ing density, the appropriate level of and use in
nonresidential uses and the demands for local public
services.
GOALS OF THE FRAMEWORK v
The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is generally view-
ed as one of the nation's most Iiwable large urban
centers. The image often presented in national
studies dealing with quality of life is that of an area
that is dean, progressive, uncrowded, safe, relative-
ly prosperous and highly supportive of education
and cultural activities. Local sury'eys indicate that
residents of the area would generally concur with
these descriptions. However, like all big metropolitan
areas, the Twin Cities Area does hove problems with
housing costs, neighborhood deterioration, rising
taxes, crime, pollution and growl ig traffic conges-
tion. With its central focus on resource management,
this framework includes policies directed at retain-
ing the area's quality of life and resolving problems
before a crisis occurs.
The commitment to resource ma lagement is con-
sistent with state legislation that created the
Metropolitan Council in 1967, which calls for
establishment of a framework to promote the order-
ly and economic development ofthe Metropolitan
Area. Orderly and economic development requires
the public sector to make the beet possible use of
funds that are invested in regional facilities and
services.
To retain and enhance the region's quality of life and
promote its orderly and economic levelopment, this
framework establishes the follow ng goals:
1. Locate all urban development acid urban -scale in-
vestment within a metropolitan urban service area
(defined on page 13).
2 . Provide existing development and forecasted
growth within the urban service area with
necessary regional services.
3. Accommodate unanticipated growth within the
urban service area in the most economic and ef-
ficient manner.
4. Preserve agricultural and rural land use in a rural
service area, the area within the region lying out-
side the urban service area.
5. Ensure that residents of the Metropolitan Area
have adequate housing at a reasonable cost.
6. Concentrate major commercial and industrial
development.
7. Maintain, reuse and reinvest in older, fully
developed areas.
8. Maintain a strong, diversified economy.
9. Make efficient use of public resources.
To assess regional trends and to monitor the effec-
tiveness of Council policies in meeting regional
goals, the Metropolitan Council will establish a
monitoring and evaluation program. This program
will be designed to support implementation of the
Metropolitan Development and Investment
Framework. The Council will collect data to monitor
the effectiveness of framework policies as well as
regional policy plans and their effects on develop-
ment trends. The program will also assist the Coun-
cil in its efforts to identify emerging metropolitan
issues and problems.
9
•
Development and Investment Framework
PLANNING AND INVESTMENT
STRATEGY OF THE FRAMEWORK
MANAGING EXISTING REGIONAL
RESOURCES
The Council is committed to serving forecasted
growth throughout the urban service area, but will
do so on a somewhat different basis than in the past.
The Council will use its forecasts of population,
households and employment as an indication of
where growth will be occurring. However, before
recommending investment in expansion or
upgrading of any particular facility, the Council will
expect that maximum use has been made of the
facility. The rationale for this recommendation is
threefold: 1) there is already a very substantial, usable
investment in place that should not be wasted; 2)
needs for some systems are not likely to grow much
through the end of the century because of
slowdowns in forecasted population growth and in
physical expansion; and 3) federal funds will likely
be greatly reduced in the future from the levels that
prevailed during the previous four decades. The
management strategy to maximize service from ex-
isting facilities focuses on maintenance, system pro-
tection and more use of existing, underutilized
facilities.
Maintenance
The regional systems already in place represent a vast
investment of funds. Some of these facilities,
especially in the fully developed part of the region,
are well beyond their design life and will need to
be replaced or upgraded. Because of the magnitude
of this investment, the Council's first priority is to
maintain and upgrade existing regional systems
throughout the urban service area. The Council will
assign a further priority to maintenance projects that
■
support planned economic development. Because
of the slower growth rate projected for the region to
the year 2000, the Council considers it important to
place a high priority on supporting economic
development, particularly in areas where the region
has already made a substantial investment and seeks
to protect it. This does not mean that housing, and
especially affordable housing, is no longer import-
ant to the Council.
In instances of unanticipated regional growth, the
Council will also place a high priority on system in-
vestment in support of economic development.
At this time, the Council does not know the full ex-
tent of the system's maintenance needs. Consequent-
ly, the Council cannot estimate to what extent the
demand for maintenance will affect its ability to pro-
vide investment for system expansion. Addressing
this question is part of the work program of the
Metropolitan Development and investment
Framework to be carried out after the framework's
adoption.
Protection
The protection strategy is intended to ensure that ma-
jor regional systems are functioning at adequate ser-
vice levels as defined in the Council's policy plans
for those systems, while supporting forecasted
growth with necessary services.
To be successful, this strategy will require the Coun-
cil, local governments and the metropolitan agen-
cies to act jointly to ensure long and useful lives for
the investments made in metropolitan systems and
facilities. Potential protective actions range from
11
12
Development and Investment Framework
limiting or denying a new development access to
regional facilities (for example, metering a freeway
or rejecting a request to build a new lighway inter-
change) to providing relief facilities or better manag-
ing the facilities in place. This strategy ocuses almost
exclusively on the legislatively defined metropolitan
systems (highways, transit, sewers, airports and
regional parks) and the solid waste management
system.
Underutilized Facilities
The 1975 development framework directed local
governments to make maximum use of their existing
capacity before adding new facilities. this framework
reaffirms that directive. The Council would like to
see development occur first in those Teas provided
with the greatest combined complement of
metropolitan and local public facilitie> and services.
The Council recognizes that phy,ical facilities
deteriorate over time and, therefore, it is more
economical to use them for their intended purpose
while they still have a useful life.
While local governments need to take stock of where
they have made facility investments, the Council will
take responsibility for providing irformation on
regional facilities. Based on Council forecasts and
its regional system plans, which nclude some
upgrading, of existing facilities, the Council does not
expect sewage treatment plant capac ty to be a pro-
blem anywhere in the region by the year 2000.
However, many of the region's major highways will
experience substantial congestion by the year 2000.
The map (Figure C -3) in Appendix C presents the
Minnesota Department of Transportati Dn's (Mn/DOT)
estimated year -2000 congestion levels on most of the
major streets and highways in the Metropolitan Area.
This map is based on the Metropollitan Council's
forecasted socioeconomic data for the year 2000 and
on an assumed highway network.1The assumed
highway network includes needed irr provements as
well as new routes. All of these improvements are
subject to the availability of funds and consequent-
ly, some may not be implemented. Mn /DOT con-
ducted this generalized analysis of congestion on a
system -wide basis. The department develops
forecasts for detailed road design in ividually on a
project -by- project basis. The map in ppendix C is,
therefore, only a starting point for det rmining poten-
tial congestion.
The Metropolitan Council will not itself actively
direct development to areas with excess local and
regional capacity. The Council view> local govern-
ments and developers as more appropriate to carry
out this facet of resource management.
PLANNING FOR GROWTH ON THE
BASIS OF COUNCIL FORECASTS
The Metropolitan Council will use its forecasts for
population, households and employment (see Table
1 in Appendix A) to guide plans for growth and
subsequent investment decisions within the urban
service area. Council forecasts are the initial basis
on which the region will assume financial risk and
meet regional infrastructure demands. Although
forecasts are the starting point for making investment
decisions, the actual sizing of a regional facility is
based on a number of development assumptions.
These assumptions, along with the projected life of
the investment (generally at least 20 years), provide
an added cushion for possible variations between
the forecasts and actual development. The develop-
ment assumptions are found in Appendix B.
The Council will also consider the following excep-
tions as a potential basis for altering its plans and
investment decisions.
1. The Council will monitor its forecasts every five
years to determine whether differences in actual -
versus- forecasted development warrant any
changes in regional plans.
2 . The Council will vary investment decisions and
regional system allocations based on verified
growth and /or, just as important, the lack of
growth in individual communities as a means of
managing regional resources to avoid unnecessary
investments (see procedures in Appendix B).
3 The Council will consider revising its investment
decisions based on cost sharing with local govern-
ments, provided that certain guidelines are met
(see Appendix B).
4. The Council will consider varying its investment
decisions based on opportunities for economic
development of net new benefit to the region.
5. The Council may withdraw a plan for investing
in a regional facility if a local government does
not commit to building the necessary com-
plementary local facilities.
However, the Council does not intend the forecasts
to be viewed as goals in and of themselves. The
Council stated in the 1975 development framework
and reaffirms here that forecasts for the metro
centers* and the fully developed area would be
more usefully viewed as a lower limit rather than as
an upper limit to growth, because of the lack of
available and for new development in these areas,
prevailing demographic conditions and Council
policy. In general, higher growth forecasts by these
communities could be supportive of Council policy,
provided that system capacity is available or can
reasonably be provided. Furthermore, forecasts for
the developing area and freestanding growth
centers should not necessarily be viewed as an up-
per limit on growth, if regional systems can accom-
modate the greater growth.
Although the Council bases its forecasts in part on
trends, "functional" constraints (for example, the
physical ability to expand facilities such as a
highway) and fiscal, or financial, constraints may
contribute to redirecting growth. Significant local
economic development efforts may also play a role.
The Council will support local economic develop-
ment efforts in areas where there is excess capacity
in regional systems.
DIRECTING GROWTH WITHIN AN
URBAN SERVICE AREA
The focus of the Metropolitan Council's strategy on
directing growth in the region is to encourage growth
to occur within an urban service area (see Figure 1).
The 1975 development framework documented that
facilities and services needed to support urban
development can be provided at Tess public cost if
the land area available for urban development at any
one time is defined and limited in amount. This led
to the establishment in the first framework of urban
and rural service areas within the region, divided by
a generalized line. The metropolitan urban service
area line, as it presently exists, is a by- product of the
review process carried out under the Metropolitan
Land Planning Act, and subsequent amendments to
local comprehensive plans. As the Council approv-
ed plans for communities along the urbanizing
fringe, the urban service area line in each of these
plans replaced the generalized line in the 1975
document.
,This framework reaffirms the urban/rural service area
/ concept and extends the metropolitan urban service
V area to the year 2000. The process of extending the
line involved a review of the land supply and de-
*These "geographic policy areas," noted in bold type, are
defined in the next section.
mand (based on Council forecasts) for each com-
munity along the urbanizing fringe. In this review,
the Council typically found that the current land
supply was more than sufficient to meet forecasted
needs for the next 15 years. In these cases, the 1990
urban service area as shown in the adopted local
comprehensive plan became the year -2000 urban
service area. However, in some cases, the Council
found that communities needed to add land to their
1990 service areas to meet year -2000 demands. The
Council asked these communities to identify addi-
tional urban areas consistent with Council- forecasted
needs. These locally identified additions were then
added to the affected communities' previously
adopted 1990 urban service areas. The extension of
the urban service line also took into account pro-
tecting the natural environment. Wetlands,
floodplains and areas where bedrock is located near
the soil surface are not considered a part of the
available land supply within the urban area.
The Metropolitan Council will plan for growth in-
side this urban service area, which includes
freestanding growth centers (identified in the next
section). The Council will also support urban
development in rural centers (also defined in the next
section), consistent with their ability to finance and
administer necessary support services such as sewer,
water and roads. The Council will not extend
regional facilities to rural centers.
The Council is committed to providing metropolitan
systems within the urban service area, including the
freestanding growth centers, in accordance with the
regional systems plans and with mutually consistent
local comprehensive plans. Regional facilities and
services include sewers, major highways and inter-
changes, transit service, regional parks, and major -
and intermediate -level airports. However, as is the
case with maintaining regional facilities, the Coun-
cil will assign a higher priority for the construction
of new facilities that support economic development
as opposed to those that support residential
development.
The Council will use the urban service area as well
as its demographic forecasts to direct future planning
of and investments in regional systems. The Coun-
cil urges local, state and federal agencies to support
urban development and redevelopment in the urban
service area. The Council will use the urban service
area concept in reviewing plan amendments and en-
vironmental reviews from local govemments and in
decisions on distribution of funds. The Council will
consider changes to the urban service area accor-
ding to the procedures found in Appendix B.
13
COUNCIL REVIEW OF SPECIAL
FACILITIES WITHIN THE REGION
The Metropolitan Council intends to significantly
change and expand its role in reviewing and com-
menting on special facilities with the potential for
major impacts on the Metropo itan Area, under
authority assigned to the Council in the Metropolitan
Council Act. The Council define special facilities
as large, often one -of -a -kind projects with a specific
function or focus, such as sports or international
trade. They are generally user - oriented and are like-
ly to affect the entire region.
The Council will continue to exa ine the potential
impact these projects might hav on metropolitan
systems and other regional plans. The Council will
first determine the need for the fa ility and its loca-
tional and operational requirements, such as highway
and transit access or access to ; specific facilities
and /or user groups, before considering Council
policies for development and redevelopment.
If the Council decides that the facility is needed, it
will then indicate which locations would best serve
its intended purpose, whether regional system
capacity is available to serve the cility and, if not,
how system investment priority ca be handled. The
Council will consider consistency of the facility with
other development framework p licies as a secon-
dary matter.
Once the Council has complet d its review of a
special facility and identified any pecial investment
priorities, it will consider the facili in the same con-
text as the rest of the geographic policy area in which
it is located.
The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community is
a unique entity in the region one is an example of
a "special facility." It is the only 'ndian reservation
in the Metropolitan Area. In addition, while its
residents are residents of the city; of Prior Lake and
receive municipal services from the city, the reser-
vation also has sovereign status. consequently, the
Council may at times deal direc Iy with the Sioux
Community or work through the city of Prior Lake.
While Indian reservations were originally located in
rural and semi -rural areas, ma y, including the
Shakopee Sioux Community, and now close to ur-
banizing areas. This has led to a need for greater
cooperation among affected governmental units,
notably in providing necessary piiblic services. The
Council will work to foster cooperation among the
metropolitan agencies, the city of Prior Lake, Scott
County and the Sioux Community. The Council will
approve the extension of urban services to the reser-
vation through the city or directly to the Sioux Com-
munity. Since the community does not fall under the
procedures of the land planning act, any service ex-
tensions would necessarily be made by contract. The
extension of services at a level appropriate to
enhance the quality of life of residents of the reser-
vation would be consistent with Council policy.
PRESERVING AGRICULTURE
The primary justification for the dividing of the
region into urban and rural service areas is to help
ensure the orderly and economic provision of
metropolitan facilities and services. However, since
1975, the urban /rural division has contributed to the
now accepted Council position that the highest and
best long -term use for much of the region's land is
agriculture.
POLICIES RELATED TO THE PLANNING
AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY
Managing Regional Resources
1. The Metropolitan Council will place its highest
investment priority on serving existing develop-
ment within the urban service area by main-
taining and upgrading existing facilities.
2. The Metropolitan Council will support public
and private efforts to promote development in
areas where excess regional system capacity
exists.
Use of Forecasts
3. The Metropolitan Council will use its regional
forecasts in developing all regional plans and
programs and in making investments.
4. The Metropolitan Council will regularly
monitor variations between forecasts and
actual development as one measure for deter-
mining where changes in plans, programs and
investments are needed to achieve regional
goals and commitments. The Council will also
consider cost - sharing and economic develop-
ment of net new benefit to the region as well
as nonperformance by local government as
possible exceptions to relying on its forecasts
as a basis for investment decisions.
15
•
•
•
16
0 '''►t and Investment Framework
/ 3 - For growth that exceeds Council forecasts, the
( Metropolitan Council will place a high priori-
ty on investment that supports economic
development.
1 ecting Growth
i.
7.
The Metropolitan Council will support urban
development inside the urban service area, in-
cluding freestanding growth centers, and in
rural centers consistent with their ability to
finance and administer necessary support
services.
The Metropolitan Council supports the
maintenance of environmental quality
throughout the region and will support pro-
grams or strategies to maintain or improve the
natural environment.
Regional investments directed by the
Metropolitan Council will provide urban ser-
vices to people in the metropolitan urban ser-
vice area. The metropolitan urban service area
will be the area open for urban development
until the year 2000 unless officially changed
by the Council prior to that date.
Review of Special Facilities Within the Region
9. The Metropolitan Council will evaluate a pro-
posed special facility by its own initiation or
in response to outside requests. The Council's
review will focus on the purpose of and need
for the facility, whom it will serve and where
it works best before considering development
objectives for individual geographic policy
areas.
Agriculture Policy
10. The Council will continue to support
agriculture as the best long -term use for much
of the region's rural service area.
will take place in this area, developing communities
will need to provide a variety of housing types for
people of all ages and income groups.
The developing area has a generally adequate supply
of the most essential facilities and services and
reasonably good highway access to most portions
of the Metropolitan Area. Cultural facilities, other
than education, are not well developed. Com-
munities could promote cluster ng of housing for
target populations and social and cultural facilities
in locations with good access to meet special needs
and to facilitate the sharing of resources, expertise
and facilities.
Public transit is either unavailable or largely serves
trips to and from work. The developing area is
definitely automobile oriented and, to the extent that
development occurs at low density, future public
transit prospects are not very good.
The Council views the developin area as the place
to build communities that comb ne the best of the
past with innovation and imag nation about the
future. Once the initial urban pa rn is set, it is time
consuming and costly to change it. The best possi-
ble job of planning and deve opment to meet
physical and social needs must be done at the outset.
The developing area offers that pportunity.
Freestanding growth centers are
munities within the urban servic
have a full range of services and t
commodate a full range of urb
distinction, however, is that fre
centers are physically separated 1
(Freestanding Growth Center
Freestanding growth centers area the larger urban
centers located within the rural p rtion of the seven -
county Metropolitan Area. They originated as outly-
ing trade centers. Some include I irge areas of open
land as a result of annexation of former townships.
similar to com-
area in that they
us are able to ac-
n land uses. The
estanding growth
rom the larger ur-
ban area by undeveloped land. AIso, they have an
The Council has identified 11 communities as
freestanding growth centers. They range in size from
Waconia, with a population of aaout 2,600, to the
, Stillwater -Oak Park Heig 'its area with near-
ly 19,000. The Council will re esignate any rural
center when it meets the criteria' for a freestanding
growth center. (These criteria re included in a
separate appendix to this docum nt.) See Appendix..
B, page 52.
employment base within the community that is large
enough to provide work for the local population.
They are more than just residential communities in
both location and their economic bases.
All freestanding growth centers have central sanitary
sewer and other services that enable them to serve
an urban population. Services available include
sewer, water, schools and higher levels of police and
fire protection. In addition, all communities provide
at least full- convenience retail services and have a
significant number of other kinds of employment op-
portunities available for their residents.
Freestanding growth centers often have a large con-
centration of elderly, many of whom moved there
from the surrounding rural area. The centers are also
the location for services and facilities for the elder-
ly residing there and remaining in the rural ser-
vice area.
The Council considers the freestanding growth
centers as detached portions of the metropolitan ur-
ban service area. It wants the centers to prosper and
grow and to serve as alternatives to living and work-
ing in the large central urban area. Consequently,
the Council supports housing maintenance arid
rehabilitation as well as the development of new af-
fordable housing and housing that meets the needs
of people at all stages of the life cycle. Because they
are so similar to urban service area communities, and
because they also accommodate regional popula-
tion and employment growth that might otherwise
occur in unserviced areas, the Council supports
regional investments in these communities. However,
where additional land is needed to accommodate
growth, the communities should extend municipal
services in a staged, contiguous manner, consistent
with their ability to provide such services. If the
additional land is in an unincorporated area,
annexation through an orderly annexation agreement
is the preferred alternative.
METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA
POLICIES
Metropolitan Centers
11. The Metropolitan Council supports the
maintenance of two strong metropolitan
centers and will support new developments re-
quiring a central location, high accessibility,
high service levels and high density as most ap-
propriate for the metropolitan centers.
Maintenance of metropolitan systems serving
21
22
Development and Investment Framework
the metro centers will receive the Council's
highest investment priority.
Regional Business Concentrations
12 . The Metropolitan Council supports continued
growth and increased densities in regional
business concentrations and will give invest-
ment priority second only to the metro centers
for the maintenance of metropolitan systems
serving the concentrations.
Fully Developed Area
13. The Metropolitan Council supports the
maintenance and upgrading of development
and service facilities in the fully developed
area. Reinvestment for maintenance and
replacement of metropolitan systems serving
existing development in the fully developed
area will take priority over investment for ex-
pansion in the developing area.
Developing Area
14. Urban expansion in the developing area should
be planned, staged and generally contiguous
to existing development. The Metropolitan
Council will work with the metropolitan agen-
cies and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation to provide metropolitan systems
at the time, place and size needed to support
growth based on regional forecasts.
15 . System investment to serve additional residen-
tial land beyond regional forecasts will receive
a lower priority than system investment to serve
unanticipated economic development.
Freestanding Growth Centers
16. The Metropolitan Council supports urban -
density residential, commercial and industrial
development in freestanding growth centers.
Since they are a microcosm of the Metropolitan
Area, The Metropolitan Council will make in-
vestments in metropolitan systems serving
freestanding growth centers based on the ful-
ly developed and developing area policies, as
applicable.
RURAL SERVICE AREA
Commercial Agricultural Area
The commercial agricultural area includes those
lands certified by local governments as eligible for
agricultural preserves under the 1980 Metropolitan
Agricultural Preserves Act. This approach places the
responsibility for defining agricultural lands on local
governments. With Council protection policies for
commercial agriculture focused only in areas where
there are local government plans and protections,
local and regional policies support one another.
The amount of land included in the commercial
agricultural area is large, covering about 600,000
acres in 1985. This constitutes over half the farmland
in the seven -county area.
The geographic area defined as the commercial
agricultural area is subject to frequent change when
tied to the Agricultural Preserves Act because land
can go into and out of certification when local
governments decide to alter its status. Local govern-
ments may replan and rezone certified areas if a
change in policy is desired, but this change must oc-
cur as a public process. For the purposes of this docu-
ment, the commercial agricultural area is defined as
the area certified as of March 1 of each year. This
date is the end of each Council reporting year re-
quired under the Agricultural Preserves Act.
Under the Agricultural Preserves Act, a local govern-
ment passes a resolution certifying land eligible for
protections and benefits and limiting housing den-
sity to one unit per 40 acres. The certified area is
then considered long -term agricultural land. The
local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance
must reflect this land use and zoning. Farmers own-
ing land within the certified area may then enter the
program. Land in the program is referred to as
covenanted land. The Agriculture Preserves Act pro-
vides protection for the farmer from urban
assessments, property taxes at development value
and conflicting land uses in exchange for a legal
commitment to continue farming for at least eight
years.
Within the commercial agricultural area, all land has
been certified by local governments as eligible for
the agriculture preserves program. However, the
Council recognizes two levels of protection in the
commercial agricultural area: primary and secondary
protection areas.
Primary protection areas are lands covenanted as
agricultural preserves. They will re eive the greatest
protection possible from incompati le uses because
the greatest level of commitment to rming has been
established.
Secondary protection areas cover the farms in the
area that have not yet formed agric iltural preserves.
The Council believes the commercial agriculture
area is a place where agriculture is the best perma-
nent use of the land. Long -term investments in farm
equipment and in land preservation can be made
with the confidence that urban development is not
going to destroy or limit these investments.
General Rural Use Area
The general rural use area is the a ea outside the ur-
ban service area that is not designated for commer-
cial agriculture. Over 40 percent of the land in the
Metropolitan Area falls in this category. The area con-
tains a wide variety of land uses, including
agricultural, residential and urban -type facilities.
There are sizable parts of the general rural use area
that host no particular kind of I nd use —land that
is often called unused. Most oft e area looks rural,
but many of its residents are tie economically to
the urban area and many of its la d uses provide ser-
vices to people living in the ur an service area.
Four major types of uses exist within the general rural
use area.
General Farmland
A large part of the general rural use area is devoted
to agriculture. The Council supports the continua-
tion of agriculture and encourages local governments
to support it by zoning agricultt ral land at one unit
per 40 acres. For farms within ark area so zoned that
subsequently sign up for the agriculture preserves
program, the Council will reclassify them as part of
the commercial agricultural area.
Rural Residential Development
Rural residential development consists of homes on
large lots in areas that are hill, wooded or other-
wise unsuited to agricultural production. The Coun-
cil considers rural residential development a perma-
nent land use and not an early stage of urbaniza-
tion. The Council supports thi type of use as long
as the density does not exceed one housing unit per
10 acres of land. The Counci I will compute rural
residential density on the basis of 40-acre parcels.
This will prevent possible urban - density clustering
of a large number of homes on small minimum lot
sizes, but within the overall density cap. The Coun-
cil opposes such clustering because it could result
in the need for urban services, such as package sewer
disposal systems.
Existing Urban - Density Development
Residential subdivisions, mobile home parks and
clusters of moderate - density residential development
also exist in the general rural use area. They frequent-
ly demand urban services but are in locations where
urban services are difficult or costly to provide. The
Council's principal concern is the potential need for
the costly extension of central sanitary sewer and par-
ticularly metropolitan sewer service. The Council
supports development in the general rural use area
consistent with service levels appropriate for a rural
area. Local governments with existing urban - density
development should address the operation and
maintenance issues of on -site systems to avoid poten-
tial problems and the eventual need for costly local
investments.
Urban Uses
Many facilities exist in the general rural use area that
require isolated and spacious locations but serve
primarily the urban public. These facilities include
campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks,
regional parks, trails, waste disposal installations, rac-
ing facilities, gun clubs, festivals, mining sites and
similar facilities. The general rural use area is an ap-
propriate location for these facilities. The Council's
interest is that these facilities are adequately serv-
ed, consistent with local and regional plans, and to
the extent possible, that they do not interfere with
agricultural activities.
Rural Centers
Rural centers historically have served as retail ser-
vice centers and transportation centers for the sur-
rounding rural area. However, changes in agriculture
and rapid urban expansion have changed the tradi-
tional rural service roles of many of these small
centers to residential areas for urban people and
locations for industries with little tie to local
agriculture. The latter make use of available labor
in rural areas and, by their nature, tend not to be
dependent on close contact with other firms for their
supplies or critically dependent on transportation.
op
2:
•
24
Development and Investment Framework
The Council has identified 35 rural centers, with
populations ranging from just over 100 to more than
5,000. Some rural centers, such as Norwood and
Young America, encompass the entire corporate
limits of the community. Others, such as Lake Elmo,
are small enclaves within a larger rural community.
Services available within rural centers vary. Some
have central sanitary sewer; others depend on on-
site waste disposal systems. Some have central water
systems. Some provide the full range of convenience
retail stores, while others have only a bar or gas sta-
tion. Some have small manufacturing or service
businesses; others are almost exclusively residential.
The Council does not support the extension of
regional systems to rural centers because of the
distance from the urban center and the small popula-
tions of rural centers.
Rural locations in the past decade have been attrac-
tive and some, although not all, communities have
experienced an upsurge in growth, principally
residential development. Development trends are
down from the highs noted in the early 1970s but
continue at modest levels into the 1980s.
Several services are important in adequately serving
additional rural center development, but sewage
disposal is the most critical. Urban - density develop-
ment in an unsewered rural center poses the risks
of on -site sewage system failure, contamination of
groundwater and eventually the expense of new on-
site or central sewer system installation. The
possibility also exists that remedying a pollution
problem may require an extension of metropolitan
sewer service through rural areas. Lack of sewer
service is a serious constraint on the amount and
type of development that rural centers can safely
accommodate.
Some parts of the rural Metropolitan Area, especially
Anoka County, are receiving large amounts of scat-
tered urban development. This scattered develop-
ment poses service problems and may, at a later date,
result in very high local service costs. The Council
proposes a strategy that offers local government an
alternative way to structure this development by
designating and creating a "rural center." These new
centers would be limited enclaves for urban - density
land uses, facilities and services within the local
governments' broader corporate boundaries. They
would not be coterminus with the entire corporate
limits. Under this strategy, a local government would
identify an area to receive urban - density residential,
commercial and industrial development and the
facilities, including local central sewer, where ap-
propriate, needed to serve it. Financing of necessary
support services would be a local responsibility.
Areas of existing urban - density uses are likely can-
didates for selection as new rural centers.
Rural centers should accommodate additional
development consistent with their ability to finance
and administer services, including sewer, roads,
water and stormwater drainage. If additional and is
needed to accommodate growth, rural centers
should extend services in a staged, contiguous man-
ner. Residential, commercial and industrial develop-
ment at urban densities should be accommodated
only in rural centers with central sanitary sewers that
are meeting state and federal water quality standards.
Larger projects should be located in freestanding
growth centers that have a full range of services.
RURAL SERVICE AREA POLICIES
Commercial Agricultural Area
1 7. The Metropolitan Council supports the long-
term continuation of agriculture in the rural
service area. The Council will use the follow-
ing ranking in decisions to accommodate
facilities serving urban residents.
1. Primary protection area: Land covenanted
in agriculture preserves will receive
primary protection. Urban facilities should
be prohibited in this area unless there is
strong documentation that no other loca-
tions in the Metropolitan Area can ade-
quately meet the siting and selection
criteria.
2 . Secondary protection area: Lands certified
but not presently in agricultural preserves
will receive a level of protection secondary
to agricultural preserves. Urban facilities
should not be located in this area unless
there is strong evidence that a proposed
urban use cannot be located in the general
rural use area.
General Rural Use Area
18. The Metropolitan Council supports long -term
preservation of agricultural land in the
general rural use area. However, the Council
will also support residential development at
densities of no more than one unit per 10
acres computed on a 40 -acre basis (a max-
i
i
v
imum of four units per 40 acres). The Coun-
cil will not extend metropolitan systems to
serve urban - density residential development
in the general rural use area. Where urban -
density development already exists, a local
government should address service issues in
its plan, particularly on -site sewer system
operation and maintenance.
Rural Centers
19. The Metropolitan Council wi II support a rural
center's plans to accommodate additional
growth provided they are consistent with the
center's ability to finance and administer ser-
vices, particularly sewer service. The Coun-
cil supports rural center service im-
provements but not at regional expense.
2 0. The Council will support a local government's
plan for a new rural center and its requests
for state and federal grants, provided the local
government restricts urban densities from sur-
rounding rural areas and will support the new
center with necessary service investments.
25
•
Development and Investment Framework
PLANNING AND INVESTMENT
PROCEDURES: Council and
Local Units of Government
Since the adoption of the 1976 Metropolitan Land
Planning Act, the relationship between the
Metropolitan Council and local units of government
has focused on the requirements of the act. Essen-
tially, the act requires local governments and the
Council to continually review and modify growth ex-
pectations and corresponding regional facility needs.
Either the Council or a local unit can initiate a
change. The following procedures relate to handling
potential changes.
REGIONAL/LOCAL PLANNING PROCESS
Since this framework is the keystone for all Council
policies, the regional /local planning process starts
with the framework. The Council will thoroughly
review and revise the framework after it receives and
analyzes information from each federal decennial
census. The Council will complete a more general
review at five-year intervals after each census -based
revision. Adequate census data is usually available
to the Council within about two years after com-
pletion of the census.
The census provides the data needed to revise
population, household and employment forecasts,
which in turn affect needs for urban land and
regional facilities. Changes in the forecasts may
subsequently require changes in regional system
plans and metropolitan system statements. System
statements inform local governments about Coun-
cil forecasts, plans for regional facilities and other
Council plans, including the development and in-
vestment framework and how these plans will affect
them. Changes in system plans may require
metropolitan agencies to revise their plans for
regional facilities. Changes in system statements may
require local units to amend their comprehensive
plans to maintain consistency with regional plans.
State law also requires that the Council re- evaluate
regional system plans at regular intervals. Whether
system plan changes result from this periodic review,
changes in development framework forecasts or
other outside influences, the Council will transmit
all changes to local governments shortly after they
are adopted.
To reduce confusion about what changes in regional
plans directly affect individual local governments,
metropolitan system statements will clearly indicate
which geographic areas and /or population groups
will be most affected by the changes. In addition,
the Council will transmit all system changes that oc-
cur in a calendar year in a single annual system state-
ment. This means that local governments can con-
sider all system plan changes made during a
12 -month period concurrently.
Changes in the Urban Service Area
The Council will also re- evaluate the boundary for
the metropolitan urban service area every five years
in conjunction with its revision of municipal
forecasts. Shorter time periods are inadequate for
projecting trends and even a five -year span is ques-
tionable in providing an adequate picture of poten-
tial trends. -
The Council will consider expanding a local govern-
ment's urban service area if changes in forecasts in-
dicate a need for additional urban land or if a local
government has less than a five -year overage of va-
cant, developable land.
41
Development and Investment Framework
42
If a local government wants to develop vacant land
currently outside the urban service area but adjacent
to it, without changing the total size of its service
area, the Council will consider a land trade. A land
trade involves trading vacant, developable land in-
side the urban service area for vacant, developable
land outside the urban service area, provided that
metropolitan systems are not adversely affected.
The Council may consider revisions tp the urban ser-
vice area more frequently if a local government can
clearly demonstrate that it is growi4 faster than the
Council forecast or that it has less ham a five -year
overage of vacant, developable lanc . However, the
Council will consider interim revis ons with great
caution to avoid rendering the area -wide forecasts
and system plans meaningless. Appehdix B includes
specific guidelines governing this ftrocess.
Changes to a Local Compreherisive Plan
Reflecting concerns of local government, the Coun-
cil has established a review process for plan amend-
ments that, up to the present, has operated satisfac-
torily. However, more and more to al governments
are submitting major amendments t their plans that
require more supporting data than tipulated in the
current amendment procedures. Tne Council will
again work with local government to revise its
amendment procedures to more adequately address
major plan amendments.
On the other hand, the Council still reviews the ma-
jority of the amendments it receives within a 10-day
period. The Council is committed to keeping the
basic review process efficient and e fective and will
continue to streamline its procedures wherever
possible.
Relationship Between Comprehensive Plans
and Zoning Ordinances
The and planning act requires that local govern-
ments not adopt any official control{ that are in con-
flict with their comprehensive plans or with regional
system plans. However, the act does not specifically
address official controls in place prior to the adop-
tion of the plans. Zoning ordinances are the primary
tools used by local governments to carry out their
comprehensive plans.
The Council's primary concern with ;consistency bet-
ween planning and zoning relates to the provision
of regional systems. The Council is committed to pro-
viding regional systems based on its forecasts and
local plans consistent with those forecasts. If a local
government develops according to pre - existing zon-
ing that is in conflict with the comprehensive plan
and if that development has greater service re-
quirements than the planned use, the local govern-
ment risks running short of regional system capaci-
ty. Consequently, local governments that identify
such conflicts between their pre - existing zoning and
comprehensive plans need to prepare a plan amend-
ment addressing what measures they will take to
resolve these conflicts.
INTERCOMMUNITY PLANNING
PROCESS
The and planning act not only addressed the need
for local governments to consider regional plans; it
also directed them to discuss the effects of their plans
on adjacent governmental units and school districts.
The act, in fact, requires that local units circulate
their plans to neighboring jurisdictions six months
before they formally transmit them to the Council.
If differences surface between communities, the act
also states that the Council can mediate these
disputes.
Although few intercommunity incompatibilities sur-
faced during the initial land planning act process,
the Council recognizes the ongoing importance of
achieving intercommunity compatibility in land use
and facility planning. As local plans are amended,
the Council will work with local governments to
develop guidelines to address this issue. If necessary,
the Council will amend its administrative guidelines
to clarify intercommunity planning needs. Part of
such an approach might incorporate an analysis of
intercommunity impacts in the plan amendment
process.
SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
The land planning act required school districts to
submit capital improvement programs to the Coun-
cil for review on a one -time basis and thereafter to
submit only major changes. However, sharing infor-
mation related to projected school facility needs on
a regular basis is beneficial, particularly to affected
local governments. Just as local governments provide
information on all changes in their plans with adja-
cent local governments and school districts, the
Council encourages school districts to provide
Table A-1 (cont.)
COUNTY POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS EMPLOYMENT
1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000
1,483 1,550 1,700 466 500 550 50 50 50
2,663 3,150 3,400 893 1,050 1,250 830 1,000 1,200
813 900 950 232 270 300 210 300 300
286 350 390 99 130 150 50 50 50
1,636 1,900 2,000 441 550 600 50 50 50
1,898 2,200 2,100 677 900 900 1,250 1,400 1,500
7,284 11,000 13,200 2,313 3,800 4,700 1,250 2,000 2,200
350 430 500 101 130 150 50 50 50
1,516 1,600 1,700 371 400 450 160 150 150
3,954 8,700 11,200 1,234 2,900 4,000 2,600 3,000 5,000
9,941 12,500 13,900 3,226 4,300 4,900 5,000 8,000 10,000
2,570 2,900 3,000 721 850 900 50 50 50
Jackson Twp.
Jordan
Louisville Twp.
New Market
New Market Twp.
New Prague (part)
Prior Lake
St. Lawrence Twp.
Sand Creek Twp.
Savage
Shakopee
Spring Lake Twp.
County Total
ASHINGTON
Afto 2,550 2,600 2,600 776 850 875 100 200 300
Bayport 2,932 2,800 2,800 677 750 775 2,100 2,100 2,100
Baytown Twp. 851 1,000 1,100 237 300 350 50 100 100
Birchwood 1,059 1,100 1,100 326 360 360 50 50 50
Cottage Grove 18,994 22,000 24,000 5,127 6,300 6,900 4,200 4,500 5,000
Del !wood 751 930 900 223 300 300 100 100 100
Denmark Twp. 1,140 1,400 1,500 318 400 450 50 50 50
Forest Lake 4,596 5,700 6,100 1,752 2,400 2,700 3,200 4,000 4,000
• Forest Lake Twp.
5,331 6,100 6,200 1,559 1,900 2,000 420 600 600
Grant Twp. 3,083 3,400 3,600 831 1,050 1,150 100 200 200
Grey Cloud Twp. 351 350 350 112 120 125 50 100 100
Hastings 16 - - 4 -
Hugo 3,771 4,300 4,500 1,082 1,300 1,400 420 800 1,000
Lake Elmo 5,296 6,200 6,600 1,687 2,100 2 ,300 830 1,400 1,500
Lake St. Croix Beach 1,176 1,200 1,200 397 450 475 10 50 50
Lakeland 1,812 2,100 2,300 550 650 750 130 200 200
Lakeland Shores 171 210 220 65 90 100 50 50 50
Landfall 679 680 680 310 340 340 50 50 50
Mahtomedi 3,851 4,900 5,200 1,239 1,800 2,100 1,140 1,300 1,300
Marine On St. Croix 543 550 540 201 220 225 50 50 50
May Twp. 2,076 2,400 2,500 611 750 800 50 50 50
Newport 3,323 3,600 3,800 1,153 1,400 1,500 1,560 1,800 2,000
New Scandia Twp. 2,858 3,200 3,400 851 1,000 1,100 50 50 50
Oakdale 12,123 15,000 17,000 4,004 5,700 6,800 1,600 3,500 5,000
N-.....___ j Oak Park Heights 2,591 3,800 3,900 868 1,300 1,400 2,180 2,500 3,000
Pine Springs 267 400 470 77 120 150 50 50 50
St. Mary's Point 348 360 410 114 130 150 50 50 50
51 Paul Park 4,864 4,800 4,900 1,511 1,600 1,700 750 1,000 1,000
Stillwater 12,290 13,200 13,300 4,065 4,600 4,800 5,700 7,500 8,000
Stillwater Twp. 1,599 2,000 2,300 448 600 700 310 300 300
West Lakeland Twp. 1,318 1,400 1,400 355 425 450 50 50 50
White Bear Lake (part) 10 300 300 3 100 100 800 800 900
Willernie 654 720 690 236 275 275 100 100 100
Woodbury 10,297 19,000 23,000 3,232 6,500 8,000 2,500 6,500 9,500
County Total 113,571 137,700 148,860 35,001 46,180 51,600 28,850 40,150 46,850
METROPOLITAN AREA 1,985,873 2,204,000* 2,310,000* 721,357 863,000* 931,000* 1,069,030 1,291,000* 1,405,000*
TOTAL
*Rounded to the nearest thousand.
43,784 58,080 65,900 13,501 19,080 22,600 12,890 17,650 22,250
51
Development and Investment Framework
52
APPENDIX B. Procedures Affecting the
Urban Service Area
DELINEATING THE URBAN
SERVICE AREA
The Metropolitan Council has establ'shed a process
of estimating and requirements for the
urban service area based on an objective of max-
imizing choice of lifestyle in the Metropolitan Area
while at the same time promoting orderly and
economic development and protecting the natural
environment.
To ensure the greatest choice of living conditions,
the Council divided the area outside t le central cities
into eight radial sectors, which are s'lown in Figure
B -1. The Council used these sector as a check to
make sure that a sufficient supply of land with public
facilities is being planned in all directions outside
the central cities. Maintaining an adequate land
supply permits people and businesses to freely
choose where they want to develoF within the ur-
ban service area. Providing more and for urban
development than needed in each sector further
enhances choice. The Council believes that the ur-
ban service area should contain at least a five -year
oversupply of urban land within each urban area
community to encourage a realistic scale of public
and private planning, yet not make the urban ser-
vice area so large that it undermine the economic
benefits of a regional staging plan. ; he overage in
needed land supply is also intended to temper in-
creases in land prices attributable to a restricted
supply.
The Council has defined orderly and economic
development to include making the blest possible use
of public dollars invested in facilities and services.
This means development should occur first in those
areas provided with the greatest combined comple-
ment of metropolitan and local public facilities and
services. In addition, communities should stage new
land for urbanization in a contiguous manner that
minimizes the need for additional local and regional
i nvestments.
Protecting the natural environment means that the
natural ecological system should be preserved and
efforts made to avoid unnecessary expenditures and
potential hardships associated with improperly
located and managed development. It also means
that the natural hydrological system should be
preserved and that development should be design-
ed and placed to be compatible with soil
characteristics and the physical terrain.
Restrictive soil groupings where urban development
is not anticipated include wetlands, floodplains and
areas where bedrock is close to the surface. The
Council considered all areas containing these
characteristics unsuitable for development even
though the ordinances of many local governments
do not presently protect or prohibit development in
these areas. The characteristics of the restricted areas
are as follows:
1. The wetland category consists mostly of poorly V
to very poorly drained soils. These soils have
severe to very severe limitations for all kinds of
development due to high water tables. In most
cases, permits to fill or alter these wetlands must
be obtained from the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. /
2 . The floodplain category contains soils that are ✓
54
Development and Investment Framework
well to poorly drained; however, they are all sub-
ject to occasional flooding and many are sub-
ject to frequent flooding.
3. The bedrock category includes places where
depth to bedrock averages between three and
10 feet. Excavations for utilities, basements and
footings are often difficult and extremely costly.
Steeply sloping land also needs to be carefully
treated to prevent erosion and excessive runoff. The
Council's surface water management plan provides
guidelines that should be followed in developments
that include steep slopes. The surface water plan
takes the position that it is more effective to use and
management techniques to control erosion and
runoff than to prohibit all developments on lands
with steep slopes.
The identification and mapping of these en-
vironmentally restricted land areas are intended to
ocal governments in their planning. The Coun-
cil wililaccept any adopted local environmental pro-
tection ordinances that would legally restrict addi-
tional land from development (including steeply
sloping land) as the basis for further reducing what
• the Council considers developable land within a
local urban service area.
Tables B -1 and B -2 summarize the findings of the
estimating process. The steps the Council used to
estimate urban land requirements for 1990 and the
year 2000 are as follows:
1. Estimate residential land needs from forecasts,
local comprehensive plans and Council system
plans.
2. Estimate nonresidential land needs from
forecasts, local comprehensive plans and Coun-
cil system plans.
3. Convert land needs for the Metropolitan Area
to land needs by sector and community, using
past utilization levels, current development den-
sities and the amount of land available for
urbanization.
4. Determine the supply of land potentially
available for urban use by sector and community
from local plans, 1980 aerial photos and field
surveys.
5. Identify, map and remove wetlands, floodplains
and bedrock areas from the potential land supp-
ly, using geologic maps, local plans, aerial
photos and Council system plans.
6. Identify developable lands with sewer service
and high levels of highway and local road ac-
cessibility, using local plans, metropolitan
system plans and aerial photos. Select this land
first for inclusion in the urban service area.
The forecasts contained in this framework are lower
than those used in the 1975 Metropolitan Develop-
ment Framework and revisions made in the forecasts
in 1978. Consequently, the estimated urban land re-
quirements are lower as well. This means that in
most cases the 1990 urban service areas now con-
tained in local plans will be adequate to the year
2000 and beyond. In addition, land with steep slopes
that the Council considered environmentally
restricted in the 1975 framework is now counted as
part of the urban land supply. Therefore, the available
land inside the urban service area is greater in most
urbanizing communities than was the case in 1975.
A separate technical appendix to the Metropolitan
Development and Investment Framework guide con-
tains land demand and supply figures for all com-
munities within the metropolitan urban service area,
freestanding growth centers and rural centers with
public sewer service. These figures are the basis for
the revised urban service boundaries. (The
appendix also contains criteria for defining free-
standing growth centers). Copies of this appendix or
land demand data sheets for individual communities
are available upon request from the Council's Long -
Range Planning Division.
CHANGING LOCAL URBAN SERVICE
AREAS
When a local government requests a change in the
staging in its comprehensive plan by either adding
more land to its urban service area or changing the
urban service area boundaries, the Council will use
the following principles and procedures.
1. Increasing the size of an urban service area: The
Council will not agree to expand a local urban
service area unless there is demonstrated
regional need and adequate capacity available
in the metropolitan sewer and highway systems.
In responding to any urban service area expan-
sion request, the Council first reassesses land
supply and demand based on a comparison of
figures provided by the local governmental unit
and current Council forecasts. The Council will
•
also assess the impact of the request on regional
facilities. If the regional facilities are presently
inadequate and metropolitan investments would
be required immediately in order to honor ser-
vice area commitments to other local govern-
ments, the Council will deny the expansion bas-
ed on the land planning act criteria that the re-
quest represents a substantial impact on or
departure from metropolitan , plans. If
regional facilities would be iadequate by the
year 2000 or any updated target year, the Coun-
cil will deny the request on the same basis. The
Council will inform the local government that
it will reconsider its request hen additional
regional capacity becomes available.
If the local land supply is below or approaching
the five -year overage and regional facilities are
adequate, the Council will agree to a service
area expansion. The local government then
completes a comprehensive jblan amendment
incorporating the change.
2 . Changing the configuration of an urban service
area: The Council will consider land -trade pro-
posals involving vacant, developable land adja-
cent to the urban service area provided
metropolitan systems are not aJversely affected.
The Council will use two op:ions to evaluate
land trade proposals.
a. The proposals must involve equal amounts
of vacant, developable land with similar land
use types and intensities as well as similar ur-
ban service characteristics; or
b. If the scale of land use and the intensity of
potential development differ between the
parcels, then proposed land' trades must have
similar urban service ch racteristics. Pro-
posals will also be evalua ed to determine
their impact on the affecte sector's five -year
overage of land.
3. The Council will review a series of incremental
changes to a local urban servie area only if the
affected local government analyzes how the total
number of proposed changes gill affect regional
forecasts and system plans and operations.
If regional facilities are a equate and no
metropolitan agency investm nts are required,
the Council may agree to the 'following service area
expansion, provided that the following condi-
tions are met:
a. The local government's rural area densities
are consistent with Council policy;
b. Local timing and staging corresponds to
allocated usage rather than design capacity;
c. The local government has an up-to -date com-
prehensive sewer plan, including on -site
sewer management; and
d . The local government has assessment prac-
tices that limit creation of vested development
rights.
DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS FOR
SIZING REGIONAL FACILITIES
Forecasting is a useful way to articulate expectations
—to set a measure by which to monitor progress
toward meeting goals and objectives. The key to the
appropriate use of forecasts is not to debate their ac-
curacy, but to recognize the degree of uncertainty
and to plan accordingly. It is important to note this
distinction from simply accepting forecasts as given
and making all plans conform to them. Sometimes
such an approach is called for by the nature of the
investment being made —for example, a very large
investment that cannot be significantly altered either
in its initial design or after it is built. The region does
not have unlimited resources to make such in-
vestments. It cannot afford to see them vastly
underused while investing in competing facilities or
programs.
Forecasts should be used with a clear understanding
of the uncertainty involved and with an
appreciation of their policy (investment) ramifica-
tions. Within this general context, the Metropolitan
Council will apply the following guidelines in
using the forecasts in its review of plans, programs
and facilities.
The Council will revise its forecasts every five years,
using decennial census data as a base. As soon as
such figures are available, a revision will be made
to reconcile the forecasts to the census as necessary.
As more detailed demographic data becomes
available (particularly migration and age data), the
Council will make a more in -depth analysis of
regional growth trends and revise the overall regional
forecasts. These forecasts will serve as a control for
providing mid - decade municipal- and township -level
forecasts.
57
•
1
STILLWATER TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE
LAND LISE GUIDE PLAN
January, 1980
Revised March, 1990
(Revisions on Pages 10, 16, 24, 25 and added "Foreward")
FOREWORD
(Added to the Plan, March, 1990)
Stillwater Township is essentially a township characterized by a rural landscape.
It consists of approximately 17 sections of land lying north of State Trunk
Highway 36, east of Washington County State Aid Highway 15, and extending
easterly to the St. Croix River and the City of Stillwater.
The Township is accessible to other major metropolitan urban centers for
employment, shopping, recrea and entertainment, business and transportation.
The City nal Stillwater
amen ties unique to the metropolitan ar area and the region.
and
gion
re
Stillwater Township is characterized by gently rolling woodland and agri -rural
openness. Two important upland drainageways, Silver Creek and Browns Creek,
along with several small lakes, wetland basins and ppnding areas, enrich the
natural landscape.
The Township Comprehensive and Use Guide Plan (Plan), adopted in 1980, places
emphasis on the preservations of agricultural land for farming purposes. Changing
economic factors and increated urban development pressures are tending to absorb
farm land at an accelerated', rate.
Township policy established for the 1990's places a preference on the
preservation of the Township's rural characteristics as a primary focus on its
growth development strategy. The rural characteristics of the. Township are
prevalent in the landscape, and the expressed desire to preserve and enhance that
character are deemed very important, and in fact, expected.
The 1990 Plan Update seeks to place greater emphasis on the preservation of the
rural landscape. In addition to this focus toward the rural landscape, the
Township has which Checklist and Submittal
real estate development ntwithin
booklet whi 9
Stillwater Township's natural rural landscape.
The Guidelines, Checklist and Submittal Requirements booklet developed by the
Township in March, 1990 att�mpts to assist the applicant, developer or land owner
in providing vital info ation to the Township's decision makers. This
information will facilitate decisions by illustrating various aspects of a site's
aesthetic and physical charfacteristics and its surrounding neighborhood context.
These requirements should not be viewed as obstructionary, but rather
constructively in the broaider sense of attempting to maintain and•preserve the
most desirable and positive attributes of Stillwater Township.
The Stillwater Township Staff, its Planning Commission, Park Commission, and its
Board of Supervisors request that persons and entities seeking to develop real
estate within the Township maintain an open mind and an attitude which is
conducive to the enhancemeit and preservation of the rural character and the very
positive attributes which make Stillwater Township so desirable.
•
STILLWATER TOWNSHIP
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE GUIDE PLAN
Table of Contents Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. POPULATION 2
A. Past and Current Growth Trends 2
B. Population Projections 2
C. Households and Household Projections 4
D. Summary -- 5
III. EXISTING LAND USE 6
A. Residential Development 6
B. Agricultural Land Uses 7
C. Commercial Land Uses - 8
IV. NATURAL FEATURES 9
A. General 9
B. Topography 9
C. Soils 9
1
D. Water Resources -- 11
E. Woodlands 12
F. Summary
V. TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES -- 13
A. Transportation 13
B. Public Facilities and Services 14
VI. GOALS AND POLICIES FOR STILLWATER TOWNSHIP 16
A. Overall Growth Policies 16
B. Natural Resource Protection 17
C. Commercial Development 18
D. Industrial Development 18
* E Par o O Spa
* F. .4 c rcc 1 it :es =IL
G. Transportation 19
H. Housing 20
2
I. Implementation Strategy
VII. DEVELOPMENT OF OVERALL LAND USE CONCEPT - 22
A. Alternative #1 Existing Growth Policy 22
B. Alternative #2 Limited Open Growth 22
C. Alternative #3 Rural Growth 22
D. Alternative #4 Agricultural Preservation 23
E. Alternative #5 Agricultural Preservation -Rural Lifestyle 24
VIII. GROWTH STRATEGY FOR STILLWATER TOWNSHIP 25
A. Agriculture - 25
B. Rural Residential 25
C. Urban /Rural Residential 25
D. Urban Residential 25
E. Conservancy .26
F. Lakeshore and St. Croix River
IX. IMPLENENTATION STRATEGY 27
A. Introduction 27 27
B. Implenentation Devices
* Not Included
1 A. Overall Growth?olicies •
VI. GOALS AND POLICIES FOR STILLWATER TOWNSHIP
The following goals and policies have been formulated by the township
officials and interested citizens as the basic framework which will guide
future growth and development decisions as they arise within the
township. These goals and policies have resulted from current needs and
opportunities in the township as determined through an analysis of
various background information. Basically three major development
concepts adopted by the township officials serve as the basis for the
goals and policies. One is to stage urban growth out from the City of
Stillwater in an orderly manner in the future as needs dictate. Second
is to allow a continuation of the rural lifestyle in the township through
low- density residential development. Third is to protect existing
agricultural land and permit existing agricultural operations to continue
in the future. "Third, to protect the landscape's rural character to the
greatest extent possible when considering land development requests or
other zoning /land use application requests." Then, "Fourth is to
protect..." (Amended March, 1990).
It is intended thatl'Ithe goals be viewed as the aims and desires of the
township as it stri''es to accommodate the future. Policies are then
presented to provide the means by which the goals may be achieved and
suggest current courses of action needed to implement this planning
process.
the goals and polices have been divided in to specific functional areas
to guide the differing land uses. The first, overall growth, provides
the overall framewo ^k of the entire Land Use Guide Plan, followed by
specific categories.
1. Preservation of present and future commercial agriculture as a
viable land use and an essential activity within the township.
2. Location of rural and low density housing in areas not capable of
supporting long-term, permanent commercial agriculture and in
areas of high scenic quality.
3. Location of urban development only in areas where urban services
can be easily provided and extended.
Policies
1. Take the necessary steps to preserve the viable agricultural
areas from urban sprawl and scattered urban development.
2. Identify those viable agricultural areas in the township through
soils and other relevant information that should remain
exclusively for agricultural production and use.
1
3. Direct rur 1 housing development away from recognized commercial
agricultur 1 areas and into areas with marginal agricultural
soils, and woodland areas.
4. Promote the use of specific agricultural property taxes and
adoption of assessment policies to encourage continued
agricultural production.
16
•
5. Develop standards for density and location of rural development
which will minimize the need for urban services.
6. Allow rural housing, which is not scheduled to recieve central
sewage disposal service, only in areas where the soils, topography,
and water table are such that the individual sewage disposal systems
can properly function.
7. Prohibit the extension of public utilities over large undeveloped
parcels to serve pockets of scattered urban development.
8. Concentrate urban residential, commercial, and industrial land uses
adjacent to the city where urban services can easily be provided.
9. Require that urban areas be initially developed to include all
services (sanitary sewers, public water, paved streets, etc.) with
phased developments to coincide with the extension of urban services.
10. Establish lot sizes and other development standards for transitional
areas adjacent to the city in such a manner to easily permit re-
subdivision when urban services are extended.
B. Natural Resource Protection
Goals
Protection and enhancement of the air, water, plant, animals, and land
resources in the township as a vital ingredient of the living environment.
Policies
1. Promote the land management practices to protect the natural resources
in the township including the St. Croix River Corridor.
2. Carefully control development in environmentally sensitive areas,
i.e., wetlands, floodplains, shorelands, woodlands, and steep slopes.
3. Promote the preservation and improvement of all rivers and streams in
an unpolluted state by enacting floodplain ordinances.
4. Promote soil conservation and erosion control practices in all areas
of the township, especially in areas with steep slopes.
5. Encourage farmers to adopt and maintain sound soil erosion control •
practices such as contour plowing, strip cropping, minimum tillage,
shelter belts, etc.
6. Encourage subdivision and urban development to conform to the natural
limitations presented by topography and soil so as to create the least
potential for soil erosion.
7. Require private construction to incorporate environmental design stan-
dards and landscaping in all private development projects.
8. Encourage the design of subdivisions so that the natural drainage
system is preserved including wetlands.
9. Carefully control the location of feedlots and other animal confine-
ment areas in the township to minimize pollution and nuisance problems.
10. Restrict the location of solid waste disposal sites to minimize
pollution and nuisance problems.
11. Protect sanid, gravel, and limestone deposits as a valuable natural
resource through the enactment of ordinances regulating development
in these areas.
C. Commercial Development
Goals
1. Reasonable
Policies
Policies
access to an adequate supply of goods .Ind services.
2. Functional, safe, and attractive design and display.
3. Minimum conflict with surrounding land uses.
1. Encourage commercial developments to locate near existing urban
development where public services can be provided and near places
with good accessibility (major roadways and interchanges).
2. Allow shopping centers only in areas where central sewer and water
facilities and services are available.
3. Strongly discourage scattered, strip commercial developments along
highways. Highway commercial development such as auto sales agencies,
farm implement dealers or fast food restaurants should be served by
frontage rcads rather than direct access to freeways.
4. Require th t commercial developments be properly landscaped and screen-
ing provid d to minimize conflict with adjacent, non - commercial land
uses.
D. Industrial Development
Goals
Minimum conflict of industrial developments with surrounding land uses.
•
1. Allow only "clean" type, non - polluting industry in areas adjacent to
existing development to avoid conflicts with residential development.
2. Require pr screening and landscaping of all industrial land uses •
to minimiz conflict with adjacent non - industrial land uses.
1
•
3. Regulate the density and installation of on -site septic tanks in
order to minimize potential pollution problems and need for central
sewer services in the future.
4. Restrict location of on -site septic tanks to areas containing soils
and topography capable of handling such systems.
5. Prohibit leap -frog urban developments which require the extension
of public facilities and services across agricultural or other rural
land uses.
G. Transportation
Goals
1. A transportation system which compliments land use development through-
out the township and which encourages urban density residential,
commercial, and industrial growth in the areas adjacent to the City.
2. A transportation system which provides accessibility for all income
groups to places of employment, recreation, shopping, and entertain-
ment.
3. A transportation system which provides users with mobility, safety,
scenic values and economy in travel.
Policies
1. Develop a transportation system which reinforces the township's growth
policies.
2. Integrate land use and transportation plans to minimize the adverse
effects of transportation systems (noise, air pollution) on the
adjacent development.
3. Provide an efficient road network that facilitates the provision of
necessary services with a minimum of travel. Services to include
school buses, fire and police protection, farm to market roads and
travel to employment.
4. Coordinate road networks and construction with other public services
using the same right -of -way to minimize costs.
5.• To the extent possible, avoid locating transportation facilities so
as to adversely affect the natural resources of the township.
6. Encourage the development of a transportation system which properly
balances considerations of safety, accessibility, environmental
protection, and cost.
7. Carefully control land use developments at the major transportation
intersections and interchanges to avoid compromising safety,
accessibility, and functions of the highways.
19
2. Discourage scattered and "leap- frog" residential development in
commercial agricultural areas.
3. Encourage the use of natural resource information such as vegetation,
Li
soils, topography, groundwater, etc., in residential site designs.
4. Prohibit the location of rural housing with septic tanks and drain -
fields in areas of high bedrock or water table to minimize pollution
problems and construction costs.
5. Use soils and other natural resource information as a basis for
establishing minimum lot sizes for rural housing with septic tanks
and drainfields.
6. Require the location of mobile homes within mobile home parks where
urban services can be provided.
7. Require the location of mobile home parks in urban residential or
mobile home residential districts which can be served by central
sewer anc water services.
8. Only all w multi - family residential developments in areas where there
is an-ad quate amount resPdents andrwherensewer social acijes
to meet he needs of
ities ar .available.
9. Work closely with the City of Stillwater to insure availability of
low and moderate income housing units in areas with public services
and near; social /cultural facilities.
8. Encourage the development of a transportation system which properly
integrates the various types and levels of highways (state, county
and local) to maximize safety and accessibility.
9. Encourage the development of a recreational trail system which
provides access to major recreation areas for all citizens in the
township.
H. Housing
Goals
1. A broad choice of housing types for all income and age groups.
2. Safe, healthful, and blight -free residences and residential develop-
ments.
Policies
1. Restrict the location of higher density residential subdivisions and
development to areas where urban services can easily be provided.
20
1
10. Develop and adopt provisions in development ordinances which en-
courage practical, innovative and energy- saving site and housing
unit designs.
11. Promote programs to encourage the rehabilitation of existing older
homes.
12. Carefully regulate home occupations to avoid or minimize traffic
problems and other incompatible land uses in residential areas.
I. Implementation Strategy
Goals
1. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan
Policies
1. Develop and adopt imaginative methods that will effectively implement
the township's policies and recognizes the existing rural land use
patterns.
2. Encourage effective and coordinated implementation methods that
properly balance private incentives and the protection of the public
interest.
3. Effectively coordinate the various public implementation tools such
as regulatory devices (zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, etc.),
public acquisition, utility extensions (streets and highways), and
property tax policies.
4. Adopt a long -range township capital improvements program and budget
that is responsible to and reinforces the policies of the Compre-
hensive Plan.
5. Review and update, if necessary, the Comprehensive Plan on a periodic
basis.
21
VII. DEVELOPMENT OF OVERALL LAND USE CONCEPT
To assist the Planning Commission, Town Board and interested citizens in
developing an overall land use plan for Stillwater Township, five alternative
land use concepts were developed for review and future refinement. Each
approach contains its own objectives in terms of development patterns,
density, rural and urban sensitive areas.
economic limitations
and potential burdens o n environmentally
The major purpose of developing several land use strategies is to assist the
township officials and citizens in making a decision of what type of overall
development strategy to select for the township. By comparing different
alternative growth patterns and assessing the advantages, disadvantages and
implications of eadh alternative, the township officials are then better
equipped to make a decision of a future growth strategy for the township.
In addition, the jcb of administering and enforcing the ordinances such as
zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations, which are based upon the land
use plan, is made easier. With 1for mind,
Stillwater following
Townshipare some of the
potential alternative gro wth p atterns
A. Alternative #1 Existing Growth Policy_
Under this approach, the minimum lot inHthe9area north of T.N. #96
would be five acres and 2 acres
The implicati ms of this approach is that the rural character of the
township wouli be maintained in the area north of T.H. #96. However,
this approach would not result in the preservation of the prime agri-
cultural or environmentally sensitive areas. In addition, the present
line (T.H. #96) bears no relationship to soil conditions or prime agri-
cultural and environmentally sensitive areas but is somewhat arbitrary.
B. Alternative #2 Limited Open Growth
1
A second alternative approach would be to establish a minimum lot size
of 21/2 acres i$ hroug� ovate the
sewernsystems�otopogr phy, minimum
etcdevWOUPde t
a�sobe
dards relate d to private
The implication of this approach is that it would allow for substantial
development opportunities for, landowners. However, it could lead to
leap -frog development and increased demands for urban services.
In addition, it would not protect agricultural or �
sensitive areas in the township.
it difficult for many farmers to continue operation.
C. Alternative #3 Rural Growth
A third alternative approach chid be
n minimun lot
of 5 acres throughout the P
development standards related to private sewer systems, etc.. The impli
tions of th s alternative approach is that it would preserve the rural
lifestyle of the township. However, it would not protect the prime
agriculture or environmentally sensitive areas in all cases. Much like
alternativei #2, development at this density would make it difficult for
existing farmers to continue farming.
•
D. Alternative #4 Agricultural Preservation
Yet a fourth alternative approach uses agricultural preservation as the
basis for a land use plan. The underlying rationale of this alternative
is that existing farmland (good and prime agricultural land as classified
by the Soil Conservation Service) should be protected for long -term agri-
cultural use. Basically, there are two approaches currently being used
for controlling development in agricultural areas: large -lot zoning
and density zoning.
(1) Large -Lot Zoning
Perhaps the most widespread method used in attempting to control
development in agricultural areas is by establishing large minimum
lot sizes for single - family non -farm residential development.
However, the lot size standards must be sufficiently large to
really discourage development or it may result in a waste of agri-
cultural land. This may mean minimum lot sizes of 10 -20 acres to be
really effective.
The major disadvantage of this approach is that it will result in a
waste of agricultural land unless the lot sizes are made sufficiently
large to really discourage development. However, if the lot sizes
are made too large, the courts may hold that the system is exclusionary.
(2) Density Control Zoning
A second major approach for attempting to control development in
agricultural areas is through density control. Typically, a mini-
mum lot size will be established at 1 or 2 acres. However, in the
agricultural zone, only one lot per quarter - quarter section (40 acres)
is allowed. In addition, there usually is also a provision that the
lot must front on a public road. Thus, by controlling the density of
development in the agricultural areas, urban development is in effect
discouraged. Also, by controlling the density rather than the lot
size, a waste of land is minimized.
If this concept was chosen, the township should be wholly committed
to preserving agricultural lands and there must be sufficient
viable agricultural and to warrant large minimum lot sizes or very
low densities.
E. Alternate #5 Agricultural Preservation -Rural Lifestyle
This alternative approach is a combination of several of the previous
approaches. The minimum lot sizes for the agricultural and
environmentally sensitive areas would be relatively large (10 -20)
acres) to discourage development in these areas and thereby
protecting these areas and providing opportunities for farmers to
continue their agricultural operations. Medium density development
(5 acre lot sies) is allowed in the areas where the agricultural
land is marginal and the scenic areas to allow for a continuation of
a rural lifestyle. Smaller lot sizes (2 -21/2 acres) would be
established for areas adjacent to the city to allow for more dense
developments where urban services can be extended easily in the
future.
Thus, this approach uses a staged growth approach in combination with
an agricultural protection approach. Medium density developments in
the marginal agricultural areas would allow a continuation of the
rural lifestyle in the township.
"This alternative encourages the enhancement and protection of the
rural character of the landscape and also allows for continued
agricultural lse.
The intended focus is to identify the positive attributes which
contribute to the aesthetic open rural landscape and its surrounding
area, and to preserve these attribute in the proposed land use change
or land development proposal." (Amended March, 1990)
24
VIII. GROWTH STRATEGY FOR STILLWATER TOWNSHIP
A. Agriculture (A -1)
After considerable discussion of the various alternative growth patterns
available to the township, the township officials determined to adopt
Alternative #5, a strategy designed to protect agricultural lands,
promote a rural lifestyle and stage growth in areas contiguous to the
City of Stillwater. It was the opinion of most of the township officials
that this alternative best represented the growth pattern desired for the
township as well as addressed the development issues in the township.
The following land use components are part of this growth strategy. Map
7 indicates the Land Use Plan.
"The Township encourages and protects farming enterprises; however,
as development of farm land occurs, careful and thoughtful planning
design will be required. The developer /applicant seeking development
approval and /or a land use change for a site must demonstrate how the
proposed development or land use change will complement the existing
area's rural character." (Amended March, 1990)
The township officials have determined to regulate non -farm
residential development development in these areas through a density
zoning approach. The minimum lot size will be 5 acres for platted
parcels or 10 acres for metes and bounds descriptions and the density
allowed will be 4 units per 40 acres.
B. Rural Residential (A -2)
There is also a substantial amount of land in the township which is
generally marginal for agricultural production. These areas, which
include the north - central portion of the township, have been
designated for rural residential development with a minimum lot size
of 5 acres. These areas would allow for a continuation of the rural
lifestyle and should require a minimum of services.
C. Urban/Rural (R -1)
An urban/rural transitional area has also been designated immediately
west of the City of Stillwater in recognition of the fact that some
of this area may urbanize sometime after 1990. The minimum lot size
of 2 -1/2 acres has been established for this area to allow for a
rural lifestyle but also to allow for potential resubdivision of land
if and when sanitary sewer services might be extended to this area
after 1990.
D. Urban Residential (R -3 and R -4)
Another residential district has been created for two parcels
isolated within the existing City of Stillwater's boundaries with a
minimum lot size of 1 acre.
25
1
4 .
E. Conservancy (C)
A conservancy district has also been created for certain environmentally
sensitive areas including the area around Silver and Browns Creek and
Little Carnelian Lake. The minimum lot sizes in these areas will be
20 acres in order to limit development in these areas.
As can be seen on Map , this area has been defined as 250 ft. on
either side of the centerline of Browns and Silver Creek and 1,000 ft.
from the shoreline of Little Carnelian Lake.
F.
Lakeshore and St. Croix River Districts (LS and SCR)
Districts have also been created around the lakeshores of the several
lakes and adjacent to the St. Croix River. The minimum lot size in
these areas 0 be 2i acres with a maximum density of 8 units per 40
acres.
* Letter - number designations correspond with the proposed zoning district.
•
•
•
•
rile al r 41140-t
STILLWATER township
• YASHINOTON COUNTY MINNESOTA
•
•
11111
PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN
MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
• 1 ACRE URBAN RESIDENTIAL
24 ACRE URBAN RESIDENTIAL
11111
5 ACRE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL
10 ACRE AGRICULTURE
.20 ACRE CONSERVANCY
ra 5 ACRE ST. CROIX RIVER DISTRICT
5 ACRE LAKE SNORE DISTRICT
LIMITED BUSINESS
-INDUSTRIAL
(I)
Li-
•
•
2. Subdivision Regulations
Another implementation device that will continue to be used in the
township are subdivision regulations. The subdivision regulations
are based upon the Washington County Model Subdivision Regulations
and will conform to the Land Use Plan and will be coordinated with
the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Private Sanitary Sewer Ordinance
The township has adopted the Washington County On -Site Sewer
Ordinance which is based upon the state model ordinance (WPC-40).
The township relys on staff members from Washington County to
inspect, monitor and enforce this ordinance. A "201" water
quality study is currently being conducted of all areas.of the
township south of 100th St. and this may result in recommendations
for additional standards.
4. Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
Another major t for controlling or staging growth is through
utility extension policies and programs as reflected in a Capital
Improvements Program (CIP). This is especially true for such public
utilities.as sanitary sewers, water systems, and highways.
Due to the fact that Stillwater Township is basically rural in
character, it has very few capital expenditures. The following
are some planned capital expenditures during the next 10 year
period. •
a. New road grader and truck
b. New maintenance building
c. 3 acre parcel of land for maintenance building
d. Select rold improvements
5. Orderly Annexation Agreements,
During the last few years there have been several proposals for
annexation of property in Stillwater Township to the City of Stillwater.
Recently, the Minnesota Municipal Board (MMB) completed hearings on
a petition to annex some areas in the central portion of the township
to the City of Stillwater and the MMB made a decision opposing this
annexation at this time. However, the MMB apparently has reopened
hearings on this petition and it is unclear at this time what the
disposition is of this case.
1
•
•
The City of Stillwater and Stillwater Township entered into
an Orderly Annexation Agreement and Joint Powers Agreement
which gives a joint board made up of representatives of
Washington County, Stillwater Township and the City of
Stillwater authority over zoning decisions in the.area
adjacent to T.H. #212 and #36. This agreement included a
stipulation that no additional annexations were to take place
in Stillwater Township for a period of ten years without the
approval of the township. A district court recently struck
down this provision and it is currently being appealed to the
Minnesota Supreme Court.
It is the position of Stillwater Township that they are opposed
to piecemeal annexation and view orderly annexation as a
proper way of dealing with future growth but only at such
time that growth is imminent.
30
•
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Diane Deblon, Finance Director
Date: May 5, 1992
Subject: Financing for Capital Improvement Program
Background
The City Council has directed staff to develop a financing plan for
a pavement management program (which was developed by SEH). Further, at
the time of the sale for the last bond issues (for the Downtown
Improvement), the bond rating agency (Moody's) requested that the City of
Stillwater prepare a capital improvement program. The type of capital
improvement program that was requested by Moody's was to include
infrastructure, equipment, and roads. It was also suggested by me, to
Moody's, that the City of Stillwater could comply with their request by
the end of 1992. In talking with the bond rater from Moody's, it was my
understanding that the City of Stillwater was at the high end of a
comfortable debt threshold. Therefore, it is important for the City to
demonstrate to the rating agency (through a capital improvement program)
how the City intends to finance and plan for future capital improvements.
Analysis
As part of a capital improvement program, a special assessment
policy needs to be adopted by the City and Nile has provided a first
draft of this policy to the Council. The dollar amounts of the special
assessment policy have not yet been set by the Council, and the Council
desires to look at a possible financing scenario. Therefor, I have made
some projections based on information obtained from the engineers,
previous city projects, and have compiled this information as a possible
starting point in looking at the methods for financing a comprehensive
capital improvement project.
Conclusion
In looking at the costs and revenues to include in a capital
improvement program I have taken a macro approach for a 20 -year period to
coincide with the Stillwater Pavement Management Program developed by the
engineers. With this method, individual projects will not "fit" exactly
with the expenditures or revenues each year, but can be used as a tool
and guideline during the budget process each year. A more detailed and
individual project program can be developed to "fit" within the scope of
5 years, for example, based on specific priorities of the City. This
approach would also allow for revisions to the 5 -year plan for
emergencies and unforeseen expenditures as necessary, with the overall
20 -year plan as a long -range budget guide.
STILLWATER PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT 20 YEAR PROGRAM 10/30/90
SEH FILE HO. 90017
YEARS 1 - 10 YEARS 11 - 20
0.2 ANNUAL MILES TOTAL RECONSTRUCT
0.1 ANNUAL MILES PARTIAL RECONSTRUCT
0.5 ANNUAL MILES RESURFACING
EXISTING MILEAGE
2.99 TOTAL RECONSTRUCT
12.30 PARTIAL RECONSTRUCT
15.39 RESURFACING DECAY VALUES YEAR 1 -3 YEAR 4 -6 YEAR 7 -8 YEAR 9 710 YEAR 11 -12 YEAR 13 -20
30.27 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ___ --
ROUTINE MAINT - RESURFACING 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4
RESURFACING - PART RECONST 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4
$ COSTS PER MILE PART RECONST - TOTAL RECONST 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1
$475,000 TOTAL RECONSTRUCT
390,000 PARTIAL RECONSTRUCT
133,412 RESURFACING
28,000 ANNUAL PATCHING & CRACK FILLING
8,005 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, SEALCOAT (6 YR. CYCLE)
1.00 INFLATION FACTOR
0.5 ANNUAL MILES TOTAL RECONSTRUCT
0.5 ANNUAL MILES PARTIAL RECONSTRUCT
0.5 ANNUAL MILES OVERLAY
- ? TOTAC`-PARTIAC =' -_ -__ _-- T -- - - - - -- - - - -T MTATENANLC- - -
- - - - T T -------- - - - TT ,
TOTAL PARTIAL ROUTINE ' RECONSTRUCT 1 RESURFACING f SUB 11 1 ANNUAL' 11 11
RECONST RECONST RESURF. MAINT. TOTAL 1 TOTAL 1 TOTAL 11 SEALCOAT 1 PATCH I CRACK 11 TOTAL 11
-1 -1- 11 -1 - 11-------- - ---1
EXISTING . 2.99 12.30 15.39 30.27 1 11 1 11 II
YEAR 1 3.29 12.30 14.89 30.47 $134,000 $66,706 1 $200,70611 $40,652 1 $27,816 11 $269,174 11
2 3.59 12.30 14.39 30.67 $134,000 $66,706 I •8200,706 ' $40,919 1 $27,632 11 $269,257.11
3. 3.89 12.30 13.89 30.87 1 $134,000 $66,706 1 $200,706 11 $41,186 1 $27,448 11 $269,340 11
4 4.19 12.30 13.39 31.07 1 $134,000 $66,706 1 $200,706 11 $41,453 1 $27,264 11 $269,423 11
5 4.49 12.30 12.89 31.27 1 $134,000 $66,706 1 $200,706 11 $41,719 1 $27,080 11 $269,506 11
6 4.79 12.30 12.39 31.47 1 $134,000 $66,706 1 $200,706 11 $41,906 1 $26,896 11 $269,588 11
7 5.09 12.30 11.89 31.67 1 $134,000 $66,706 1 $200,706 11 $42,253 1 $26,712 11 $269,671 11
8 5.39 12.30 11.39 31.87 1 $134,000 $66,706 1 $200,706 11 $42,520 1 $26,528 11 $269,754 11
9 5,69 12.30 10.89 32.07 1 $134,000 $66,706 1 $200,706 11 $42,787 1 $26,344 11 $269,037 11
10 . 5.99 12.30 10.39 32.27 1 $134,000 $66,706 1 $200,706 11 $43,054 1 $26,160 11 $269,920 11
1 - - -- 11
SUBTOTAL $1,340,000 $667,060 $2,007,060 11 $418,528 $269,882 $2,695,470 11
11 5.59 12.10 9.89 33.37 1 $134,000 1 $66,706 I $200,706 11 $44,521 1 $26,528 11 $271,755 11
12 5.19 11.90 9.39 34.47 1 $134,000 I $66,706 1 $200,706 11 $45,989 1 $26,896 11 $273,591 11
13 4.79 11.70 8.69 35.57 1 $134,000 1 $66,706 1 $200,706 11 $47,456 1 $27,264 11 $275,426 11
14 4.39 11.50 0.39 36.67 1 $134,000 i $66,706 1 $200,706 11 $48,924 1 $27,632 11 $277,262 11
15 3.99 11.30 7.89 37.77 1 $134,000 1 $66,706 1 $200,706 11 $50,391 1 $28,000 11 $279,097 11
16 3.59 11.10 7.39 38.87 1 $134,000 1 $66,706 1 $200,706 1 $51,059 1 $20,368 11 $280,933 11
17 3.19 10.90 6.89 39.97 1 $134,000 1 $66,706 1 $200,706 1 $53,327 1 $28,736 11 $282,769 11
18 2.79 10.70 6.39 41.07 I $134,000 1 $66,706 1 $200,706 i $54,794 1 $29,104 11 $284,604 11
19 2.39 10.50 5.89 42.17 f $134,000 1 $66,706 f $200,706 1 $56,262 1 829,472 11 $286,440 11 i
20 1.99 10.30 5.39 43.27 f $134,000 1 $66,706 •1 $200,706 1 $57,729 i $29,840 11 $288,275 11
TOTAL 1 $2,680,000 1 $1,334,120 1 $4,014,120 1 $929,781 1 $551,721 11 $5,495,622 11
1 - f f f 1 11 ... 11
• •
L.lr.i\c vv
Capital improvement Program Revenue Projections
In1'irttic>u = 1g;
Year 1 Tears 1 -10
2 .2. m /yr T.
.1 to /vr P.
.5 ui /yr R
6
/
8
9
10
Sit
11
12
13
11
l6
17
18
19
20
•
Years 1.1 -d0
.5 in/yr T.
.5 lil / y r P.
.5 m /yr R
Total Partial
Recoil strue Recoil strue. t Si 1'ac i Side •u•a n
$47,520
$47,995
$48,475
$48,960
;.19,450
$49,9111
$50,413
$50,94;
$51,457
$51,972
$197,164
$131,2
$1.32,511
3133,867
$135,205
$)36,558
11137,923
$139,302
$.1.10,695
$112,102
$113,523
GRAND TOTAL. $1,870,11.1
Tr,ta1 Reconstruction = $15.00 /ff
P'arti ;tl Reconstruction = $35.00 /ff
11(sti rfneing = 9; 12.75/f;
Sidewalks = 100'7: of cost
SPECIAL. ASS1.SS!1tINNTS
$18,480
$18,665
$18,8,11
$19,0.10
$19,230
$ 19,123
$19,617
119,813
$20,0 L1.
$20,211
$33,660
$33,99 /
$3
$31,680
$35,02 /
$35,3//
$35,731
$36,088
$36,4 1
$36,013
$28,261
$28,544
$28,820
$_'cr, 1 1 7
$ 29,109
$29,703
$30,000
$30,304')
$30,009
$193,312 $3•5 2,158 $295,6/3 $1,330,337
$1.02,067 $37,182 5;3 1,21 8 $301,695
$103,088 $37,553 $31,530 $30'l, / 1.2
$10.1,1.10 ` 7,'; 9131,8.1 5 $30 7,760
8 ' 108 $3' 16-1 8'10 837
8105,160 ,3i',, ...> ,
1;33,6 $2,13,916
$.107,271 1;39,0 /0 $32,810 831.7,085
9 108,316 9 ;39,169 $33,138 9; 320 ,256
$ 109,430 $39,86,1 $33,170 $323,158
$110,52.1 1,40,262 $33,304 1;3'6,693
$. �r 8 3;329,960
, I 1 1.,6..) .,'10,()6.1 ',.1 1, 11_
$1 ,261,189 $741,160 $622,279 $.1,191,739
T(�
S.A.
$12'/,921
$1.29,200
9;1 30, 102
$131,797
8133,115
$13.4,146
$135,791.
$137,149
$1.38,520
$139,905
Gen. Ftintl
1 rauster
• 1'80,000
$80,800
881,608
$32 ,124
3;03,210
$84,081
$84,922
$85,771
$86,620
$87,195
$036,9 /7
,;88,370
$89,253
$90,1 1 6
$01,011
5;91,0.50
$92,878
$93,006
$94,714
$95,692
I1)
$1,76:1,5241
OT111 RLVENUL
Sewer
'Transfer
1;1.00,001)
$101,000
310'2,010
8103,0 30
$ 101,1)641
$105,1.01
9;I.06,152
$107,211
$108 ,286
310'),369
$1,046,221
81111, 162
$111,567
$112,683
1; 1 1 3,00
$ 111,01 /
$116,097
$11 /,258
$ 11.8,430
$119,615
$120,011
$2 ,201,900
Water I)d
(06)11)).
$0
$0
$41
$0
$
$0
910
310
$4)
$0
- TOTAL
O'l'IIER (Q Total
R1_.VI3N111 \\ Cos1 s
$180,000 3c7,9l(
$181,800
$183,618
$ 1.85,154
$187,309
$189,182
$ 1.91,0711
$192,984
';191,91.1
$156,' ;63
$983,583
$ 1,121,1.92
9 ;1,1.26,572
$1,132,829
$1,130,962
$ 1,1.1 1,598
$1,156,318
$1,165,124
1;1,1.74,017
$1,182,998
1;0 1;1,883,190 9,.11,329,193
310
$0
$0
$0
1; 0
$ 4)
$c)
30
910
1)
4;.198,832
$200,820
$202,829
3;20.1,85 7
91106,90:5
$208, /1
$211,064
8213,1 75
$215,307
8211,160
5 41 ,9;,1,'163,421
911,193,34)
$1 ,204,734
$1,215,737
$1,226,832
$1,238,019
$1,249,301
9;1,260,677
$ 1,272,1 18
$1,283,716
81,29:5,380
Unfunded
Costs
$675,662 -
$810,192
$812,462
$815,5 /8
$818,538
$823,970
$829,15.1
$1;341,991
$840,583
$816,229
$8,107,658
$693,293
$699 ,201
$705,1.49
$711,138
$717,168
$7_23,2'12
$729,357
$735,515
$741,716
1;717,
$23,769,55/ $15,311,307
/
Capital Imprr,vement s Pro? ram Cost s
from SE!! pavement mgmt. study & in-house
Total MSA Extra Curh &
Street Project Crew Gul ter
Year 1 8269,1.74 $14,347 $15,000 81,609
2 $269,257 $14,347 815,150 $1,625
3 $269,3.10 811,317 $15,302 81,6•11
1 8269,423 814,347 815,155 81,658
5 $269,503 811,347 815,609 81,614
6 $269,588 $1.4,347 81'5, /65 81,691
7 $269,671 814,347 $15,923 81.708
8 $269,754 $14,347 816,082 81,725
9 $269,83/ $14,347 816,2 81,712
10 $269,920 $14,347 $16,405 81,760
Subtotal
11
12
11
15
16
17
I u
�,
19
20
cT)'( ■ '1( ?7
$2,695,467 $143,468 8136,933 $ 16,133.1
$271,755
$273,591
$275,4_26
82.77,2(12
$279,097
$280,933
$282,769
$284,604
$286, 140
$288,275
$14,347 816,569 $1,777
$14,347 816,735 $ I, /95
814,317 $16,902 81,813
$1.1,34 "7 817,0 /1 $ 1,83 I
$ 14,341 $11,242 81,850
814,347 817,115 $1,868
$14,347 817,589 81,88 /
$14,347 8 1 7, 165 $1,906
$11,347 $1 7,9.L $1.925
81.4,31 / 818,122 81,944
$5,495,619 8286,935 8330,285
Curb & Gutter is based on # of miles for 1'R
Sidewalks is spread equally over 20 years
1f c_ kusick Road is spread equally over 20 years
Equipment Capital Outlay is based on 5 year (`.1.1'. estimates
Sidewalks
$28,261
$28,541
$ 28,829
8
829,40
$29, /03
830,000
830,300
$30,603
$30,909
82295,673
$31,218
$31,530
$31,845
$32,161
$32,185
$32,810
$33,138
$33,470
833,801
$34,142
835.129 $622,2/9
inflation = 1
Subtotals
$328,391
$328,922
8329,459
$ 329,
$330,542
$331,091
$331,648
8332,20/
$33_2,772
$333,340)
$ 3,308,3 /4
$35,666
833 7,9911
8 340,33 3
$342,6 /5
$345,021
$347,372
$349,129
83 52,0)90
$354,458
$356,830
86, / /0).5:17
Sanitary
Sewer
$1.00,000
$ 101,0)00)
8102,010
$103,030
8104,060
8105,101.
811)6,152
$1(17,211
$108,286
$109,369
3;1,046,221 $1,171,168
8110,462
$1111,5(17
$112,683
8113,809
$.114,9.1 /
8116,097
$117,258
8118,130
$11
$120),811
Water
$112,000
8113, 1 20
$114,_'51
$115,39.1
$ 116,548
811.1,713
$1.18,39()
$120,0 /9
$].21,280
8122,193
$1'3,71.8
8124,955
$126, -204
$127,466
$128,741
$.130,029
$1.31,329
$132,6.12
8133,969
$135,308
82, 20) 1,900 82,166,128
Storm
Sewer
$20,000
$20,200
$
820,606
$20,812
821.,020
$21,230
821,413
821,65 /
82.1,871
$209,241 $5,593,585
$22,092
82
822,337
822,762
$ 22,
$ 23,219
$23,452
$23,686
$ "23,923
$24,162
Equipment
Capital
Outlay
$423,192
$5:57,950
8560,150
$563,800
$567,000
$5 / 2,6 /0)
$578,397
8584,181
8590,022
8593,9' -'3
8601,882
8607,901
8613,980
8020,120
$626,321
$632,584
$638,9.10
$645,299
$651,152
$658,269
$1.10,380 $11,890,601
TOT Al
COST
$983,583
$1,121,192
$1,120,572
$1,132,829
$1,138,962
$1,147,5
$1,156,318
$1,165,124
81,1' /4,011
$1,182,998
$11,329,192
$1,193,820
$1,204,734
$1,215,737
$1,226,832
$1,238,019
$1,249,301
$ 1,260,677
$1,272,148
$1,283,110
$1,295,380)
$23,769,551
istration /Finance
Armory Construction
" (lands Park
est Hills
i PROPOSED FIVE -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Total Community Development
Police Department
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Auto $13,000
Five chairs $1,065
Computer, printer, work station and software $9,100
Lateral file cabinet $220 $900 $1,000
Magnification lense for microfiche $220
Microfiche storage boxes $200
Calculator $200
Computer $3,500
Copy Machine $20,000
Total Administration $10,805 $13,200 $4,400 $20,000 $1,000
Plant /City Hall
Building Addition /Renovation $5,000 $200,000
Staffing /Facilities Study $16,000
Total Plant /City Hall $21,000 $200,000
Community Development
$30,000
$70,000
$30,000 $70,000 $200,000
One used investigator auto $7,203
Two new squads $27,725
Four squad cars $67,200
Two pre breath testers $850
One new phone line $800
Police weapon $2,400
Three new vehicles $51,000
Two radar replacements $3,600
Three cellular phones plus rental $1,800
Office equipment $5,000
Police weapons $800
Two portable radios $2,000
Main police computer ungrade $7,505 $15,000
Three squad cars $54,000
Two pre breath testers $800
Two portable radios $2,000
Replacement of electronic office equipment $20,000
Oxygen kits
First aid kits
ile data terminals $22,500
ee squad cars plus emergency equipment
Two portable radios
One radar unit
/ / - cam y -
$200,000
$59,000
$2,000
$2,000
otal Police
ire Department
4 WD Truck
Apparatus valve update
Head sets
Hurst rescue tool
Pagers
'otal Fire
>ublic Works
2 -ton Dump truck plow
1 -ton dump trucks
Loader
Pickup
Tools
Pipe storm sewer
Dump Truck
Addition to garage
Sweeper
Miscellaneous
Total Public Works
Building Inspections
Parks and Arena
Storage Shed
Warming House for Staples Field
Lights for Ramsey -Grove skating rink
Seal Coat Parking Lots (2)
Fix up shoreline at Lily Lake
Fix arena roof
New playground equipment
Blacktop and repaint tennis
Remodel players and penalty
Replace plexiglass in arena
Replace One ton Pickup
Recurb Croixwood Parking Lot
Addition to locker room/remodeling
Replace Zamboni
Resurface tennis courts
Recurb and blacktop parking
New skid loader for arena
New Lawn Tractor
Sprayer
Bleachers (small field)
Paint arena outside
$25,000 $4,000 $3,000 $9,000 $1,000
and basketball court
boxes
(west side)
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
$64,933 $71,250 $64,200 $91,800 $63,000
$25,000
and sander $60,000
$25,000 $25,000
$85,000
$20,000
$5,000 $5,000
$50,000 $100,000
$65,000 $65,000
$300,000
$100,000 $100,000
$5,000 $2,000
$140,000 $235,000 $365,000 $105,000 $167,000
$400
$12,000
$1,900
$10,370
$8,000
$38,000
$3,000
$5,000
$20,000
lot (Pioneer Park) $22,000
$20,000
$1,500
PROPOSED FIVE -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
$4,000
$1
$38,000
$6,000
$25,000
$10,000
$25,000 $20,000
$45,000
$4,000
$3,000
$7,000
$24,000
$8,000
$1,000 $1,000
•
•ace rubber mats at arena
Bathrooms
To Be Determined
Total Parks
Library
Three paperback spinners $484
Three chairs $350
Easy Chairs $5,000
Video projector $6,000
Overhead projector $2,500
Four terminals
Videodisc player
Microfiche reader /printer
Photocopier
Telephone system
Automated Periodical Citation Module $5,600
Informational video rack $360
Microfiche cabinet $1,400
Refrigerator for staff room $360
Shades for upper windows in Rivers Room $280
Office software $400
o Cassette dubbing deck $450
erence office computer printer $600
ADA Modifications $3,000
"Stop the Leaks" project $3,000
Total Library
Solid Waste
Dumpsters $5,000
Total Solid Waste $5,000
Sewer Department
•
t
PROPOSED FIVE -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
$5,000
$12,000
$125,000 $125,000
$119,770 $191,000 $51,000 $137,000 $125,000
$350
$2,500
$ 1, 00 0
$6,000
$4,000
$16,284 $13,500 $2,850 $1,000 $10,000
Pickup $20,000
Total Sewer Department $20,000
Total Capital Outlay $423,192 $557,950 $560,450 $563,800 $567,000
• • •
pity t f Stililwater, Minnesota
5 Yeas Capital Improvement Plan
Debt Service Planning
Page 1
( - $675,000 a $810,000 0 $812,000
G.O. Capital Imp. Bonds, Series 1993 G.O. Capital Imp. Bonds, Series 1994 G.O. Capital Imp. Bonds, Series 1995
Maturity Date 01 -Feb Maturity Date 01 -Feb Maturity Date 01 -Feb
Levy Maturity Principal Coupon Principal Coupon Principal Coupon
Year Year Principal Interest & Interest Rate Principal Interest & Interest Rate Principal Interest & Interest Rate
(1) (2) (3) (4) - (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
1993 1995 40,000 51,954 91,954 4.000%
1994 1996 60,000 33,036 9 ,+ 6 4.250% 45,000 62,417 107,417 4.000%
1995 1997 60,000 30,486 90,486 4.500% 70,000 39,811 109,811 4.250% 47,000 62,537 109,537 4.000%
1996 1998 65,000 27,786 92,786 4.750% 75,000 36,836 111,836 4.500% 70,000 39,811 109,811 4.250%
1997 1999 65,000 24,698 89,698 5.000% 75,000 33,461 108,461 4.750% 75,000 36,836 111,836 4.500%
1998 2000 70,000 21,448 91,448 5.250% 80,000 29,898 109,898 5.000% 75,000 33,461 108,461 4.750%
1999 2001 75,000 17, 92,773 5.500% 85,000 25,898 110,898 5.250% 80,000 29,898 109,898 5.000%%
2000 2002 75,000 13,648 88,648 5.600% 90,000 21 ,435 111 ,435 5.500% 85,000 25,898 110,898 5.250%
2001 2003 80,000 9,448 89,448 5.700% 95,000 16,485 111,485 5.600% 90,000 21,435 111,435 5.500%
2002 2004 85,000 4,888 89,889 5.750% 95,000 11,165 106,165 5.700% 95,000 16,485 111,485 5.600%
2003 2005 100,000 5,750 105,750 5.750% 95,000 11,165 106,165 5.7006
2004 2006 100,000 5,750 105,750 5150%
2005 2007
2006 2008
2007 2009
2008 2010
2009 2011
2010 2012
2011 2013
2012 2014
2013 2015
Totals 675,000 235,165 910,165 ; 810,000 283,156 1,093,156 812,000 283,276 1,095,276
Prepared 25- Jan -93 by SPRINGSTED Incorporated Fie: S0784.Z9 SjslilIcap wkt
City ct'i' Stillwater, Minnesota
5 Year Capital Improvement Plan
Debt Service Planning
Levy Fiscal
Year Year
( (
1993 1995
1994 1996
1995 1997
1996 1998
1997 1999
1998 2000
1999 2001
2000 2002
2001 2003
2002 2004
2003 2005
2004 2006
2005 2007
2006 2008
2007 2009
2008 2010
2009 2011
2010 2012
2011 2013
2012 2014
2013 2015
Totals
• •
$815,000 $818,000
G.Q. Capitaf Improvement Bonds, Series 1996 G.O. Capital Improvement Bonds, Series 1997 Combined Total
Maturity Date 01- Feb Maturity Date 01 -Feb
Principal
(
815,000 286,180 1,101,180
Prepared 25- Jan -93 by SPRII'IGSTED Incorporated
Principal Coupon
Interest & Interest Rate
(4) (5) (6)
Principal Interest
(7) (
Principal
& Interest
(
Coupon
Rate
(10)
45,000 62,849 107,849 4.000%
70,000 40,099 110,099 4.250% 43,000 63,156 106,156 4.000%
75,000 37,124 112,124 4.500% 70,000 40,384 110,384 4.250%
75,000 33,749 108,749 4.750% 75,000 37,409 112,409 4.500%
80,000 30,186 110,186 5.000% 75,000 34,034 109,034 4.750%
85,000 26,186 111,186 5.250% 80,000 30,471 110,471 5.000%
90,000 21,723 111,723 5.500% 85,000 26,471 111,471 5.250%
95,000 16,773 111,773 5.600% 90,000 22,008 112,008 5.500%
95,000 11,453 106,453 5.700% 95,000 17,058 112,058 5.600%
105,000 6,038 111,038 5.750%' 100,000 11,738 111,738 5.700%
105,000 6,038 111,038 5.750%
818,000 288,767 1 ,106,767
Principal
& Interest
(11)
91,954 •
200,453
309,834
422,282
526,250
532,315
534,727
530,201
534,025
530,732
435,696
324,261
222,776
111,038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
Page 2
Total
@ 105%
(12)
96,552
210,475 7(
325,325 '(
443,396 "
552,563
558,931
561,463
556,711
560,726
557,269
457,481
340,474
233,915
116,590
0
5,306,543 5,571,870
Fda: 94784.29 Ststillcap.wlci
SHEET
NO. SEGMENT
S0. SIXTH ST.
1R4 S0. SECOND ST.
185 S0. FIRST ST.
2 4TH STREET
214 S0. SIXTH ST.
209 E. HANCOCK ST.
362 S0. HOLCOMBE ST
206 S0. SECOND ST.
211 W. HANCOCK ST.
413
414
210
278
213
183
300
196
412
287
197
306
289
7
299
207
307
58
367
6
149
304
279
5
427
313
43
410
40
60
59
36
296
MULBERRY STREET
MULBERRY STREET
W. HANCOCK ST.
S0. SECOND ST.
SO. SEVENTH ST.
W. PINE STREET
SO. FIFTH ST.
E.BURLINGTOH ST
MULBERRY STREET
S. FIRSLST.
BURLINGTON ST.
W. MARSH STREET
S0. FOURTH ST.
4TH STREET
W. WILLARD ST.
W. WILLARD ST.
SO. SIXTH ST.
S0. FTRST. ST._
MARSH STREET
SECOND STREET
S0. FOURTH ST.
4TH STREET
HO. GREELEY ST.
W. MARSH STREET
SO. SECOND ST.
4TH STREET
CHERRY STREET
WILLIAM STREET
MARTHA STREET
MYRTLE STREET
HARRIET STREET
SECOND STREET
SECOND STREET
6TH STREET
SO. SIXTH ST.
1 CHESTNUT STREET
280 S0. SECOND ST.
372 S0. GREELEY ST.
4 MULBERRY STREET
W 7 NORTHLAND AVE.
6 CHERRY STREET
277Yt ST.
428 CHERRY STREET
FROM
W. PINE ST.
E. HANCOCK ST.
E. ORLEANS ST.
CHESTNUT ST.
W. HANCOCK ST.
S0. THIRD ST.
OLIVE ST.
E. HANCOCK ST.
FIFTH ST.
178'W.OF 4TH ST
502'W.OF 4TH ST
SO. FOURTH ST.
E. WALNUT ST.
CHURCHILL ST.
S. THIRD ST.
CHURCHILL ST.
SO. FOURTH AVE.
FOURTH ST.
E CHURCHILL
S0. THIRD AVE.
S. FOURTH ST.
WILLARD ST.
LAUREL ST.
S0. SIXTH ST.
S0. FIFTH ST.
WILLARD ST.
CHURCHILL-ST.
SO. SIXTH AVE.
WILKIN ST.
W. PINE ST.
MULBERRY ST.
W. MYRTLE
SO. FIFTH ST.
264'N.OF E.WILL
MYRTLE ST.
FOURTH ST.
MULBERRY ST.
MULBERRY ST.
OWEHS ST.
MYRTLE ST.
LAUREL ST.
LAUREL ST.
MYRTLE ST.
PINE ST.
5TH ST.
E. WILLARD ST.
W. ORLEANS ST.
4TH ST.
CROIXW00D BLVD.
FIFTH ST.
SO. FIRST ST.
THIRD ST.
W. OLIVE ST.
E. ORLEANS ST.
E. HANCOCK ST.
OLIVE ST.
CHURCHILL ST.
S0. SIXTH AVE.
W. PINF ST_
CHURCHILL ST.
FOURTH ST.
502'W.OF 4TH ST
OWENS ST.
S0. THIRD ST.
E. PINE ST.
W. HANCOCK ST.
BROADWAY ST.
WILLARD ST.
S0. SIXTH AVE.
178 W'OF 4TH ST
F. WILLARD
SO. FOURTH AVE.
SO. FIFTH ST.
W. PINE ST.
MAPLE ST.
S0. FIFTH ST.
S0. THIRD ST.
CHURCHILL ST.
F. HANCOCK ST.
S0. THIRD ST.
LAUREL ST.
W. OAK ST.
LAUREL ST.
U. MULBERRY
S0. SIXTH ST.
E. WALNUT ST.
MULBERRY ST.
THIRD ST.
MYRTLE ST.
OLIVE ST.
FIFTH ST.(WEST)
MULBERRY ST.
LAUREL,511' NO.
MULBERRY ST.
OLIVE ST.
WILLARD ST.
4TH ST.
264'N.OF E.WILL
W. CHURCHILL ST
DEAD ENO
100 S'OF SUNRIS
FOURTH ST,
S0. THIRD ST.
SECOND ST.
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
STREET SIDEWALK REPLACE
TO LENGTH SCORE RECOM. WIDTH PANELS AREA
780 26 TR
1275 32 TR
1265 45 TR
304 SS TR
586 56 TR
918 58 TR
919 S8 TR
575 S8 TR
303 59 PR
324 59 PR
1907 60 PR
304 61 PR
320 61 PR
580 62 PR
693 63 PR
602 64 PR
650 66 PR
620 _PR
178 66 PR
RSt 67 PR
330 68 PR
298 70 PR
670 70 PR
405 70 PR
410 71 PR
523 71 PR
645 71 PR
583 72 PR
930 72 PR
1574 73 PR
425 74 PR
1019 75 PR
898 76 PR
287 76 PR
335 76 PR
745 77 PR
365 78 PR
883 79 PR
877 80 RE
2285 80 RE
898 80 RE
511 80 RE
1006 81 RE
586 83 RE
450 83 RE
366 84 RE
264 84 RE
1920 84 RE
228 85 RE
2400 85 RE
3?5 fiF RF
630 87 RE
353 88 RE
COST
50 1,250 '70 27,s
65 1,625
70 1,750 L/i.L. b Q
9 225
110 2,750
30
1,00 567d .O°
70 1.750 ' 45
11 275
60 1,500
200 5,000
9 225
25 625
90 2,250
25 625
80 2,000
90 690 $ t"4 3 '
35 875
5.Q 1,250 7DP 50
20 500
17 340
7 175
25 625
20 500
44 1,100
27 540
RR 2.900 / L +74
37 740
182 4,550
50 1,250
100 2,500
35 875
0
11 275
17 425
20 500
120 3,000
36 900 5,103.00
40 1,000 5,670.00
35 875 4,961.25
40 800 4,590.00
88 1,760 10,098.00
25 625 3,543.75
100 2,500 14,175.00
5 125 708.75
30 750 4,252.50
5 125 708.75
7 175 992.25
23 460 2,639.25
SO 1,250 /.093,5Q
60 1,500 8,505.00
25 625 3,543.75
SHEET
N0.
62
193
310
9
8.100
18
373
33
32
364
24
30
IS
275.1
31
309
275
411
208
SEGMENT
291 SO. FOURTH ST.
181 W. PINE STREET
406 OLIVE STREET
406.1 OLIVE STREET
407 OLIUF SW F'
430 LAUREL STREET
431 LAUREL STREET
286 SO. SIXTH AVE.
432 LAUREL STREET
14 STH STREET
2ND STREET
S0. FOURTH ST.
GREELEY STREET
4TH STREET
4TH STREET
MARTHA STREET
S0. GREELEY ST.
EUERETT STREET
EVERETT STREET
S0. FIFTH ST.
WILLIAM STREET
EUERETT STREET
STH STRFFT
CHURCHILL ST.
EVERETT STREET
CREELEY STREET
CHURCHILL ST.
MYRTLE STREET
SO. SIXTH ST.
FROM
E. CHURCHILL ST
S. GREELEY ST.
THIRD ST.
S0. HOLCOMBE ST
S.MARTHA (EAST)
OWEN ST.
FOURTH ST.
LOCUST ST.
THIRD STREET
WILKINS ST.
MULBERRY ST.
E. CHURCHILL ST
MULBERRY ST.
STILL.AVE.TO W.
MAPLE ST.
ELM ST.
W. CHURCHILL ST
MULBERRY ST.
LAUREL,250' S0.
W. OLIVE ST.
MAPLE ST.
LAUREL STREET
MAPI F ST
CREEL? ST.
LAUREL,180' S0.
OLIVE ST.
HOLCOMBE ST.
FIFTH ST.(WEST)
BURLINGTON ST.
W. WILLARD ST.
S. HOLCOMBE ST.
S0. HOLCOMBE ST
SO.MARTH ST.<E)
GREELEY <WEST)
FOURTH ST.
THIRD ST.
E. CHURCHILL ST
SECOND STREET
MAPLE ST.
LAUREL ST.
E. ORLEANS ST.
LINDEN ST.
STILL.AVE.TO E.
ASPEN ST.
ASPEN ST.
MYRTLE ST
MYRTLE ST.
MULBERRY ST.
165'N.OF OLIVE
HICKORY ST.
LAUREL,180' S0.
CHERRY ST _
HOLCOMBE ST.
LAUREL,250' S0.
MYRTLE ST.
S0. SIXTH AVE.
THIRD ST.
CHURCHILL ST.
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
STREET SIDEWALK REPLACE
TO LENGTH SCORE RECOM. WIDTH PANELS AREA
647
1641
1900
1900
1055
2135
356
1068
329
1295
1010
1890
302
122
974
360
2400
890
745
165
360
180
710
1675
70
585
2585
725
874
88
89
90
90
91
91
92
92
92
93
93
93
94
94
94
94
94
97
98
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RE
RM
RM
RM
RM
99 RM
99 RM
99 RM
10(1_
100
100
100
100
100
100
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
COST BASED ON:
$2.00 /SF REMOVAL
$2.00 /SF CONSTRUCT
$1.00 /LF S00
PLUS 35Z
ToT/414... e. r' -' r -Q 5138)43
COST
5 4 100 567.00
5 200 5,000 28,350.00
5 120 3.,000 17,010.00
5 140 3,500 19,845.00
5 120 3,000 17,010.00_
5 180 4.500
25.S15.O(
5 20 500 2,835.00
5 30 750 4,252.50
5 25 625 3,543.75
5 175 4,375 24,806.25
4 88 1,760 10,098.00
5 55 1,375 7,796.25
5 20 500 2,835.00
S 20 500 2,835.00
5 7? 1,925 10,914.75
5 30 750 4,252.50
5 20 500 2,835.00
5 30 750 4,252.50
5 15 375 2,126.25
5 0 0.00
5 30 750 4,252.50
5 18 450 2,551.50
S 194 x,900 17,010.00
5 0 0.00
5 7 175 992.25
5 7 175 992.25
25 141.75
5 1
6 12 360 2,025.00
5 20 500 2,835.00
$299,058.75
•
TO: Mayor and City Council
FR: City Coordinator
DA: January 22, 1993
RE: PROPOSED ASSESSMENT POLICY
M E M O R A N D U M
Accompanying this memo is the second draft of the proposed special assessment
policy. The first draft was reviewed by the City Council during 1992 and some
changes were made to the proposed policy. The changes to the policy were
primarily format and /or policy section reorganization.
The policy basically states how the costs of improvements are to be apportioned
to benefiting properties. This is actually one part of the whole assessment
picture.
The other part, and perhaps the most important part, is the Pavement Management
Program (PMP). The PMP is in the last stage of completion but will not be ready
by Monday. When it is complete, it should tell the council /staff what streets
need what work, at what time, at what cost per year and how financed. This
requires some direction from the Council because staff needs to know the tax levy
threshold of the Council in order to know how much work can be afforded each
year.
I have also enclosed some additional items that will be explained more fully at
the meeting Monday afternoon.
•
•
•
ASSESSMENT POLICY STATEMENT
CITY OF STILLWATER
ADOPTED 1993
TABLE OF wiV ttaci.
Section I - General Policy Statement 1
Section II - Methods of Assessment 4
Section III - Improvement Type and Cost Apportionment 11
Section IV - Assessment Conditions 13
Section V - Supplemental Assessment Policy Guidelines 15
Section VI - Definitions 18
Exhibit "A" Summary of Actions and Resolutions 20
•
•
•
•
•
SECTION I - GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Assessment Policy is to provide a fair and equitable manner
of recovering and distributing the cost of public improvements. While there is
no perfect assessment policy, it is important that assessments be implemented
in a reasonable, consistent and fair manner. There may be exceptions to the
Assessment Policy when unique situations or circumstances exist which may require
special consideration and discretion by the City Council. Therefore, the
assessment policy is intended to serve as a guide for a systematic assessment
process in the City of Stillwater.
B. PROCEDURE
C. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
CITY OF STILLWATER
ASSESSMENT POLICY FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS
The procedures used by the City of Stillwater ( "City ") for levying special
assessments are those specified by Minnesota Statutes which provide that all or
a part of the cost of improvements may be assessed against benefitting
properties. The procedures for local improvements are summarized in Exhibit "A ".
While establishing the authority by which communities may proceed to construct
public facility projects, the statutes provide no guide as to how costs are to
be apportioned. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the local legislative
body to establish a fair and reasonable method by which properties will be
assessed.
Three basic criteria must be satisfied before a particular parcel can be validly
assessed. They are:
1. The land must have received special benefit from the improvement.
2. The amount of the assessment must not exceed the special benefit.
3. The assessment must be uniform in relation to the same class of
property within the assessment area.
The primary test for determining the validity of a special assessment is whether
the improvement for which the assessment was levied has increased the market
value of the property against which the assessment operates in at least the
amount of the assessment. It is important to recognize that the actual cost of
extending an improvement past a particular parcel is not the sole determining
factor in determining the amount to be assessed. An exception might be a project
initiated by a single property owner /developer where market value increase may
not be a relevant factor given the nature of the improvement.
Another test for determining the validity of a special assessment is whether the
assessment is based on a uniform method for all like classes of property. For
example, the use of a front foot assessment for some properties and the use of
a per lot assessment for other properties of the same class for a related
improvement could result
assessment would be set
D. INITIATION OF IMPROVEMENTS
in a non - uniform assessment rate which could mean the
side or could be thrown out by the courts.
Public Improvements may be initiated in the following manner:
1. Council Initiated. The City Council, on its own motion and without
petition, may order the improvement on at least a 4/5 vote of the
City Council. However, the City must still follow all statutory
provisions related to the local improvement process.
2. Property Owner Petition. The City Council may decide, by simple
majority, on an improvement after receiving a petition for said
improvement from the owners of not less than 35 percent (35 %) of the
properties abutting on the streets named in the petition as the
location of the improvement. In addition, all owners of real
property abutting upon any street named as the location of any
improvement may petition the City Council to construct the
improvement and to assess the entire cost against their property.
In the latter case, the City Council may, without a public hearing,
adopt a resolution determining such fact and ordering the
improvement. However, it is advisable to conduct public hearings
on the improvement to avoid misunderstanding by the petitioners and
to also inform the general public about the nature of the project.
Proper waiver of assessments and /or agreements should be obtained
from each property owner affected by the improvement.
3. Developer Request. A developer who is the owner of all the property
within the p oposed subdivision may petition the City Council to
construct th improvement and to assess the entire cost against the
developer's roperty pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. In such event,
the City m y, without a public hearing, adopt a resolution
determining uch fact and ordering the improvement. However, a
developer's agreement, including a valid and enforceable waiver of
assessments if appropriate, shall be negotiated and executed prior
to said authorization. It may also be advisable to conduct public
hearings on the improvement to avoid misunderstanding by the
petitioners and to also inform the general public about the nature
of the project.
E. PROJECT COSTS
Project costs shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Construction costs (day labor or contractual).
2. Engineering and consulting fees.
3. Administrative fees.
4. Right -of -way acquisition /condemnation costs.
5. Legal fees.
6. Capitalized _nterest.
7. Financing costs.
2
•
•
•
•
The entire project shall be considered as a whole for the purpose of calculating
and computing an assessment rate. However, project costs for work of a
dissimilar nature (i.e., where a project contains different types of work such
as street resurfacing in one project area and street reconstruction in another
area) shall be calculated separately and assessed separately according to benefit
received.
If City staff has doubt as to whether or not the costs of the project may exceed
the special benefits to the property, the City Council should obtain such
appraisals as may be necessary to support the proposed assessment. Appraisals
may be obtained anytime after the improvement has been ordered including prior
to actually awarding the bid or entering into a contract for the work. The City
Council may also conduct assessment hearings and actually adopt the assessment
roll anytime after the improvement hearing and before a contract for the work
is awarded.
The Assessment Policy, in brief summary, consists of six (6) main sections
addressing General Policy Statement, Methods of Assessment, Improvement Type and
Cost Apportionment, Assessment Conditions, Supplementary Guide section and a
Definition section. A summary of actions and resolutions is also included as
Exhibit "A ".
SECTION II - METHODS OF AS S ESSMENT
The nature of an improvement determines the method of assessment. The objective
is to choose an assessment method which will arrive at a reasonable, fair and
equitable assessment which will be uniform upon the same class of property within
the assessed area. The mo t frequently recognized assessment methods are: the
unit assessment, the front ootage assessment and the area assessment. Depending
upon the individual proje t, any one or a combination of these methods may be
utilized to arrive at an ap_ropriate cost distribution. City staff will consider
all methods and weigh their applicability to the project and present a
recommendation to the City Council in the form of a mock assessment roll (or
rolls). A description of each assessment and its corresponding policy
application is presented. A separate section (Section III) will identify the
appropriate matchup of method with a specific type of project and analyze why
each is generally used.
a. Unit Assessment. A unit assessment shall be derived by dividing the
total project cost by the number of Residential Equivalent Density
(RED) units i the project area. A RED unit is defined as a single
family reside tial unit. All platted and unplatted property will
be assigned D unit values equivalent to the underlying zoning.
When the exi ting land use is less than the highest and best
permitted use, the Council may consider the current use as well as
the full potential of land use in determining the appropriate number
of RED units. Otherwise, the following RED chart will apply on a
per unit basis, subject to adjustment by the Council for any
inequities:
S family 1.00 RED
Duplex 1.00 RED
Condominium 0.80 RED
Multifamily (3 units or more) 0.80 RED
Townhouse 0.80 RED
Commercial RED units = SAC units
Industrial RED units = SAC units
The unit approach has proven to be the best method in those instances
whereby the improvement largely benefits everyone to the same degree
and the cost of the improvement is not generally affected by parcel
size.
b. Area Assessment. The assessable area shall be expressed in terms
of the numbex of acres or the number of square feet subject to
assessment. When determining the assessable area, the following
considerations will be given:
1. Ponding Assessment Consideration. Lakes, ponds and swamps may
be con:iidered a part of the assessable area of a parcel.
Howeve , the property owner has the option of providing a storm
water p nding easement to the City for the land under the lake,
pond or swamp if integrated into the storm water management
system. If such ponding easement is accepted based upon its
4
•
•
•
•
functional integration into the storm water management system,
a reduction in area equal to the area of the easement for the
lake, pond or swamp will be subtracted from the gross area
assessment of the parcel. Lots utilizing a ponding area for
the purpose of density credit shall be charged for that area
within the portion of the easement necessary to meet minimum
lot standards.
2. Road Right -of -Way Assessment Consideration. Up to 20 percent
(20 %) of the gross acreage may be deducted for street right -
of -way purposes within unplatted parcels of five acres or more
depending upon the parcel configuration. Parcels of less than
five acres may not qualify and may be assessed full acreage.
The reason for this size restriction is that, in most
instances, parcels of less than five acres cannot support an
internal public road system.
3. Park Dedication Assessment Consideration. When park land is
dedicated as part of a residential development, as required
by Subdivision Code - Chapter 31.06, the developer shall not
be assessed an acreage charge on the portion of land dedicated.
c. Front Footage Assessment. The actual physical dimensions of a parcel
abutting an improvement (i.e., street, sewer, water, etc.) shall NOT
be construed as the frontage utilized to calculate the assessment
for a particular parcel. Rather, an "adjusted front footage" will
be determined. The purpose of this method is to equalize assessment
calculations for lots of similar size. Individual parcels by their
very nature differ considerably in shape and ar a. The following
procedures will apply when calculating adjusted front footage. The
selection of the appropriate procedures will be determined by the
specific configuration of the parcel. All measurements will be
scaled from available plat and section maps and will be rounded down
to the nearest 1/2 foot dimension with any excess fraction deleted.
Categorical type descriptions are as follows:
1. Standard lots
2. Rectangular variation lots
3. Triangular lots
4. Cul -de -sac lots
5. Curved lots
6. Irregularly shaped lots
7. Corner lots
8. Flag lots
9. Double frontage lots
10. Large tracts
The ultimate objective of these procedures is to arrive at a fair
and equitable distribution of cost whereby consideration is given
to lot size and parcels are comparably assessed.
1. Standard Lots. In this instance, the adjusted front footage
for rectangular lots will be the actual front footage of the
lot. The frontage measured shall be the lot width at the front
lot line.
1
150'
MAIN AVENt
50' 90'
A B
2. Rectan lar Variation Lots. For a lot which is approximately
rectan lar and uniform in shape, the adjusted front footage
is com uted by averaging the front and back sides of the lot.
This m thod is used only where the divergence between front
and rear lot lines is 20 feet or less.
MAN AVENUE
90' 7d
A B
110 80'
M AIN AVENUE
6
Adj. Front Footage
EXAMPLES
Lot A - 50'
Lot B - 90'
Adj. Front Footage
EXAMPLES
Lot A - 90 + 110 = 100'
2
Lot B - 70 + 80 = 75'
2
3. Triangilar Lots. For a triangular shaped lot, the adjusted
front :Footage is computed by averaging the front and back lot
lines. The measurement at the back lot line shall not exceed
a maxinum distance in depth of 150 feet.
Adj. Front Footage
EXAMPLES
Lot A - 100 + 40 = 70'
2
Lot B - 40 + 130 = 85'
2
Lot C - 120 + 0 = 60'
2
•
•
•
4. Cul -de -Sac Lots. The adjusted front footage for those lots
that exist on cul -de -sacs will be calculated at the midsection
of the lot at the most reasonably defined and determinable
position. This line will be computed by connecting the
midpoints of the two side lot lines. Or, if the lots are
similar in nature and configuration, a common lot width, such
as the standard set back of 30; may be assigned based upon an
evaluation of typical lots within the subdivision.
70'
Adj. Front Footage
EXAMPLES
Lot A - 75'
Lot B - 110'
Lot C - 80'
5. Curved Lots. In certain situations such as those where lots
are located along meandering trail system streets, read
patterns create curvilineal frontages. In such instances, the
adjusted front footage will be the width of the lot measured
at the midpoint of the shortest side lot line.
Adj. Front Footage
pV E N UE EXAMPLES
Lot A 70'
Lot B - 90'
Lot C 150'
90'
6. Irregularly Shaped Lots. In many cases, unplatted parcels that
are legally described by a metes and bounds description are
irregular and odd shaped. The adjusted front footage will be
calculated by measuring the lot width at the 30 foot building
setback line.
Adj. Front Footage
MAIN AVENUE EXAMPLES
115' 140' 125' Lot A - 115'
Lot B - 140'
fi ^ Lot C - 125'
A
7. Corner Lots.
B
8
C
a. On a corner lot, 100 percent (100 %) of the adjusted front
footage of the short side will be assessed and 35 percent
(35%) of the adjusted front footage of the long side will
be assessed for improvements benefitting the respective
sides. The length of the property sides and not the
orientation of the principal building shall determine
adjusted front footage in this case. A series of lots
(two or more) under common ownership shall be considered
as one parcel or lot for determining which is the short
or long side of a property. However, this shall only
apply to series of lots on which only one principal
building is situated.
Adj. Front Footage
EXAMPLES
Lot A-
Side 1= 43.75'
Side 2 =95'
Lot B-
Side 1 =87.5'
Side 2 =125'
_ 1
i
w 1
p 1
1
p B 1
A �, 1
i
1
125' 150' 1 100'
MAN AVENUE (SIDE 1)
•
•
•
b. General Commercial Zoned Corner Lots. No allowance
relief will be granted because of the higher inherent
property value associated with improved traffic frontage
and greater visibility along business district and
industrial park intersections. The adjusted front
footage shall be the entire frontage measured along the
setback line comprising the building envelope.
155'
zo MAIN AVE.
' o
i W
A
170'
Lot A - 280'
s p Lot B - 390'
1
1 N ;
1 t s
1 25 25'
oI B
n' • ��
- i- 275'
O 0
m m
MAN AVENL 300
E
Adj. Front Footage
EXAMPLES
O.
8. Flag Lots. Properties which utilize a narrow private easement
or maintain ownership of access to their property exceeding
a minimum length of 125 feet, thereby having a small frontage
on a street, will be assigned an adjusted front footage of 80
feet. This dimension is consistent with the subdivision
ordinance which prescribes such length as the minimum lot
frontage along a public roadway. The adjusted front footage
for flag lots whose driveway access is under 125 feet will be
measured at the building setback line from the access terminus.
Adj. Front Footage
EXAMPLES
Lot A - 80'
Lot B - 90'
9. Double Frontage Lots. If a parcel, other than a corner lot,
comprises frontage on two streets and is eligible for
subdivision, then an adjusted front footage assessment will
be charged along each street. For double frontage lots lacking
the necessary depth for subdivision, only a single adjusted
front footage will be computed.
Adj. Front Footage
MAW AVE. MAW AVE. EXAMPLES
no' 80'
N A
110'
10
Lot A - 220'
Lot B - 80'
•
•
•
•
•
SECTION III - IMPROVEMENT TYPE AND COST APPORTIONMENT
A. Street Reconstruction Includina Curb and Gutter. The cost of street
reconstruction shall be recovered by the adjusted front footage method.
The front footage rate shall be determined by dividing the project cost
by the total number of adjusted front feet in the project area. An
assessment rate of $35.00 per front foot shall be assessed for partial
street reconstruction projects and $45.00 per front foot for total street
reconstruction projects. The assessment rates shall be adjusted yearly
based on the Engineering News Record Index. The remaining cost shall be
recovered by means of the general ad valorem property tax paid by the
entire community or by other funds that may become available to the City
for infrastructure cost recovery.
B. Street Resurfacing. Street resurfacing is commonly known and referred to
as street overlaying whereby a new bed of road material such as bituminous
is installed over an existing paved road to a specific thickness.
Assessments shall be determined by the adjusted front footage method. An
assessment rate of $12.75 per front foot shall be assessed for street
resurfacing. The assessment rates shall be adjusted yearly based on the
Engineering News Record Index. The remaining cost shall be recovered by
means of the general ad valorem property tax paid by the entire community
or by other funds that may become available to the City for infrastructure
cost recovery.
C. Sidewalk. Sidewalk improvements may be done in conjunction with a street
reconstruction or as a separate project. In any event, 100 percent (100 %)
of the cost of sidewalk improvements shall be assessed to benefitted
properties on a front footage basis.
D. Sealcoating. Sealcoating shall be treated as a general maintenance expense
and shall be paid from the City's current operating funds. No assessments
will be levied for sealcoating projects.
E. Sanitary Sewer and Water Mains.
Repair and replacement of sewer or water main is usually done in
conjunction with a street reconstruction project and the cost of this work
should be included as part of the total major street project cost and
should also be considered to be included in the rate assessed for street
reconstruction. If it is determined that the repair and replacement work
results in a greater benefit to some properties and not to others, the
Council should consider establishing a different assessment rate based on
the benefits received.
F. Sanitary Sewer and Water Trunk Improvements. Trunk sewer and water mains
are usually designed to carry larger volumes of flow than are necessary
within an immediate property area in order to serve additional properties
beyond the area of their immediate placement. Therefore, 100 percent
(100 %) of the cost of trunk improvements will be assessed on a unit basis
to all properties within a district deemed to be benefitted from the trunk
improvements.
11
G. Sewer and Water Services. Individual sewer and water services benefit only
the properties they 3erve and 100 percent e (10 installed. their cost shall be
assessed to the property for which they
H. Drainage Improvements. Storm drainage and ponding /basin systems are
usually constructed to serve a specific drainage or "watershed" district.
The cost of drainage improvements shall be 100 percent (100%) assessed to
the properties withi the drainage district. The cost may also be levied
on an ad valorem tax basis to the properties within the district as
provided by Minnesota Statutes. Storm sewer reconstruction normally takes
place together with street reconstruction projects and the costs shall be
assessed in accordance with the assessment policies related to street
improvements.
I. Special Consideration. Special consideration shall be given to the "age"
of a street or utility system when determining the proportion of cost to
be assessed to benefitted properties. If it is necessary to reconstruct
or resurface a street or perform major repair /replacement work on sewer
and water utilities before a reasonable amount of time (15 to 20 years for
resurfacing, 20 to 25 years for partial reconstruction and 25 to 30 years
for total reconstruction) the assessment shall be calculated on a pro -rata
basis. The remaini:zg cost shall be recovered by means of the general ad
valorem property ta4 paid by the entire community or by other funds that
may become available to the City for infrastructure cost recovery.
J. Industrial Park Assessments. The area assessment method shall be used for
all improvement types in the area commonly known as the Industrial Park.
The Industrial Park is generally bounded by Orleans Street to the north,
Greeley Street to the east, CSAH County Road 5 to the west and Highway 36
to the south.
12
•
SECTION IV - ASSESSMENT CONDITIONS
A. Term of Assessment. The term of special assessments shall normally be for
a ten (10) year period. However, in some cases the project costs could
warrant either shorter or longer terms. For example, sidewalk improvements
undertaken separately may be assessed for over a five (5) year period
because the costs are usually nominal (under $2,000). On the other hand,
some major reconstruction projects where several types of improvements are
involved could lead to a very high assessment which could create a
financial hardship if assessed for a ten (10) year term. A fifteen (15)
to twenty (20) year term may be appropriate in this case. In any event,
the assessment term should never exceed the potential life of the
improvement.
B. Interest Rate. The interest rate charged on assessments for all projects
financed by debt issuance shall be one and one -half percent (1 -1.2 %)
greater than the net interest rate of the bond issue or debt used to
finance the improvement. This is necessary in order to ensure adequate
cash flow when the City is unable to reinvest assessment prepayments at
an interest rate sufficient to meet the interest cost of debt or when the
City experiences problems of payment collection delinquencies. Interest
on initial special assessment installments shall begin to accrue from the
date of the resolution adopting the assessment. Owners must be notified
by mail of any changes adopted by the City Council regarding interest rates
or prepayment requirements which differ from those contained in the notice
of the proposed assessment.
C. Payment Procedures. The property owner has five available options when
considering payment of assessments:
1. Tax Payment. If no payment is undertaken by the property owner, then
special assessment installments will appear annually on the
individual's property tax statement for the duration of the
assessment term.
•
2. Full Payment. No interest will be charged if the entire assessment
is paid within 30 days of the date of adoption of the assessment
roll.
3. Partial Payment. The property owner has a one -time opportunity to
make a partial payment reduction of any amount against his /her
assessment. This option may only be exercised within the 30 -day
period immediately following adoption of the assessment roll.
4. Prepayment. The property owner may at any time prior to November
15 of the initial year, prepay the balance of the assessment with
interest accrued to December 31 of that year. The property owner
may also choose to pay the remaining assessment balance at any time,
with the exception of the current year's installment of principal
and interest.
13
D. Appeals Procedures. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any
assessment adopted unless a written objection signed by the affected
property owner is filed with the city clerk's office prior to the
assessment hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing.
The property owner may appeal an assessment to District Court by serving
notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or city clerk within 30 days after the
adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court
within 10 days after service of the appeal upon the Mayor or city clerk.
E. Reapportionment Upon Land Division. When a tract of land against which
a special assessment has been levied is subsequently divided or subdivided
by plat or otherwis , the City Council may, on application of the owner
of any part of the ract or on its own motion, equitably apportion among
the various lots o parcels in the tract all the installments of the
assessment against he tract remaining unpaid and not then due if it
determines that suc apportionment will not materially impair collection
of the unpaid balan •e of the original assessment against the tract. The
apportionment shall be done on the same basis as the original assessment
unless another met od of apportioning can be done with the owner's
acceptance and if t e apportionment will not materially impair collection
of the unpaid balanc- of the assessment against the tract of land. In any
case, the City Counc 1 may require furnishing of a satisfactory surety bond
in certain cases as .pecified in Minnesota Statutes Section 429.071, Subd.
3. Notice of the apportionment and of the right to appeal shall be mailed
to or personally served upon all owners of any part of the tract.
F. Senior Citizen Deferral. Chapter 56.05 of the Stillwater City Code allows
the City Council, a: its discretion, to defer the payment of any special
assessment for local improvements constructed by the City when it
determines by a thrae- fifths (3/5) vote that the property being assessed
is homestead property and that one or more of the owners of the property
is sixty -two (62) years of age or over and that the payment of the
assessment would be a hardship for the owner thereof.
The interest for senior citizen deferral shall be at the same rate that
the City sets for other property owners for the improvement.
14
•
SECTION V - SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT POLICY GUIDELINES
A. Areas Partially Served by Utilities. Any tract of land, lot or parcel
whereby a project improvement, such as a sewer or water lateral or ending
street terminus, does not extend fully past or beyond the property shall
be considered served, benefited and assessed accordingly. The current
special assessment shall be subject to an adjusted front footage not to
exceed 150 feet and a maximum current acreage of 2.5 acres, provided said
assessment does not exceed the special benefit conferred upon the affected
property. If an improvement benefits, non - abutting properties which may
be served by the improvement when later extensions or improvements are made
but are not initially assessed, the City may reimburse itself for all or
part of the costs incurred by assessing those non - abutting properties at
the time of the later extensions or improvements. However, proper notice
must be given of that fact at the time of making the extensions or
improvements to the previously unassessed non - abutting properties. The
City may also establish "hookup" charges to recover costs of sewer and
water main improvements not initially assessed.
B. Preliminary Plat Consideration. Land could be considered for assessment
based on preliminary plat consideration. This consideration will occur
only when the following scenarios exits: (1) the City Council has approved
a preliminary plat, and (2) a public hearing ordering the improvement
project has not yet occurred. In the event this exists, assessment
frontages may be calculated based upon the proposed lot configuration
within the preliminary plat. Road right -of -way within the proposed street
• alignment will not be subject to assessment.
C. Tax Exempt Property. Other than land under City ownership, there are three
categories of tax exempt properties. Said properties shall be assessed
as follows:
•
1. Churches and schools shall be assessed in the same manner as
commercial and industrial zoned property, as long as the assessments
do not exceed the special benefits conferred. Acreage assessment
shall be based upon the gross acreage of the site. Adjusted front
footage shall be similarly calculated along the building setback line
in its entirety.
2. State land is normally exempt from assessment unless otherwise
negotiated or agreed upon by, the affected state agency.
3. County land is subject to assessment and shall be assessed in the
same manner as commercial and industrial zoned property, as long as
the assessments do not exceed the special benefits conferred.
D. Municipal Property Assessments. City owned property is divided into three
classifications for the purpose of determining assessment participation.
They are:
1. Public facility land
2. Public right -of -way
15
3. Park land
Public facility property is defined as land utilized for public buildings
such as city halls, fire halls, libraries, maintenance garages, municipal
parking lots, etc. Public facility property within a project area will
participate in the total assessable cost of an improvement and will be
treated in the same manner as any other benefited parcel.
Public right -of -way property consisting of all City acquired easements,
subject to fee title, for the specific purpose of utility placement or
street construction will be exempt from assessment.
Park land assessment eligibility is further categorized according to the
following descriptions:
1. "Community Parks" are characterized by a higher degree of intense
public use and are relatively large in area size. They are normally
associated with athletic events and sporting activities, i.e.,
softball, football, baseball, hockey, etc. Park lands of this nature
will be subject to assessments. Because community parks provide
citywide benefit, the cost of these assessments shall be recovered
be a special levy upon the ad valorem taxes.
2. "Neighborhood Parks" accommodate open space objectives within
residential development and are passive in use as indicated by such
features as playground structures. Because neighborhood parks are
commonly used by the immediate residents of the area, such park land
will not be assessed if it comprises less than 25 percent of the
aggregate project area. Larger parks representing an area grater
than 25 percent of the aggregate project area shall participate in
the assessment process in the same manner as community parks.
3. "Parkland Dedication" is required either in the form of cash in lieu
of land or a land grant. The developer shall be responsible for the
payment of all special assessments existing at the time of
dedication. Depending upon the amount of land involved, the
development shall not be assessed trunk acreage for that portion
exceeding he minimum percentage dedication requirement for park
purposes.
E. Tax Forfeiture ssessments. When a parcel of tax forfeited land is
returned to private ownership, and the parcel is benefited by an
improvement for which special assessments were cancelled because of the
forfeiture, the City may, upon notice and hearing as provided for the
original assessment, make a reassessment or a new assessment as to the
parcel in an amount equal to the amount remaining unpaid on the original
assessment.
F. First Serve Situations. If the plans of the City and a developer coincide
in regard to utility installations on certain properties, the plans of the
City shall receive first consideration. In that event, the City may, upon
notice and hearing, assess all unplatted parcels according to this Policy
16
•
if the improvements are approved prior to hardshell consent of the
unplatted properties.
G. State Aid Participation. Residential lots abutting and having access to
collector streets (streets which are designated as part of the City's
Municipal State Aid System and qualify for state aid funding) shall be
assessed the residential equivalent of a standard City street, normally
consisting of a 30 foot paved roadway within a 50 foot right -of -way. This
cost shall be determined by the City Engineer during the preparation of
the feasibility report. The difference in cost shall be reimbursed by
applicable state aid funds.
•
•
17
SECTION VI - DEFINITIONS
Adjusted Front Footage
The number of feet actually utilized in
calculating an assessment for a particular
property. This may differ from the actual
front footage of the property.
Assessment The dollar amount charged against a property
receiving an improvement benefit.
Condominium
Drainage District
Lateral
Multifamily
Nuisance Abatements
Individual ownership of a unit in a multi-
unit structure (similar to an apartment
building). A spacial relationship exists
whereby the individual owns the actual air
space within the physical confines of the
unit but not the barrier walls themselves.
An area defined by the City Engineer which
shall form the physical boundaries where
benefit exists within a storm sewer project.
Property to be included within a district
shall be all land which contributes to storm
water runoff, as well as land serving as a
collector basin for storing such water.
Natural geographical features normally form
these boundaries.
A lateral sewer is designated to collect the
sewage from a project area for conveyance
to a trunk facility. A water lateral is
sized to provide water in sufficient volumes
and pressure as required t serve a defined
project area.
A structure of more than two units, the
primary purpose of which is to provide rental
or leased living space to the general public.
Building characteristics include common
hallways for access purposes and a common
parking lot.
The elimination of a nuisance whereby the
City acts on behalf of the property owner
as authorized by ordinance to eliminate
problems such as junk, weeds, dead trees,
etc. The City may collect the charges for
all or any part of the cost of eliminating
any such nuisance by levying a special
assessment against the property benefited.
Oversizing A pipe which is designed and constructed
larger and /or deeper than necessary to serve
18
•
•
•
•
Public Improvement
Townhouse
Utility Improvement Area
a specific project area.
A project undertaken by the City under the
authority granted in MSA 429.021 for the
purpose of installation of improvements such
as street, curb and gutter, sewer, water,
etc. A public hearing shall be conducted
to determine the necessity and common good
of the project as it affects the community.
Upon authorization, the City will proceed
with construction and administration of the
project.
Single family attached units in structures
housing three or more contiguous dwelling
units, sharing a common wall, each having
separate individual front and rear entrances;
the structure is that of a row -type house
as distinguished from multiple- dwelling
apartment buildings.
A defined area within which all properties
are deemed to have been served by an
important project and are considered to
receive the benefit.
19
SUMMARY OF
SCHEDULE OF ACTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS
FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
EXHIBIT "A"
1. Initiation of proceedings either by the Council or by petition of affected
property owners.
Owners may waive public hearing and submit "Agreement of Assessment and Waiver
of Irregularity and Appeal."
Adopt Resolution "Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of
Report" (should be pubLished because of appeal process) or, if not using
petition, "Ordering Preparation of Report on Improvement (need not be
published).
2. Preparation of report on the proposed improvement, submission to and approval
by Council, Council then accepts the report and orders a Public Hearing.
(When a petition signet by 100% of the landowners requests the improvement,
the Council may order the improvement without a hearing.)
Adopt Resolution "Receiving Report and Calling Hearing on Improvement" (need
not be published).
3. After a public hearing, or if hearing is waived, adopt following Resolution:
Adopt Resolution "Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specs ".
4. After submission to and approval by Council the following Resolution is
required:
Adopt Resolution "Approving Plans and Specifications, Ordering Improvement
and Advertisement for Bids ".
5. After receiving bids, Council will adopt the following Resolution awarding
the bid:
Adopt Resolution "Accepting Bid ". (Need not be published).
6. After work is completed and receiving Engineer's recommendation for final
acceptance, the following Resolution is adopted:
Adopt Resolution "Accepting Work ".
7. Assessment Proceedings:
Adopt Resolution "Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of
Proposed Assessment ".
Adopt Resolution for "Hearing on Proposed Assessment" (need not publish
resolution - but must publish and mail hearing notice.
20
•
•
•
•
8. After hearing and adopting assessment, adopt the following Resolution:
Adopt Resolution "Adopting Assessment ". (Need not be published.)
21
•
•
•
SUMMARY OF PAST CITY POLICY ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
I. Streets
1. Reconstruction
a. Non -MSA Streets.
Prior to 1974, the City assessed 80 percent (80 %) of the cost
of street reconstruction. After 1974, the City changed the
policy and apparently intended to assess 100 percent (100 %)
of the cost. However, except for the reconstruction of MSA
or CSAH streets, only two minor street matting projects took
place after 1975., Therefore, the policy change was never
actually implemented.
b. State Aid Streets. (MSA)
Prior to 1987, State Aid Streets were assessed at a rate deemed
to be comparable to residential street reconstruction costs.
In 1989, the City reconstructed a portion of Pine and Churchill
Streets and assessed only the portion of cost not covered by
MSA funds. The assessments were $35 FF which was about 23
percent (23 %) of the total cost.
c. County State Aid Streets. (CSAH)
County State Aid Streets were usually assessed for the "urban"
portion (sidewalk, curb /gutter and storm sewer) of the project.
In 1989, the County reconstructed a portion of South Third
Street and East Orleans Street. The "urban" portion amounted
to an assessment of 30.36 per front foot which was about 24
percent (24 %) of the total cost.
2. Street Resurfacing.
a. Non -MSA and /or CSAH Streets. It appears that the City usually
assessed 100 percent (100 %) of the cost for street resurfacing.
An exception was made in 1985 when Croixwood Boulevard and
Marine Circle was resurfaced. Because of the early
deterioration of these two streets, the City only assessed 40
percent (40 %) and 45 percent (45 %) of the cost of the streets,
respectively. (The "credit" was based on the number of years
that a new street would normally last before the need for
resurfacing developed which is about 20 years.)
b. MSA and CSAH. MSA street resurfacing was usually paid from
MSA funds with no assessments being made. CSAH street
resurfacing is paid totally from county funds.
1
3. Special Conditions.
a. On a corner lot, 100 percent (100 %) of the short side was
assessed and 35 percent (35 %) of the long side frontage was
assessel (obviously an assessment was levied only for the side
of the (street that was improved). A series of lots under
common ownership were usually considered as one parcel or lot
for determining short side and long side.
b. Where lots were square, the following items were taken into
consideration:
Location of home on lot
Potential of future subdivision
Likelihood of future assessments
Past treatment of neighboring similarly situated lots
c. Where al cul-de-sac was part of the improvement, the frontage
was determined by calculating the width of the lot at the front
building line (setback line).
d. Where a lot did not actually abut a City street (access derived
by an easement), the property was assessed a reasonable amount
based on assessments for similar lots in the neighborhood
benefited by the improvement. The rationale for this was that
even though not directly abutting a City street the property
benefited from the improved access to the home by the
improvements to the entire City street system and the owner
consequently should pay for some of that benefit.
e. Where a property abutted a street which had been improved but
to which the owner could gain no access to its street because
of a great grade differential, the City Council would abate
the prcposed assessment if the property has been assessed in
the past for a. street improvement or was deemed to be
potentially liable for a future street improvement assessment.
f. Where roperty abutted a City street and was deemed to be
benefi ed by a street improvement and it was potentially
possib e to subdivide off an unbuildable strip of land parallel
and co tiguous to the lot upon which the principal building
was lo.ated, the special assessment was levied against the
property upon which the building was located.
Both sides of double frontage (or through) lots were assessed
in accordance with the above policies.
g.
II. Utilities and Other Improvements.
1. Water Main and Services.
a. Water main improvements were usually assessed on a unit basis.
2
■
•
•
•
b. Where a water main improvement served two or more subdivisions
and where there was a large disparity in the average size of
the benefited lots, the costs of serving each area was usually
broken down and each subdivision lot was assessed on a unit
basis for the costs attributable to the construction of those
facilities in each area or subdivision.
c. Where it was probable that a piece of property could be
subdivided, a lot was usually assessed for more than one unit.
The zoning classification, the current use of land and the
condition of any structures located on it was considered when
more than one unit was assessed to a given piece of property.
d. Water services were assessed on a unit basis.
e. The costs of oversizing water mains and of improvements to the
water supply stream (such as looping) were not deemed to be
a benefit to particular properties and such costs were borne
by the Board of Water Commissions.
f. Minor repair /replacement work on water mains was usually
included in the street assessment.
2. Sanitary Sewer Lines and Services.
a. Sanitary sewer line improvements were usually assessed on a
unit basis.
b. Where a sanitary sewer line improvement was to serve two or
more subdivisions and where there was a large disparity in the
average size of the benefited lots, the costs of serving each
area was broken down and each subdivision's lots was assessed
on a unit basis for the costs attributable to the construction
of those facilities in each area or subdivision.
c. Where it was probable that a piece of property could be
subdivided, a lot was usually assessed for more than one unit.
The zoning classification, the current use of the land and
the condition of any structures located on it was considered
when more than one unit was assessed to a given piece of
property.
d. Water services were assessed on a unit basis.
e. The costs of oversizing water mains and of improvements to the
water supply system (such as looping) were not deemed to be
a benefit to particular properties and such costs were borne
by the Board of Water Commissioners.
f. Minor repair /replacement work on sewer main was usually
included in the street assessment.
3. Sidewalk Construction and Repair.
a. 100 percent (100 %) of the cost usually assessed to abutting
or benefited property.
4. Storm Sewer Construction.
a. Storm sewer improvements were usually assessed on an area basis
using crainage flow patterns.
5. Street Lighting.
a. Only experience has been in new subdivision. Developer was
usually responsible for cost of street lighting. Lighting for
minor subdivisions (5 - 10 lots) was usually paid by the City.
6. Parking Lots.
a. The last parking lot improvement (South Main Street by the
Brick alley) was assessed using a formula that considered
distance, parking need and first floor areas of a building.
The Ci .y also picked up 20 percent (20 %) of the cost which
was to be paid from parking meter revenue.
III. Industrial Park (a -1 new - no reconstruction)
1. Street.
a. Assessed on an area basis.
2. Water Mains and Services.
a. Assessed on an area basis.
b. Services assessed per unit basis.
3. Sanitary Sewer.
a. Assessed on an area basis.
b. Services assessed on per unit basis.
4. Storm Sewer.
a. Assessed on an area basis using drainage and flow patterns.
5. Trunk Sanitary Sewer.
a. Assessed on a front footage basis.
4
•
•
•
•
6. Lighting.
a. Assessed on an area basis.
7. Lift Station
a. Assessed on an area basis.
IV. Special Notes.
1. New Subdivisions.
a. The costs of all improvements have usually been apportioned
equally to all lots within the subdivision.
b. Benefited lots outside of the subdivision are also assessed
a like amount unless it was determined that another method of
assessment should be used (e.g., lots outside of Oak Glen were
assessed at 80 percent (80 %) of the Oak Glen lots) based on
disparities or circumstances.
c. In some cases (e.g., Oak Glen) water and sewer costs were
recovered by establishing a hookup charge which was paid at
the time a building permit is issued. This applied to
properties outside of but adjacent to the development.
2. Terms and Conditions of Assessments
a. Length of Assessment.
1. Residential - usually 10 years.
2. Industrial Park - usually 15 - 20 years but some at 10
years.
b. Interest Rate.
1. Usually 1 -1/2 percent (1 -1/2 %) above net interest cost
of assessment bonds.
c. Special Deferrals.
1. Green Acres (i.e., Feeley Property) can be assessed but
property owner does not have to pay assessments until
loss of Green Acres status.
2. Senior citizens and disabled citizens can apply for
deferral for assessments based on financial hardship.
City can accrue interest rate at a rate determined by
City Council (which is usually same rate as on other
assessments).
3. May delay certification for reasonable amount of time -
1;sually one year (interest accrues).
d. City allows assessments to be assumed by buyers at same terms
and conditions that applied to original owner (unless
specifically provided for in a development agreement such as
for the Oak Glen Development).
•
•
•
• • •
SUMMARY OF RECENT
RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
AND AMOUNT ASSESSED
Type of Total Total Cost
Improvement Improvement Cost Per FF Assessed %
LI 219 -1 (1985) Croixwood Blvd Resurfacing $ • 3,524.14 $ 8.15 $ 3.26 (1) 40%
LI 219 -2 (1985) Marine Circle Resurfacing $ 55,119.37 $ 21.50 $ 5.68 (2) 45%
LI 219 -3 (1985) West Orleans St. Resurfacing $ 18,564.52 $ 13.31 $13.31 100%
LI 220 (1987) Pine /Churchill Reconstruction $1,077,562.00 $153.00 $35.00 (3) 23%
LI 253 (1989) So. Third /E. Orleans Reconstruction $ 763,653.00 $103.67 $30.36 (4) 24%
(1) Credit of 60% (8/20 yrs.) given because of early deterioration of street.
(2) Credit of 55% (9/20 yrs.) given because of early deterioration of street.
(3) Full allocation of MSA funds used to offset cost to property owners.
(4) This was a County State Aid Street. Only a portion of the cost (sidewalk, curb and gutter and storm sewer) was passed
on to City.
/IA . /-eV_._._..
DEFERRED TAXES
-- ... __1988A - 1966
C/O MUNIC
BLDG
LEVY COLL 13ONDS BONDS
#320 #310
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
19')7
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1 998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
201.0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
$108,828
$109,374
$109,426
$109,006
$108,098
$106,733
$651,465
$29,164
$28,193
$27,221
$84,578 $365,165
1984
CORP.
PURPOSE:
BONDS
#385
$149,095
$101,357
$11.4,713
1986 -A
CAPITAL
0tJ 1'!.AY
BoN[)S
*360
$1.14,776 -
$1.1.1.,022
$112,382
S113,295
$113,;20
$.11.3,946
$113,663
$112,959
$111,825
$1,017,688
- 1990A
CAPITAL.
OUTLAY
BONDS
#305
$139,309 -
$188,607
$234,597
$382,253
$ 411,908
$391.,388
$1,751,062
TOTAL
GENERAL
OBLIGATION
$541,1.72
$538,553
$598,339
$604,554
$636,826
$61.2,067
$113,663
$112,959
$111,825
$0
$0
$0
$0
$ 0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,869,958
1980 1982 1984-B 1986 -A 1987 -C 1989 -A
IMPROVT .IMP ROVE_ I 1' ROVE. 1MI'ROV[ .1MI'12OVE.1MPROVE.
BONDS [3ON1)S BoNDs T)ONDS I3C)NDS BONDS
*505 #510 #514 #503 #501 4f502
$53,016
$54,200
$7,432 $0
$7,983 $0
$8,395 $0
$8,673 SO
$3,502 $1,767
$5,917 $ 5,181
$3,882 - $6,283
$3,799
$3,704
$3,605
$0 $0 $0 $101,2.10 $4,971 $56,952 $13,231
TOTAL
SPECIAL
ASSESS
$60,448
$62,639
$8,395
$13,18,
$5,329
$11,098
$1.0,165
$3,799
$3,704
$3,605
$0
$G)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$182,370
GRAND
I•OTAL.
$601,620: 't 5
$601,192 et--2 /e, . �
$606,734
$617,142
$643,922
$628,346
$130,111
$116,758
$115,529
$3,605
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
so
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,065,559