HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-10-22 CC Packet Special Meeting
~
e
e
e
r /J ,,'7\
{,^- "" ..
Qtillwater
~. ~- ~
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA . J
October 18, 1991
M E M 0
TO:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
MARY LOU JOHNSON, CITY CLERK
SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1991, 6:00 P.M.
FROM:
SUBJECT:
A Special Meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday evening, October 22, 1991
beginning at 6:00 P.M. in the Stillwater City Hall, 216 No. Fourth St.,
Stillwater, Minnesota to discuss the following:
6:00 P.M. MEETING
1. Workshop with Solid Waste Advisory Committee.
7:00 P.M. MEETING
2. Workshop with Park and Recreation Commission.
8:00 P.M. MEETING
3. Recessed Assessment Hearings for Certain Properties included in L.I. 257,
Downtown Improvements.
4. Any other business Council may wish to discuss.
CITY HAll: 216 NORTH FOURTH STillWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
e
e
e
~
..
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and city Council
FR: Chairman, Solid Waste Advisory Committee
DA: September 13, 1991
RE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Accompanying this memo is the Solid Waste Management Plan that was recently
developed and approved by the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. The Committee
hereby submits the plan for your review and adoption.
In summary the plan:
1. Identifies current waste streams and types;
2. Reviews current and proposed residential collection systems;
3. Establishes solid waste management goals; and
4. Establishes recommendations (plans) for achieving the goals.
In order to achieve the goals the Committee would recommend that the City:
1.
Establish the Solid Waste Advisory Commi ttee as a "standing"
committee, setting forth the role, authority and duties and
responsibilities of the Committee. Suggested duties/responsibilities
would include:
a. Monitor activities pertaining to solid waste management for
consistency with the plan and to ensure that the goals are
achieved;
b. Assist in the continuing development of the plan;
c. Assist in the development of ordinances, policies, contracts,
bid specifications and other areas pertaining to solid waste
collection and disposal;
d. Review and make recommendations on proposals submitted by
contractors/haulers; and
e. Advise Council on a variety of solid waste matters.
2. Budget sufficient funds to carry out the objectives of the plan,
especially educational programs.
3. Upon plan adoption direct the Committee to:
a. Compare the volume base fee system (cart) submitted by Junker
Sanitation, Inc., to other potential systems and make
recommendation concerning the proposal.
b.
Assist in the development of:
1. State-of-the-art solid waste management ordinance and
contract (for the collection and disposal of waste).
2. Bid specifications for a solid waste collection and
disposal system (if necessary); and
3. An II efficient billing system.
Try to estab~ish incentives for contractor to promote waste
reduction.
4.
5. Council decide if a public hearing is necessary prior to final
adoption of th plan. (The Council would facilitate the hearing and
the Committee ould present the plan.)
Respectfully Submitted:
Tim schrnolke, Chairman
Solid Waste Advisory Committee
~.
~
e
e
e
e
e
e
.
CITY OF STILLWATER
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Introduction . . .
I. Definitions
II. Waste streams
III. Waste Types
IV. Residential
Goals and Objectives
Appendix "A" . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
and Disposal Systems
1
2
. . 15
. 16
18
. 21
24
.
e
e
e
e
e
e
INTRODUCTION
Following the directions of the City Council, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee
has developed this plan for the purpose of assisting the Council in their
planning for the management of solid waste in the City of Stillwater. It is
the Commi ttee I s desire to present as complete a plan as possible, however,
because of time constraints, this plan focuses on the issue of residential solid
waste and related areas. The Committee will continue to develop a plan for all
other areas of solid waste management, but felt the issue of residential waste
was of more importance at this time because of the timing of the current
contract. Plans for the management of solid waste from other areas will be
presented as they are completed.
Directing the Committee during the process were some guidelines developed by the
State of Minnesota for the management of solid waste. These guidelines were
included in the recently passed Waste Management Bill and are as follows in order
of priority:
1. Reduction of the source of waste generation.
2. Removal of recyclable material from the waste stream.
3. Removal of compostable material from the waste stream.
4. Processing of waste through a refused-derived fuel (RDF) or
incineration plant.
5. Landfilling of waste.
With these guidelines to help direct us, we then began the planning process with
a review of the status quo in the area of residential waste in Stillwater. The
outline that follows represents the steps taken in developing the plan:
I. Identify current waste streams and waste types.
II. Review current collection and disposal systems.
III. Establish goals and objectives for plan.
IV. Establish recommendations for achieving goals and objectives.
A. Reach the waste generator, i.e., education, publicity.
B. Provide incentives and motivation for waste reduction.
C. Provide a good waste collection and disposal system.
D. Provide a flexibility in the system to meet the needs of a
changing public and market.
E. Establish a system of information collection and review for
the purpose of studying the success of the waste management
plan and recommending changes or improvements as necessary.
1
I. DEFINITIONS
!
ACCEPTABLE WASTE. Garbag~, refuse and other mixed municipal solid waste from
I
residential commercial indfstrial and community activities which are generated
and collected in aggregatel and which can be processed at the Ramsey/Washington
i
County Resource Recovery ~acility in Newport.
,e
BACKYARD COMPOSTING.
Smiflll scale composting of yard and garden wastes by
I
individual homeowners on 1heir own property.
BIODEGRADABLE. Waste matea:-ials which are capable of being broken down by micro-
I
I
i
organisms into basic elemepts. Most organic wastes such as paper and food wastes
are biodegradable.
I
COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE. includes all types of solid waste generated by stores, ~
offices, restaurants, wJrehouses and other nonrnanufacturing activities and
i
nonprocessing wastes such as office and packing wastes generated at industrial
facilities.
I
I
COMPOSTABLE YARD WASTE. [Leaves, grass clippings and other organic wastes but
i
I
I
excluding woody materiall from lawn and garden maintenance that can readily
decompose into a useable soil amendment through controlled biological
I
I
I
I
!
degradation.
I
I
I
COMPOSTING. The contro]led biological decomposition of selected solid waste
I
I
(high organics such as rard wastes and low inorganics such as glass) which
e
2
~ results in a harmless and stable product. Compost has minor importance as a
fertilizer but is valuable as a soil additive to increase aeration and water
retention.
CONSTRUCTION WASTES. Materials remaining from the construction, remodeling or
repairing of single family or multifamily residences, cormnercial buildings,
industrial buildings, roads and highways, bridges, barns and other structures.
Construction wastes may include paints and paint solvents, roofing paper and
shingles, soil, stones, concrete, bricks, plaster, insulation remnants, lumber
and plumbing, heating and electrical system wastes.
CORRUGATED CONTAINERS.
Cormnonly referred to as cardboard boxes, corrugated
e
containers consist of kraft linerboard cartons with corrugated paper. (Clipboard
or single ply boxes such as cereal cartons are not corrugated containers.) Some
cartons, including corrugated containers, which are heavily coated or waxed and
used to ship meats and produce are not recyclable and are classified as "other
organics" in waste stream composition studies.
CURBSIDE COLLECTION. The method of collecting solid waste or recycables where
the material is placed alongside a street or alley at the site of generation for
removal by a contractor.
DEMOLITION WASTES. Waste from the destruction or razing of buildings and other
structures and may include roofing paper and shingles, insulation materials
including asbestos, soil, stones, concrete, bricks, plaster, lumber, metals,
e glass an plumbing, hearing and electrical parts.
3
DISPLACEMENT PROTECTION. ~nsuring that solid waste management activities as
I
!
mandated by law, do not. cause undue hardship for private waste management
operators such as waste ha~lers so as to cause them to go out of business and
be replaced by public serv~ces.
!
I
DISPOSAL.
i
I
I
!
The discharge, I deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking or
I
placing of any waste int%r on any land or water so that the waste or any
I
i
constituent thereof may e1ter the environment or be emitted into the air or
discharged into any waters!including groundwaters.
i
!
DISPOSAL FACILITY. A was1e facility designed or operated for the purpose of
disposing of waste on or ip the land.
i
I
I
j
I
FOOD WASTES. Animal, frui~ or vegetable residues resulting from the handling,
preparation, cooking and eating of foods. Food wastes are also called garbage
and are highly putrescib11: decomposing rapidly, especially in warm weather.
!
Offensive odors are formed/as a result of decomposition and vermin such as rates,
flies and cockroaches are attracted to food wastes. Food wastes are generated
at residences, cafeterias land restaurants, large institutional facilities such
I
i
as schools, hospitals and iprisons and retail and wholesale sores or markets.
I
GENERATION. As used in ~eference to solid or hazardous waste is the act or
process of producing sOliJ or hazardous waste.
I
I
e
e
!
HAZARDOUS WASTES. Wastes rhich are corrosive, infectious, reactive, ignitable,
radioactive or which le4ch heavy metals and certain pesticides during an
I e
4
tit extraction procedure leachate test or which are specifically listed as hazardous
all pose a substantial threat, irrnnediately or over time to human, plant or animal
life. Hazardous wastes can be liquid, gas, solid or in the form of semisolid
sludges.
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES. Chemicals or materials such as pesticides, solvents,
crankcase oil, painting supplies and some cleaning agents which are toxic or
hazardous as similar industrial wastes. Household hazardous wastes are exempted
from the handling and disposal requirements of the federal and state hazardous
waste regulations. Most of household hazardous wastes are consumer products
which are no longer in use, use has been banned, contaminated through use or
have been set aside for disposal.
-
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES. Waste materials resulting from industrial and
manufacturing processes. Industrial solid wastes do not include hazardous
wastes, food wastes, food wastes from cafeterias and waste office paper.
INTERNAL WASTE MANAGEMENT. The management of wastes within the organization or
facility which generated the wastes. The recycling of office paper within the
offices where the waste paper was generated is an example of internal waste
management.
LANDFILL ABATEMENT. A method of reducing the degree or intensity of pollution
through waste management alternatives that reduce the need for traditional
landfill methods.
-
5
LANDFILL CAPACITY. The volume of space that is permitted to be filled with solid
e
waste at a land disposal ~ite.
I
LEACHATE. A solution that I results when water has percolated through or has been
I
in contact with solid wast~s and contains contaminants removed from those wastes.
I
LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT. Any municipal corporation or governmental subdivision
other than a metropolitan county.
MAJOR APPLIANCES. Clothe:s washers and dryers, dishwashers, hot water heats,
residential furnaces, gJbage disposals, trash compactors, conventional and
microwave ovens,
I
I
range~ and stoves,
air conditioners,
dehumidifiers,
refrigerators and freezers.
-
i
MIXED MUNICIPAL SOLID WAS~E.
Means garbage, refuse and other solid waste from
residential, commercial i*dustrial and community activities that the generator
of the waste aggregates fqr collection, but does not include auto hulks, street
i
i
sweepings, ash, constructifn debris, mining waste, sludges, tree and agricultural
wastes, tires, lead acid batteries, used oil and other materials collected,
processed and disposed of as separate waste streams.
(NOTE: For the purposes of this section TOTAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION means the
total by weight of mater~als separated for recycling; materials separated for
yard waste composting; an~ mixed municipal solid waste plus yard waste, used oil,
I
tires, lead acid batterie~ and major appliances; and residential waste materials
that would be mixed muni~ipal solid waste but for the fact that they are not
e
6
~ usually collected as such).
e
e
MULCHING. Using or placing grass clippings or other organic materials over a
lawn or garden to improve conditions for vegetative growth by reducing the growth
of weeds, retaining soil moisture and supplying minimal levels of nutrients.
NEWSPAPER.
Consists of printed, groundwood newsprint, including glossy
advertising inserts and Sunday edition magazines.
NONPROCESSIBLE WASTE. Waste which cannot be processed by the Resource Recovery
Facility in Newport due to its physical characteristics or potential harmful
effects, including but not limited to: steel banding, baling wire, solvents,
tree trunks, logs greater than six inches in diameter and five feet in length,
bulky or overweight items, gasoline, kerosene or propane tanks in any size,
aerosol cans in quantity, plastics in quantity, motor vehicles, automotive parts,
trailer, farm and other large machinery, marine vessels, liquid wastes,
nonburnable construction material and waste from the following establishments,
except paper:
service stations, auto paint shops, chemical plants, plastic
processing plants and textile plants.
OFFICE PAPER. Means notepads, loose-leaf fillers,
commonly used in offices.
tablets and other paper
OPEN DUMPS. The improper and illegal placement of solid waste,
construction/demolition debris or other waste products in succession in an area
not permitted or licensed for such disposal. Open dumps threaten water quality
7
expand populations of vermin, degrade air quality are injury hazards and are
e
eyesores.
removal contractors
,
A systrm
are frfee
of solid waste collection where independent waste
OPEN HAUL SYSTEMS.
to compete for business without restriction in a
competitive open market.
ORGANIZED COLLECTION SYST~. A system where waste removal contractors are
I
assigned specific waste cqllection districts, usually as a result of a bidding
process, which eliminates I competition but generally reduces rates because of
I
increased efficiency. Thi~ system is usually arranged by a contract or franchise
!
between haulers and a ~uniciPality.
Under a contract arrangement, the
municipality is responsibl~ for billing customers, while under a franchise, the
hauler bills the customer~. ~
I
I
ORIGIN. Means a general $eographical description that at a minimum names the
local governmental unit w~thin a county from which waste was collected.
POST-CONSUMER MATERIAL.
Means a finished material that would normally be
discarded as a solid wast~, having completed its life cycle as a consumer item.
PRACTICABLE.
Means cap4le of being used, consistent with performance, in
accordance with applicabl$ specifications and availability within a reasonable
time.
e
8
~ PRINTING PAPER. Means paper designed for printing, other than newsprint, such
as offset and publication paper.
PROCESSED WASTE. Mixed municipal solid waste that has yard wastes and recycables
removed and which has been subjected to a process that oxidizes part of all of
its organic content or any other process which results in organically stabilized
materials.
PROMISCUOUS DUMPING. Disposing of solid waste by throwing it in roadside ditches
or other vacant areas.
Promiscuous dumpers do not use the same site in
succession, but deposit their solid waste in a different location each time.
PROCESSING.
The treatment of waste after collection and before disposal.
e
Processing includes but is not limited to reduction, storage, separation,
exchange, resource recovery, physical, chemical or biological modification and
transfer from one waste facility to another.
PUBLIC EDUCATION.
Activities designed to inform citizens about solid waste
issues and problems, promote participation in waste abatement measures and modify
attitudes and behavior regarding solid waste management and disposal practices.
Public education refers to news releases, speaking engagements, newsletters,
posters, advertisements, school curricula and other methods used to disseminate
information.
PUBLIC ENTITY.
Means the state, an office or agency or institution of the
e state, the metropolitan council, a metropolitan agency, the metropolitan mosquito
9
control district, the legislature, the courts, a county, a statutory or home rule e
charter city, a town, a school district, another special taxing district or any
contractor acting pursuant to a contract with a public agency entity.
RECOVERABLE. Refers to tpe capability and likelihood of being recovered from
I
solid or hazardous waste
10r
commercial or industrial use or reuse.
RECYCLABLES. Materials that can readily be separated and used or reused as a
substitute for raw materials, including paper, corrugated cardboard, glass,
metals, used oil and batt,ries.
I
I
I
RECYCLING. Is the using olf waste materials as a raw material for manufacturing
a new product of materialJ
e
REFUSE DERIVED FUEL (RDF)
The product of the Resource Recovery Facility in
Newport arising from the processing of mixed municipal solid waste.
RDF contains
most of the combustible fr~ction of mixed municipal solid waste which is shredded
I
and compacted. RDF is burlned in boilers to produce electricity, steam or both.
I
!
RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE. Garbage, rubbish, trash and other solid waste resulting
from normal household activities.
!
RESIDUALS. Waste materials left after recovering of recycables and processing
of solid wastes. Resid'ilals are generally dense, noncombustible inorganic
materials with little or Jo value and so are consequently landfilled.
e
10
e RESOURCE RECOVERY. The reclamation for sale or reuse of materials, substances,
energy or other products contained within or derived from waste.
RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY. A facility established primarily for the reclamation
for sale or reuse of mat~rials, substances, energy or other products contained
within or derived from waste.
ROADSIDE LITTER. An accumulation of paper, beverage cans, bottles and other
debris which are, for the most part, thrown form cars into ditches and medians
alongside roadways.
e
RUBBISH. Combustible and noncombustible solid wastes of residences, institutions
and commercial activities excluding food wastes or other putrescible materials.
Combustible rubbish consists of paper, cardboard, plastics, textiles, rubber,
leather and wood. Noncombustible rubbish consists of glass, crockery, tin and
aluminum cans, ferrous and nonferrous metals and soil.
SANITARY LANDFILL. An area of land used for the disposal of solid waste in
accordance with a plan without creating nuisances or hazards to public health,
safety or welfare by using the principles of environmental planning and
engineering to confine solid waste to the proper and smallest practical area,
to reduce it to the smallest practical volume and to cover it with a minimum of
six inches of cover material at the conclusion of each days operation or at more
frequent intervals as may be necessary.
e
11
SCRAP TIRES.
Motor vehicle tires which are discarded because of wear and
e
replacement.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT. Th~ systematic administration of activities that provide
for the collection, sou:rjce separation, storage, transportation, transfer,
processing, treatment and! disposal of solid waste in a sound manner which
I
I
protects public heath and ~nvironmental quality.
SOURCE SEPARATION. The s~tting aside of recyclable waste materials (such as
newsprint and aluminum b~verage cans) and compostable materials (leaves and
garden wastes) by the waste generator at the point of generation prior to
collection.
SPECIAL WASTES.
Wastes Iwhich are usually generated separately from mixed
e
municipal solid waste andlwhich are also disposed of separately. Examples of
I
special wastes include street sweepings, catch basin debris, abandoned vehicles
I
and vehicles parts, scrapltires, roadside litter, construction and demolition
debris and treatment Plan~ wastes.
I
i
I
I
TIPPING FEES. The cost of which a solid waste management facility (including
I
landfills, transfer stat40ns and resource recovery facilities) assesses for
I
handling, processing or disposal of waste which is delivered to it.
I
TREE AND LANDSCAPING WASTE. Branches, sticks, logs, trunks and roots of trees,
shrubs, saplings and brush.
e
12
~ TYPE. Means a best estimate of the percentage of each truck load that consists
of residential, commercial, industrial, construction or any other general type
of waste.
UNACCEPTABLE WASTE. Waste which would likely pose a threat to health or safety
or which may cause damage to or materially adversely affect the operation of the
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Facility including but not limited
to: explosives, hospital, pathological and biological waste, hazardous waste
and chemicals, radioactive materials, oil sludges, asbestos in identifiable
quantities r cesspool or other human waste human or animal remains, street
sweepings, ash, mining wastes, sludges, demolition debris, waste with excess
moisture, hazardous refuse of any kind such as cleaning fluids, crankcase oils,
cutting oils, paints, acids, caustics, poisons, drugs or other materials that
e
may be agreed to by the Counties and NSP.
USED OIL. Liquid petroleum lubricant which has been used in devices such as
machinery and automotive engines. Used oil is generally contaminated with
gasoline combustible byproducts and metals.
WASTE MANAGEMENT.
Activities that are intended to affect or control the
collection, processing and disposal of solid wastes in a safe and environmentally
sound manner.
WASTE HAULER/WASTE REMOVAL CONTRACTOR. A person or firm engaged in the business
of collecting and transporting solid wastes from point of generation to
e
intermediate or final processing or disposal facilities.
13
WASTE REDUCTION. The process of lessening the quantity of solid waste being
generated, which can be a9complished through product reuse, increased product
life, reduces use of materifls through product redesign and decreased consumption
of products. Waste reduction also includes onsite mulching or composting of
yard wastes.
e
e
e
14
e
e
e
I. WASTE STREAMS
The City of Stillwater, like all communities, has two waste streams (sources).
They are the residential and the business waste streams. The waste streams, for
the purpose of this plan, have been categorized as follows:
Residential
1.
2.
3.
Single family dwelling units;
Small multi dwelling units(duplexes);
Multifamily dwelling units (three plexes and more).
Business
1.
2.
3.
Commercial/Industrial;
Construction; and
Governmental/Institutional.
Residential waste streams will be the focus of this plan document, because,
as explained in the introduction, the City needs to develop a solid waste
management plan as it relates to residential waste in order to make some
decisions regarding contracting for residential solid waste collection and
disposal. More specifically, the City must develop a plan on which to base
its negotiations on a contract for the collection and disposal of its
residential solid waste.
The residential waste stream categories listed above have been developed
according to current City billing practice. For example, a single family,
duplex and the first unit of multiple dwellings (three plex and above)
are billed by the City. The City's residential hauler currently bills
multifamily dwellings except for the first unit as noted above.
At the present time, business waste collection is an open hauling system
and the City neither contracts for or franchises for the collection and
disposal of business solid waste. As mentioned elsewhere, this is an issue
that the City should address in the continuous development of its solid
waste management plan. Especially since business waste comprises
approximately ~% of the waste generated within the City of stillwater.
15
II. WASTE TYPES
e
i
I
As explained in the preceding section, the Committee has identified two waste
streams - residential and ~usiness. The types of waste generated within the two
waste streams are as folldws:
I
A. Residential.
1. RecyclaBle material.
a. ~rrently recycled -
i) newspaper/light grade office paper
i~) corrugated paper (cardboard)
iti) glass - both clear and colored
it) metal cans - aluminum, bimetal and tin
b. Pftential for recycling -
i~ Plastics
i~) magazines/glossy paper
i.jii) batteries
2.
Compostables.
a. Yard waste -
i) grass clippings
ili) leaves
ifii) organic garden waste
constrJction debris.
a. slcrap wood
b. ~oofing material
c. tirick/mortar
!
I
e
3.
4.
Ibranches,
~oods.
furniture
appliances.
rwing sets,
etc.
Trees,
brush (from landscaping and storm damage).
5.
Large
a.
b.
c.
i
6. Household hazardous waste.
a. festicides
b. solvents
c. ?il (automobile use)
d. paints
e. ~leaning agents (some)
f. batteries (automotive/recreational)
7. Mixed kunicipal Waste.
I
a. ~ll other waste not listed above
I
B. Business Waslte.
e
1.
Comme~cial solid waste generated by stores, offices,
I
II
16
e
e
e
restaurants, warehouses and other nonmanufacturing activities,
nonprocessing wastes such as office and packing wastes.
2.
Construction waste.
a. paints and paint solvents
b. roofing paper and shingles
c. soil, stones
d. concrete and brick
e. plaster, insulation remnants
f. lumber
g. plumbing, heating and electrical system waste
3.
Corrugated Containers.
(some of which are recyclable)
4. Demolition Waste.
a. asbestos
b. metals
c. glass
d. Other materials already listed with construction waste
5. Food wastes generated by cafeterias, restaurants, large
institutions, retail and wholesale stores.
6.
Hazardous Waste which are corrosive, infectious, reactive,
ignitable, radioactive or will leach heavy metals and certain
pesticides. Usually in the form of:
a. gas
b. liquid
c. solid
d. semi-solid sludges
7. Industrial Solid Waste - materials resulting from industrial
and manufacturing processes.
8. Recycables.
a. office paper
b. newspaper
c. plastics
d. corrugated containers
e. batteries
f. aluminum cans - tin cans
17
A.
III. RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
i
!
!
i
Current systei'
1. NonrecyJlable waste.
a. Htuler - Junker Sanitation, Inc.
b. Urrlimi ted volume, including large goods ( furni ture,
a~pliance, etc). tires, yard/wood waste (bagged
sfparately), construction debris from small remodeling
projects, and other household waste.
c. W~ekly, non-curbside pickup.
d. rhcludes two (2) City Cleanup Days.
e. cbst to residents -
i ~ Regular units - $17 + $1. 11 tax ::: $18. 11 per month.
i~) Senior Citizens - $13.60 + .88 tax ::: $14.48 per
I month
I
2.
i
Recyclaple Waste.
a. qurbside pickup.
il) Hauler - Junker Recycling, Inc.
ili) Material currently recycled -
1. Newspaper
2. Office paper
3. Computer paper
4. Corrugated
5. Metal cans
Weekly, curbside pickup
Cost -
1. no charge to residents
2. City cost::: $1.45 per month per household
off center.
Operated by Goodwill Industries
Material accepted -
1. paper products including magazines
2. plastics including milk cartons
3 . metal cans
iii) Cost to City::: City subsidizes Goodwill Industries
$1 per household per year from grant funds received
from County (100% of City subsidy is covered by
grant funds).
j
I
I
I
I
~ii)
~v)
I
I
!
b.
Drop
. )
1i)
B. System Propoted by Junker Sanitation, Inc.
I
1.
Volume I base curbside cart system.
a. ~O - 60 - 90 gallon carts @ $13, $17.75 and $19.75
~espectively (excluding tax of 6.5%).
b. ~harge of $2 per 30 gallon container for extra household
~aste (including construction material) using a sticker
Isystem ($1. 65 to hauler & .35 to City)
I
c. ~arge goods and yard waste included in cost but must be
18
e
e
e
e
placed at curb.
C.
System proposed by Solid Waste Advisory Committee, November, 1990.
1. Establish a base fee which would include 30 gallons of
household waste and charge extra for each additional 30 gallons
of household waste.
2. All other waste collection (i.e., large goods, white goods,
cleanup days, metals, brush and yard waste) would be included
in the base fee.
3. Sticker system used for extra waste.
4. No other changes to current collection system.
D. Optional Systems.
1.
Option #1 -
a. Establish a three-tierd base fee for 30, 60 and 90
gallons of normal waste. The fee would vary according
to the volume chosen. Residents would select a fee
(volume) appropriate for their household and would be
charged extra for each additional 30 gallons of waste
(in excess of the base volume they selected).
b. All other waste collection (i.e., large goods, white
goods, cleanup days, metal, brush and yard waste) would
be included in the base fee.
c. No other changes to current collection system.
e
NOTE: This system is similar to the proposal submitted by
Junker Sanitation, Inc., except bags would be used instead of
carts.
2. Option #2 -
a. Establish a base fee for normal household waste similar
to Option 1.
b. Establish a fee schedule for all other types of waste
except brush and yard waste. Brush and yard waste would
still be included in the base fees.
c. Discontinue cleanup days.
i) Brush would continue to be allowed to be brought
to old landfill on Myrtle Street.
d. No other changes to current collection system.
3. Option #3 -
a. Establish a base fee for normal household waste similar
to either Solid Waste Advisory Committee or Option #1
above.
b. Establish a fee schedule for all other types of waste
c. Discontinue cleanup days.
d. No other changes to current collection system.
e
4.
Option #4 -
a. Establish fees for unlimited collection of normal
19
b.
household waste.
Establish a fee schedule for all other types of waste.
Di~continue cleanup days.
Nol other changes to current collection system.
c.
d.
5. Option #~ -
a. Le~ve system as is except establish mandatory recycling.
I
6. Option #~ -
a. Le~ve system as is except provide rebates to households
thrt recycle and penalties (additional fees) to
households that do not recycle.
b. Inlcrease education/promotion acti vi ties to increase
p~lic awareness and recycling participation. Note:
T~is should be done regardless of what option is chosen) .
20
e
e
e
e
e
e
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
On October 11, 1988, the Stillwater City Council established the following goals
and objectives:
1. Reduce the overall volume of solid waste;
2. Remove certain types of waste from the waste streams;
3. Maintain a collection system that is efficient, complete and
cost effective; and
4. Develop a pricing system that establishes a fair and equitable
fee relationship to waste quantities by and disposal of for
the generator.
The City Council then directed the Solid Waste Advisory Committee to:
1. Study all areas associated with the collection and disposal
of community waste; and
2. Develop a plan of action to achieve the goals set forth above.
In order to achieve the goals established by the City Council, the Solid Waste
Advisory Committee recommends the following:
GOAL NO 1: TO REDUCE THE OVERALL VOLUME OF SOLID WASTE
PLAN:
1. Develop a public education system to provide basic information
to the citizens and to help change buying habits and attitudes
and waste disposal habits and attitudes.
a. Newsletters, articles, advertisements, flyers and letters
to th'e editor
b. Public meetings
c. Local cable TV
d. Door hangers
e. Street signs
f. Poster or poster contests.
2. Establish a volume base fee system beginning July 1, 1992 to
encourage citizens to take steps to reduce overall volume.
a. See Section III, Residential Collection and Disposal
System, and also Goal #4.
3. Monitor waste collection and disposal industries for
technological advances.
4. Establish five (5) year solid waste reduction goals beginning
in calendar year 1992.
a.
1992 = 7%
21
b. 1993 = 7% e
*c. 1994 %
*d. 1995 %
*e. 19~6 = %
*To be dilscussed with Council.
GOAL NO 2: TO REMO. CERTAIN TYPES OF WASTE FROM THE WASTE STREAM
I
PLAN:
1. Establis~ and maintain a comprehensive curbside collection
recycli~g program by July 1, 1992 to include:
a. paiPer products including magazines, telephone books,
g~ossy paper and corrugated paper.
b. p~astics
c. G~ass
d. M~tals
I
2. Monitor Irecycling industry for technological advances.
3. Monitor Imarkets for recyclable material.
4.
Establish or participate in household hazardous waste
collect~on programs/locations to collect and dispose of the
following waste items in an environmentally safe manner:
I
a. P~sticides
b. Solvents
c. R~fuse oil (automotive type)
d. P~int and paint supplies
e. C4eaning agents
f. Bcj.tteries
g. O~her hazardous waste
e
5. Develop la public education system (similar to Goal #1).
6. Providelfor the recycling of other waste material as markets
become available.
7. Researc~ and promote other avenues available to residents for
recycli4g materials not currently included in the City's
curbsid~ program.
8. Researc~ and promote methods of removing compostables at waste
streamsl(i.e., back yard composting, county composting site,
etc. ). .
GOAL NO 3: MAINTA.TIiI A COLLECTION SYSTEM THAT IS EFFICIENT, COMPLETE
AND CO,T EFFECTIVE
e
22
e
PLAN:
e
1. Maintain an organized collection system to collect all mixed
municipal solid waste including:
a. Recyclable material
b. Compostables (yard waste, etc.)
c. Construction debris
d. Large goods
e. Household hazardous waste
f. All other waste
2. Contract with or franchise one hauler to provide:
a. Weekly curbside pickup.
b. Same day pickup service of all solid waste.
c. Timely written schedules and schedule changes including
published changes in the official city newspaper.
d. Reasonable exception as to manner of pickup for
handicapped or aged residents.
e. Data pertaining to waste tonnage including:
i) Number of households serviced including
participation rates for recycling.
ii} Volume/weight by waste type.
iii} Destination of waste type.
iv} Data reports to be provided by hauler on a
quarterly basis.
Compliance with all local, county, state and federal
laws.
Cooperation in the development and distribution of
educational material.
Cost effective collection equipment (well maintained and
clean) .
A system for cleanup of spilled waste.
Cost justification for rates and rate increases.
Adequate insurance and performance bond.
Reasonable resolution of disputes pertaining to household
collection.
Reasonable term of contract.
Ability to adjust to change in conditions, regulations,
technology, etc., pertaining to collection and disposal
of waste.
o. Cooperation in establishing an efficient and cost
effective billing system.
p. Cooperation with City Council and the Solid Waste
Advisory Cormnittee in the development/review of
ordinances, contracts, rate adjustments and a wide-
variety of matters related to solid waste collection and
disposal.
23
GOAL NO 4: DEVELOP A PRICING SYSTEM THAT ESTABLISHES A FAIR AND EQUITABLE .A
FEE RELATIONSHIP TO WASTE QUANTITIES GENERATED BY AND DISPOSAL OF FOR THE ..
USER. i
I
PLAN:
1. Establis!h a volume base fee system.
I
a. Raite should vary according to the amount of waste
g~nerated by and collected for a resident.
i)! Increments of 30 gallon/pound should be used
b. R~te should include unlimited amounts of "extra" waste
(~. e., large goods, tires, yard waste, batteries, etc.).
c. Include recycling cost and other costs (i. e. ,
educational) in regular monthly fees.
!
24
e
e
e
APPENDIX "An
SUMMARY OF 1991 LEGISLATION
PERTAINING TO COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
1. Notice of Intent to Organize Collection
(A) At least 180 days before implementing an ordinance, franchise,
license, contract or other means of organizing collection, a city
or town, by resolution of the governing body, shall announce its
intent to organize collection and invite the participation of
interested persons, including persons licensed to operate solid
waste collection services, in planning and establishing the organized
collection system.
e
(B)
The resolution of intent must be adopted after a public hearing.
The hearing must be held at least two weeks after public notice and
mailed notice to persons known by the city or town to be operating
solid waste collection services in the city or town. The failure
to give mailed notice to persons or defect in the notice does not
invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide effort to comply
with notice requirements has been made.
2.
Plan Development
(A) During a 90-day period following the resolution of intent, the city
or town shall develop or supervise the development of plans or
proposals for organized collection. During the 90-day planning
period, the city or town shall invite and employ the assistance of
e
25
person licensed as of the date of the resolution of intent to operate
solid waste cqllection services in the city or town. Failure of a
I
licensed coll~ctor to participate in the 90-day planning period,
e
when the city or town has made a bona fide effort to provide the
person the oJPportunity to participate does not invalidate the
planning proc~ss.
I
(B) For 90 days af1er the date ending the planning period required above,
I
the city or itown shall discuss possible organized collection
I
arrangements ~ith all licensed collectors operating in the city or
I
town who have lexpressed interest. If the city or town is unable to
agree on an organized collection arrangement with a majority of the
licensed coll~ctors who have expressed interest or upon expiration
I ..
of the 90 days, the city or town may propose implementation of an ~
alternate met40d or organizing collection.
(C) The city or town shall make specific findings that: (1) describe
in detail t~e procedures it used to plan and to attempt
implementatioq of organized collection through an arrangement with
I
I
collectors whO expressed interest (2) evaluate the proposed
I
I
organized collLection method in light of at least the following
standards: aqhieving the stated organized collection goals of the
city or town~ minimizing displacement of collectors; ensuring
participation I of all interested parties in the decision-making
I
process; and 1aximizing efficiency in solid waste collection.
e
26
e
(D)
Upon request, the city or town shall provide mailed notice of all
proceedings on the organization of collection in the city or town.
(E) If the city or town and all the persons licensed to operate mixed
municipal solid waste collection services and doing business in the
city or town agree on the plan, the city or town may implement the
plan without regard to the lBO-day period specified above.
3. Mandatory Collection
(A) Except as provided above, each city or town with a population of
5,000 or more shall ensure that every residential household and
business in the city or town has solid waste collection service.
To comply with this section, a city or town may organize collection,
provide collection or require by ordinance that every household and
e
business has a contract for collection services.
An ordinance
adopted under this section must provide for enforcement.
(B) A city or town with a population of 5,000 or more may exempt a
residential household or business in the city or town from the
requirement to have solid waste collection service if the household
or business ensures that an environmentally sound alternative is
used.
e
(C) To the extent practicable, the costs incurred by a city or town under
this section must be incorporated into the collection system or the
enforcement mechanisms adopted under this section by the city or
town.
27
4.
Record Keeping by Hauler
e
(A) Each person \'fho collects
I
solid waste in a county in which a
designation ordinance is in effect shall maintain records regarding
the volume or weight, type and origin of waste collected. Each day,
i
a record of th~ origin, type and weight of the waste collected that
day and the tdentity of the waste facility at which that days
collected was~e is deposited must be kept on the waste collection
vehicle. If the waste is measured by volume at the waste facility
at which it is'deposited, the record may show the volume rather than
the weight of the waste.
5.
Restrictions on Fee$ for Recyclers
,
i
A licensing atthority shall require that charges for collection of
mixed municipal solid waste collectors from imposing a greater charge
(A)
e
on residents o/ho recycle than on residents who do not recycle.
6. Licensing of Haulerf
(A) By January 1,11993, each county shall ensure that each city or town
within the c01nty requires each mixed municipal solid waste collector
I
that provides curbside collection service in the city or town to
i
obtain a lic4nse under this section or the county shall directly
require and lissue the licenses. No person may collect mixed
I
municipal so~id waste after January 1, 1993, without a license.
(B) By January 1~ 1991, a state agency or local unit of government or
I
I
school distr~ct in the metropolitan area or by January 1, 1993, a
e
28
e
e
e
state agency or local unit of government or school district outside
of the metropolitan area shall:
1. ensure that facilities under its control, from which
mixed municipal solid waste is collected, have containers
for at least three of the following recyclable materials:
paper, glass, plastic and metal; and
2. transfer all recyclable materials collected to a
recycler.
7.
Recycling Opportunities
(A) An opportunity to recycle must include:
1. a local recycling center in the county and sites for collecting
recyclable materials that are located in areas convenient for
persons to use them;
2. curbside pickup, centralized drop-off or a local recycling
center for at least four broad types of recyclable materials
in the cities with a population of 5,000 or more persons; and
3. monthly pickup of at least four broad types of recyclable
materials in cities of the first and second class and cities
with 5,000 or more population in the metropolitan area.
8. Jurisdiction of County Plan
(A) After a county plan has been submitted for approval from the county
director, a political subdivision within the county may not enter
into a binding agreement governing a solid waste management activity
that is inconsistent with the county plan without the consent of the
29
county.
e
(B) After a county plan has been approved by the county director, the
plan governs aill solid waste management in the county and a political
i
subdivision within the county may not develop or implement a solid
waste managem$nt activity, other than an activity to reduce waste
I
I
generation orireuse waste materials, that is inconsistent with the
I
county plan that the county is actively implementing without the
consent of the county.
9. supplementarylReCycling Goals
(A) By July 31, 1996, each county will have a goal to recycle the
following amounts:
1.
for a county outside of the metropolitan area, 30 percent
e
by weight of total solid waste generation; and
2. f?r a metropolitan county, 45 percent by weight of total
!
s~lid waste generation.
(B) Each county will develop and implement or require political
subdivisions within the county to develop and implement
programs, practices or methods designed to meet its recycling
goal.
(C)
Wheneve~ practicable a public entity shall:
I
I
1. prrchase uncoated office paper and printing paper (does
npt apply to coated paper that is made with at least 50
e
30
e
percent fiber that has been recycled after use by a
consumer) ;
2. purchase recycled content paper with at least ten percent
postconsumer material by weight;
3. purchase paper which has not been dyed with colors,
excluding pastel colors;
4. purchase recycled content paper that is manufactured
using little or no chlorine bleach or chlorine
derivatives;
5. use not more than two colored inks, standard or
processed, except in formats where they are necessary
to convey meaning;
e
e
6.
use recyclable binding materials or staples and bind
documents by methods that do not use glue;
use soy-based inks; and
produce reports, publications and periodicals that are
readily recyclable within the state resources recovery
program, a public entity shall print documents on both
sides of the paper where commonly accepted publishing
practices allow.
7.
8.
31
~
,l
,/t .
e CITY OF STILLWATER
ICE ARENA DIVISION
(EXCLUDING BEACH AND BALLFIELDS)
JANUARY 1 TO SEPTEMBER 30,. 1991
1991 Y-T-D $ Amount
Budget Actual Remaining
Revenues
Concessions $ 29,000 $ 20,834 $ 8,166
Arena Rental 115,000 94,178 20,822
Arena Admissions 7,000 2,488 4,512
Skating Lesson Fees 1,500 665 835
Merchandise 1,200 1 , 112 88
Cash Shortage 0 (9) (9)
Interest 10,000 4,696 5,304
Total Revenues 163,700 123,964 39,736
Expenses
Personnel Costs
Full-time Salaries 33,660* 32,931 729
Part-time Salaries 25,500 12,415 13,085
Hockey Officials 500 1,138 (638)
e PERA 1,508* 1,645 ( 137)
FICA 5,291* 2,969 2,322
Hospital/Medical Insurance 2,640* 2,080 560
Life Insurance 75* 81 (6)
Total Personnel Costs 69,174 53,259 15,915
Supplies
Office Supplies 200 14 186
General Supplies 6,000 2,595 3,405
Auto Fuel 150 100 50
Concession Supplies 14,000 8,646 5,354
Equipment Repair Supplies 3,000 1,515 1,485
Small Tools 300 63 237
Total Supplies 23,650 12,933 10,717
Contractual Services
Telephone 1,700 1,133 567
Advertising 100 0 100
Seminar/Conference 300 305 (5)
Insurance 9,108 6,831 2,277
Electricity 27,000 20,000 7,000
Natural Gas 8,000 6,837 1,163
Propane 1,500 966 534
e Equipment Repair Charges 5,000 3,432 1,568
Sales Tax 4,000 2, 723 1,277
Restroom Rental 0 89 (89)
Total Contractual Services 56,708 42,316 14,392
."
"
e
e
e
..
.... ., *'"
Miscellaneous
Memberships and Dues
Linen
Skating Instructor
Gate Split
Miscellaneous
Total Miscellaneous
Depreciation
Total Expenses
Net Loss
CITY OF STILLWATER
ICE ARENA DIVISION
(EXCLUDING BEACH AND BALLFIELDS)
JANUARY 1 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
1991
Budget
Y-T-D
Actual
$ Amount
Remaining
200
300
500
2,000
1,000
185
101
150
2,143
837
15
199
350
(143)
163
4,000
3,416
39,572
29,679
9,893
193,104
141,603
51,501
($29,404)
($17 ,639)
* Plus Addtional Personnel Costs $ 15,182
Estimated Net Loss
$ (44,586)
* Additional Personnel Costs not included in 1991 Budget
Gross Wages $ 12,810
PERA 548
FICA 980
Health Insurance 779
Life Insurance 65
Total $ 15,182
584
e
e
e
.. ~
,.
CITY OF STILLWATER
ICE ARENA DIVISION
(EXCLUDING BEACH AND BALLFIELDS)
1992 PROPOSED BUIXiET
Revenues
Concessions
Arena Rental
Arena Admissions
Skating Lesson Fees
Merchandise
Cash Overage
Interest
$ 32,000
123,000
7,000
1,500
1,700
o
5,000
Total Revenues
170,200
Expenses
Personnel Costs
Full-time Salaries
Part-time Salaries
Hockey Officials
PERA
FICA
Hospital/Medical Insurance
Life Insurance
55,510
17 ,000
1,300
2,487
5,547
4,260
150
Total Personnel Costs
86,254
Supplies
Off ice Supplies
General Supplies
Auto Fuel
Concession Supplies
Equipment Repair Supplies
Small Tools
200
6,000
150
18,000
4,000
300
Total Supplies
28,650
Contractual Services
Telephone
Advertising
Seminar/Conference
Insurance
Electricity
Natural Gas
Propane
Equipment Repair Charges
Sales Tax
Restroom Rental
1,800
100
500
10,000
30,000
9,000
1,600
6,000
4,000
100
Total Contractual Services
63,100
e
e
e
Miscellaneous
Memberships and Dues
Linen
Skating Instructor
Gate Split
Miscellaneous
Total Miscellaneous
Depreciation
Total Expenses
Net Loss
CITY OF STILLWATER
ICE ARENA DIVISION
(EXCLUDING BEACH AND BALLFIELDS)
1992 PROPOSED BUDGET
250
400
500
3,000
1,000
5,150
39,572
222,726
($52,526)
MAGNUSON & MOBERG
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
e
THE GRAND GARAGE & GALLERY 324 SOUTH MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 438 STILLWATER, MN 55082
David T. Magnuson
J ames I. Moberg
Telephone: (612) 439-9464
Telecopier: (612) 439-5641
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor, City Council, City Coordinator
FROM: David T. Magnuson, City Attorney
DATE: October 22, 1991
SUBJECT: Brick Alley Assessment
There was a recomputation of the square footage of these parcels
and Dick Moore computed them as follows:
Parcel Old Square Old New Square New
Number Footage Assessment Footage Assessment
10692-3000 33,975 $35,533.50 32,261 $32,583.61
'e 10692-3050 &
10692-3100 7,650 $ 8,945.25 7,880 $ 7,958.80
10,692-3220 10,695 $10,801.95 6,460 $ 6,524.60
On Diane's memo to you of October 8, she indicated that with the
deletion of the various services, that the assessment for the
Brick Alley parcel should be $55,280.70~
As you can see, with the combined total with the corrected square
footage, the assessment should be $47,067.01.
DTM/sls
e
MAGNUSON & MOBERG
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
e
THE GRAND GARAGE & GALLERY 324 SOUTH MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 438 STILLWATER, MN 55082
David T. Magnuson
J ames I. Moberg
Telephone: (612) 439-9464
Telecopier: (612) 439-5641
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor, City Council, City Coordinator
FROM: David T. Magnuson, City Attorney
DATE: October 22, 1991
SUBJECT: Dock Cafe Assessment
Dick Moore recomputed the square footage for the Dock Cafe
parcel. He found that, assuming a shoreline that existed on July
25, 1986, there amounted to 20,703 square feet in the parcel.
This means that the assessment for this parcel should have been
$20,910.03. I would recommend that the assessment, therefore, be
reduced from its present rate of $23,346.15 to $20,910.03.
DTM/sls
e
e
e
e
IV
..
MAGNUSON & MOBERG
e
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THE GRAND GARAGE & GALLERY 324 SOUTH MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 438 STILLWATER, MN 55082
David T. Magnuson
J ames I. Moberg
Telephone: (612) 439-9464
Telecopier: (612) 439-5641
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: David T. Magnuson, City Attorney
DATE: October 22, 1991
SUBJECT: Maple Island, Inc. Assessment
I have great respect for Mr. Halloran as an attorney and also
sympathy for his client, Maple Island, however, I disagree with
his interpretation of the rule adopted in Village of Edina vs.
Joseph, 264 Minn. 84, 96, 119 N.W. 2d 809, 817 (1962).
The rule adopted by the Minnesota Supreme Court in that case did
not hold that the land should be considered for an assessment
without regard to the value of the improvements on the property.
In that case, the property owners claime~ that the property was
not benefitted because it was presently used as residential
property. The city argued that the installation of grading,
paving, curbing and other improvements on an adjoining street
would enable the property to be developed as commercial property,
and therefore, enhanced the value.
The Court held for the city and stated that, "The doctrine that
the present use is not controlling in determining benefits in a
special assessment levy has often been expressed by this Court
beginning with our early decisions and repeated (in later
decisions)," and that the city was not limited by the present use
of the property in deciding whether or not it was benefitted.
I also disagree with Mr. Halloran's understanding of the holding
in Anderson vs. City of Bemidji, 295 N.W. 2d 555, 560 (Minn.
1980) .
In that case, Anderson owned lots that were unusually shaped and
he argued that this should lower his assessment.
The city argued that since the property could be subdivided to
front on a different street, it had greater potential for
development in an altered state.
e
e
e
,
,4,..s
The Court held that the relative benefits found and proven are
calculated on the market value of the land before and after
improvement and that the market value may be calculated on the
highest and best use of the land. They specifically said,
"Present use, although a consideration, is not dispositive."
In conclusion neither of these cases hold that only the land
should be considered when determining an increase in market
value. On the contrary,. both cases allow greater discretion for
the city to determine the potential future and highest best use
of a property rather than being limited to the particular
circumstances of the present.
Respectfully submitted.
e
e
MAGNUSON & MOBERG
e
ATI'ORNEYS AT LAW
TilE GRAND GARAGE & GALLERY 324 SOUTH MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 438 STILLWATER, MN 55082
David T. Magnuson
James I. Moberg
Telephone: (612) 439-9464
Telecopier: (612) 439-5641
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: David T. Magnuson
DATE: October 22, 1991
SUBJECT: Assessment Appeal Citizens Bank of Montgomery
(a/k/a Parkhurst Property)
I received a call from Joe Nauman from the firm of Winthrop and
Weinstine who appeared for the Citizens Bank of Montgomery at
their hearing on the 8th of October.
He stated that the Bank has changed their position and that they
realized they were asking the City to do something they could not
do by arguing that the assessment should be zero.
He told me that they felt the highest value the property could
bring at a sale would be $450,000.00 and that since most property
in the downtown area was being assessed somewhere in the nature
of 7% that they would agree to a 7% appraisal based upon the
value of $450,000.00. This amounts to an assessment that they
would agree to of $31,500.00. This is substantially lower than
Kirchner's assessment that found that a'$61 ,000.00 increase would
be appropriate.
DTM/sls
SUMMARY 10/08/91
e
ASSESSMENT APPRAISED REDUCTION
INCREASE
IN VALUE
ABS Co. -52,339.50
Staples Mill 89,839.50 37,500
Brick Alley, et al
and Commander Elevator 5z,643-;ee 67,000 -0-
Revised 10/22 47,067.01 (-4,078)
Dock Cafe
~37346..:t-5 28,000 -0-
Revised 10/22 20,910.03
Maple Island Prison 351,679.19 51,000 300,679.19
Plant 41,491.81 45,000 -0-
Parkhurst -32,057.75
Citizens State Bank 93,057.75 61,000
. Stillwater Yacht Club \
286,411.00 204,000 -82,411.00
e
CHANGES FOR 10/22/91 MEETING
ABS Co.
Brick Alley, et al
Dock Cafe
Maple Island
Citizens Bank of
Montgomery
Stillwater Yacht
Club
- No offer made, no appraisal
- Offer to settle
- Offer to Settle
- Offer to Settle
- Offer to Settle
received.
$ 6,000
$18,000
$61 ,000
$31 ,500
$30,000
Total
- Offer to Settle
Estimated costs of Defense in District Court per property owner:
- Appraiser--Deposition and Trial
- Engineer--Deposition, Preparation
of Exhibits and Trial
- Attorney Fees
$1,250.00
1,500.00
TOTAL
3,200.00
$5,950.00
This is an average amount. Maple Island and the Yacht Club would
probably require more time and costs could run as high as 8-10
thousand.
e
10/17/91
TO: StHl'w'ater City Council
e RE: Assessments on Ne'w' StHl'w'ater Project, Ltd. (Brick Alley)
The area for this property is approximately 45,195 sJ., not 52,320 sJ. as indicated on the
assessment roll dated 3/26/91 and used by R.W. Ki rchner &. Associates in establ1shi ng the land
val ue in an appraisal of the Brick Alley dated April 22, 1991.
Th13 error affects the basic assessment in excess of $7,000. It a150 affects the esti mated land
value (see Kirchner's report page 19) by $39,187 'w'hich in turn affects his valuation after
completion of proposed improvements.
In Ki rchner's "Val uation after Completion of Proposed Improvements" (page 35) , five
improvements are listed to support his opi nion that the property has increased in val ue 7.5%:
1) I mprovement number one is totall y incorrect. No storm drai n is
bei ng installed. A storm sewer and storm drai ns from the buildi fig
'Were installed in the mid- 1980's.
2) Number t'w'o is correct.
3) Number three is only partlally correct. No power Hnes are being
buried wit hi n the immediate vici nity of the Brick Alley.
4) Number four is incorrect. A sanitary se'w'er connection to the
buildi ng on Mai n Street 'w'as omitted at the request of S.E.H.
5) Number five is onl y partiall y correct. One 'vIater service and one
sanitary sewer stub are installed by no storm se'vler connection 'vias
made.
e It appears that less than half of the listed improvements are actuall y bei ng done and those that
are, are of minor importance. (See appraisal report page 36: "Becau3e the 3e'Wer i3 currently
functioni ng and the street is in serviceable condition, it is difficult to visualize a major impact
on the property resultl ng from the proposed improvements. ,,) The conel usion that the property
benefits 7.5% must be based on the Hst of improvements for some other property.
The benefits Hsted in the report more accuratel y deseri be the improvements for property north
of Nelson and east of Mai n. We made a list of eight properties in that area that 'vie 'Were able to
identify easily (copy enclosed). We tabulated the assessor's estimated values and the city's
assessments for these properties. The city's assessment roll indicates that these properties
benefit from a loW' of 1.4% to a high of 4.6%. They average 2.78%, less than half the
percentage used by Mr. Ki rchner for the Brick Alley which, not i ncide ntall y, receives
considerably f~W'er benefits.
In concl usion, the apprilli:sal report i:s :sufficientl y fla\lfed to be of 11 miled val ue. It al:so appear:s
that Mr. Ki rchner's vie'w's on benefits to property have little relationshi p to the city.s
assessment roll.
We retai ned McKi nzie Metro Appraisals to prepare a "Before and After" appraisal report. A
copy of the resul ti ng report 13 enclosed. Althugh 'We disagree 'vIith some of the concl usions in the
t1cKi nzie report, its data is accurate, it is considerabl y more detailed in determi ni ng a before
and after val ue and it is acceptable to us.
-
par-eel :# - oyner-
land sf bldg. total value assessment
~ assd.
value
e
114- 128- 30- 20:
10692 -
2400: Brine's 24,000 182,000 206,000 2,920.92 1.4%
2350: Outfitters 28,800 157,800 186,600 3 J636.00 1.9%
Slachta
2500: Gaalaas JeYlelery 20,000 77,000 98,000 3,030.00 3%
Gfrerer
2700: t11;GarrlJ 34,400 69,700 104,100 4,609.22 4.6%
2750: Sf monet"s 84,500 203,400 287,900 10,786.80 3.7%
2800: Trump.s 58,600 470,000 528,600 7,393.20 1.4%
SCBC Partnershi p
2850: Si monet"s 47,000 87,400 134,400 5,938.80 4.4%
Warehouse
2300: Wi nOM Knits 23,000 125,800 148,aoO 2J933.04 1.9%
1 st StHl\y'ster e
. avenge: 2.78S
e
10/17/91
I e TO: Stillwater City Council
RE: Assessments on the Dock Cafe
The area for this property is approximately 21,736 s.f., not 23,115 s.f. as
indicated on the assessment roll dated 3/26/91 and used by R.W.'Kirchner
and Associates in establishing the land value in an appraisal of the Dock
Cafe dated July 18, 1991. This error affects the basic assessment by
approximately $1 AOO. It i11so affects the estimated land Villue (see
Kirchner's report, page 17) by $12AOO, which in turn i1ffects his valuation
after completion of proposed improvements.
Absolutely no improvements ore being mode within the
immediate vicinity of the Dock Cafe. The only necessary
improvement was the installation of a new wilter main in t 987 from
Wilter S1. east on Nelson. It services the Dock Cafe, the Andiamo and
Lowell Park. This work, which cost between $30,000 & 35,000, was pilid
for entirely by the Dock Cafe.
e
The Kircher report accurately describes the indirect benefits received by
the Dock i1S well as by all other properties in the downtown. He has
determined that these indirect benefits will increase the value of the Dock
Cafe by 4%. This means that essentially all proper~ies in the downtown
'y'y'ould increase at a minimum of 4% in value and those receiving direct
benefits would increase some additional percentage depending upon the
extent of those direct benefits.
Enclosed is 0 list of eight properties on Moin Street thot receive 0 greot
number of direct benefits in addition to the indirect benefits received by
the Dock Cafe. Their assessments range from 1.4% to 4.6% and average
2.78% overall, an average considerably below what the Kirchner report
would assign to a property with no direct benefits. It would seem that
properties like the Dock Cafe should PilY a smaller percentilge, certainly
not more than properties receiving many more beneftts.
""Ie have retained McKinzie 11etro Appraisals to prepare a "Before" and
"After" appraisal report that is enclosed. Although we disagree with some
of the conclusions in the t'lcKinzie report, its data is accurate, tt is
considerably more detailed in determining a "Before" and "After" value and
e is acceptable to us.
parcel · - ovner land sf bldg. total val ue assessment S asset
value e
114- 128- 30- 20:
10692 -
2400: Brine's 24,000 182,000 206,000 2,920.92 1.4%
2350: Outfltters 28,800 157,800 186,600 3,636.00 1.9%
Slachta
2500: G881s8S Jewelery 20,000 77,000 98,000 3,030.00 3%
Gfrerer
2700: McGarry 34,400 69,700 104,100 4,809.22 4.6%
2750: Si monet's 84.500 203.400 287.900 10.786.80 3.7%
2800: Trump's 58,600 470,000 528,600 7,393.20 1.4%
SCBC Partnershi p
2850: S1 monet's 47,000 87,400 134,400 5,938.80 4.4%
Warehouse
2300: Winona Knits 23,000 125,800 148,800 2,933.04 1.9%
1 st Stillwater
e
avenge: 2.78S
e
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
& BUTLER
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
2800 Minnesota World Trade Center
30 East Seventh Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-4999
Telephone (612) 291-9333
FAX (612) 291-9313
3750 IDS Tower
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2252
Telephone (612) 340-5555
FAX (612) 340-5584
Magruder Building
1625 M Street, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20036-3203
Telephone (202) 293-0555
FAX (202) 659-0466
.
Attorneys at Law
Writer's direct dial number:
291-9290
Reply to Saint Paul office
October 18, 1991
Mr. David T. Magnuson
The Grand Garage & Gallery
324 South Main Street
P.O. Box 438
Stillwater, MN 55082
Re: Proposed Maple Island, Inc. Assessment
Dear Mr. Magnuson:
-
I appeared on behalf of Maple Island at the October 8 Special
Council meeting, at which a decision with respect to the objection
of Maple Island to the proposed assessment was deferred to
October 22. Maple Island was invited to submit any further
information which it believed would be helpful to the Council in
reSOlving its objection of Maple Island. I am writing this letter
pursuant to that invitation.
ASSESSMENT MEASURED BY LAND VALUE ONLY
Mr. Kirchner concluded, on page 30 of his report, that there is a
7 1/2 percent increase in property value as a result of the
improvements and he then multiplied the 7 1/2 percent against both
the land and building value. We contended at the October 8 meeting
that Mr. Kirchner erred in applying the 7 1/2 against the building
value. The percentage should be applied against the land value
only.
The Washington County assessor, in assessing property for real
estate tax purposes, assesses land and building separately. For
example, he valued the Maple Island land at the plant site at
$217,900 and the building at $302,200.00. Similarly, with respect
to the proposed assessment, only land was considered. The amount
of the assessment was $1.01 per square foot, regardless of how the
land was used. The value of a building on the land, or whether
there was any building on the land, was not taken into
consideration.
e
Mr. Kirchner concluded, on page 30 of his report, that there is a
7 1/2 percent increase in property value as a result of the
improvements, but he applied the 7 1/2 percent measure against both
the land and the building. Only the land was taken into
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
& BUTLER
.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
Mr. David T. Magnuson
October 18, 1991
Page 2
consideration in determining the amount of the assessment and we
believe that only the land should be taken into consideration in
determining the amount of the benefit from the assessment. That is
the rule adopted in Village of Edina v. Joseph, 264 Minn. 84, 96,
119 N.W. 2d 809, 817 (1962), in which the Court quoted with
approval the following statement from Qvale v. city of Willmar, 223
Minn. 51, 57, 25 N.W.2d 699, 703 (1946):
In determining whether an improvement does or does not benefit
the property within the assessment district, the land should
be considered simply in its general relations and apart from
its particular use at the time; and an assessment, otherwise
legal, is not void because the lot is not benefitted by the
improvement, owing to its present particular use. The benef it
is presumed to inure not to the present use, but to the
property itself. (Emphasis added)
e
The rule that the amount of the benefit is measured against the
land only was affirmed in Anderson v. City of Bemidji, 295 N.W.2d
555, 560 (Minn. 1980):
It is well established, however, that the relative benefits
from an improvement are calculated on the market value of the
land before and after the improvement and that the market
value may be calculated on the highest and best use of the
land. Even present use, while a consideration, is not
dispositive. (Emphasis added)
It is clear from the above cases that the seven and one-half
percent improvement measure should have been applied against the
land only.
e
Moreover, we believe the rule that only land should be considered
is the more rational rule. Mr. Kirchner states (page 12 of his
appraisal) that the highest and best use for the prison property is
use as a condo/resort complex and (page 11 of his appraisal) that
the highest and best use for the plant site is for a retail/office
complex. However, he has valued both of the buildings according to
their present use, (i.e. page 20 of his report in which he uses
manufacturing structure comparables for the prison site and, page
24 of his report, at which commercial building comparables are used
for the plant site). It does not make sense to look to the present
use of a building as a measure of increase in value if the building
is to be torn down or converted to a different use.
e
e
e
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
& BUTLER
PROFESSIONAL ASSOClA nON
Mr. David T. Magnuson
October 18, 1991
Page 3
FUTURE UTILIZATION OF BUILDINGS
At the October 8 hearing, we took the position that it would not be
economically feasible to utilize either the buildings at the prison
site or the building at the plant site if each of the buildings is
to be converted to its highest and best use. I attach a statement
from Thomas J. Delaney, a real estate appraiser retained by Maple
Island, in which he states in his opinion it would not be
economically feasible to retain any of the existing buildings if
the properties are to be converted to their highest and best uses
as stated by Mr. Kirchner in his appraisal.
HISTORIC USE OF PRISON PROPERTY
The two buildings on the prison site property are 140 years and
100 years old. The larger building is held together to a
substantial degree by two steel bands around a part of the outside
of the structure. We took the position at the October 8 meeting
that it simply is unrealistic to believe these buildings, in their
very old and deteriorated condition, could be a part of any future
development. At the meeting, it was suggested that the buildings
had value because they could be, or would have to be, retained and
rehabilitated as historic structures. It seems to us two questions
are presented here: (1) whether the buildings, because of their
historical character, can be changed or demolished; and (2) if they
can be, whether the buildings would have greater value to a
potential investor by preserving them rather than destroying them.
with respect to the first question, we are not of aware of any
restriction that would prevent Maple Island, or a purchaser from
Maple Island, from destroying the buildings and converting the site
to a different use. It is true that the buildings are registered
with the National Register of Historic Places, but that does not in
any way restrict Maple Island's use of the property. We attach a
pamphlet issued by the National Register of Historic Places which,
states (the pamphlet does not have page numbers but we have
highlighted in yellow the below language):
"Listing in the National Register, however, does not interfere
with a private property owner's right to alter, manage or
dispose of property."
with respect to the second question above, Mr. Kirchner has stated,
(page 12 of his report) that the highest and best use for this
property is as a condo/resort development. While it is difficult
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
. ~FE~O~~~
Mr. David T. Magnuson
October 18, 1991
Page 4
e
to understand how the property could be preserved as historic
property and also used for such a purpose, it seems to us that if
it now is to be argued that the property should somehow be
preserved as historic property, that factor should have been taken
into consideration by Mr. Kirchner in making his appraisal. He has
not done so. Further, it seems to us that arguing the property has
historic value does not help the city. If the property must be
preserved in some fashion as historic property, this is a
limi tat ion that we assume a future investor or developer would
consider as a negative factor. Maple Island has checked whether
there is any limitation on its use of the prison property and it
has found none. Should there be such a limitation, that would be
a negative factor with respect to property value. In short, Maple
Island believes any argument with respect to historic value favors
it and not the city.
At the hearing on October 8, Maple Island offered to settle this
matter by using a 12% or 13% increase against a land value of
$166,500 for the plant site (Mr. Kirchner used a land value of
$166,500 in his appraisal report) and against a land value of
$325,000 for the prison site (we explained in our September 27
letter how the value of $325,000 was determined). Using a 12%
measure, the resulting assessment amount would be $58,980
(12% x 491,500) and using a 13% measure the assessment amount would
be $63,895 (13% x 491,500). Maple Island offers a settlement
amount of $61,000, which is about one half of the difference
between $58,980 and $63,895. Maple Island is not making this
settlement offer as an opening bargaining amount. Maple Island has
carefully reviewed this matter and it believes an assessment of
$61,000 is fair both to it and to the City of stillwater.
Sincerely,
~~
Jerome Halloran
T1H17736.11r
Encs.
e
e
THOMAS J. DELANEY, REALTOR
W-1293 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
(612) 224-8446
October 17, 1991
Mr. Jerome Halloran
Doherty Rumble & Butler
2800 Minnesota World Trade Center
30 East Seventh Street
st. Paul, Minnesota 55101-4999
Re: Maple Island, Inc.
Stillwater Properties
Dear Mr. Halloran:
The highest and best use of the Maple Island Stillwater
properties, in my opinion, is as follows:
e
219 North Main Street
The improvements consist of an old multi story industrial
building use by Maple island for its corporate offices and
the processing plant. The building is a special-use
property and not adaptable to another use because of the
peculiar design and nature of the improvements. It is
inefficient and antiquated with very little utility, even
for its present use, and has a floor plan that would not
adapt to another use. The cost to rehabilitate and update
the building for another use, in my opinion, would not be
financially feasable or practical. A purchaser of the
property would most likely find it more cost efficient to
demolish the improvements and build new.
Prision Site
Improvements are two of the old Minnesota Territorial prision
buildings that were constructed in the 1850's. Both buildings
are used for limited cold storage purposes. To attempt to
rehabilitate either of these buildings for another use would,
in my opinion, be unfeasable. Both are old and deteriorated
and functionally obsolete: The property is zoned General
Heavy Industry and would probably best be used for industrial
or business purposes.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Yours very
e
~J,
Thomas ~. Delaney
.
e
e
e
~
THOMAS J. DELANEY, REALTOR
W-1293 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
(612) 224-8446
REAL ESTATE EXPERIENCE
Self employed Realtor and appraiser since 1953 with
office in the First National Bank Building, St. Paul,
Minnesota.
President of the St. Paul Area Board of Realtors - 1970
President of the Minnesota Association of Realtors - 1975
Director of the. National Association of Realtors - 1975
Chairman of the Examining Board For Truth-In-Housing
Evaluators, City of St. Paul since 1979.
APPRAISAL CLIENTS
City of Falcon Heights, Minnesota
City of Little Canada, Minnesota
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
City of Oakdale, Minnesota
City of St. Paul, Minnesota
City of St. Paul Park, Minnesota
City of Shoreview, Minnesota
City of New Brighton, Minnesota
Federal Housing Administration
Veterans Administration
Housing and Redevelopment Authority bf St. Paul
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Dakota County
Port Authority of the City of St. Paul
Metropolitan Airports Commission
IBM Corporation
Land O'Lakes Corporation
The Upjohn Corporation
Brockway Glass Corporation
Whirlpool Corporation
Relocation Realty Corporation
Merrill Lynch Relocation Management, Inc.
Prudehtial Relocation Management, Inc.
Relocation Resources, Inc.
St. Paul Ammonia ProduttlP ,.Inc.
Touche Ross & Co.
First Bank Saint Paul
First Trust Saint Paul
Many attorneys, individuals and other companies.
Appointed by Ramsey County District Court numerous times to
serve as Commissioner in Condemnation and have testified as
expert wi tness in Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin,' Washington and
Ramsey Counties and to the State of Minnesota Tax Court.
Minnesota AppraiserJ;.:i..cense #40003.16
Certified Federal General Real Property ~ppraiser
"
t~CAMPBELL APPRAISAL COMPANY, Inc.
__ 8609 L YNDALE AVENUE SOUTH" MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55420 · 612/888-1236
October 3, 1991
Ms. Mary Lou Johnson, City Clerk
City Of Stillwater, City Hall
216 North Fourth
Stillwater, MN 55082
RE: Stillwater Yacht Club Special Assessments
Improvements #257, Downtown Stillwater
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Our Appraisal firm has been retained by the owners and manager of
the Stillwater Yacht Club and Marina; Parcels #'s 10690-2150 and
9828-0020. In accordance with Minnesota statutes, Section
429.061, our clients have filed a Notice of Objection to the
amount of special assessment.
e
On September 20, 1991 we physically inspected the above-
referenced property and a portion of the improvements in the
construction process of the City of Stillwater's "Downtown Plan".
Based on the documents critiqued in our report, our physical
inspection of the property and Improvements #257, engineering
maps of the Downtown Improvement Plan; and the Special
Assessments according to Stillwater's Local Improvement No. 257,
we are of the opinion that the City of Stillwater, through the
appraisal completed by R. W. Kirchner Associates, has failed to
show any increase in value attributable to the improvements, as
mandated by Minnesota Statute.
In the remaining contents of this report we will provide you with
sufficient information to establish that Improvement #257 does
not increase the value of the subject Property equal to the
amount of the assessment; and that the value difference stated by
Kirchner's Appraisal is unsubstantiated and unjustified, finally,
that the techniques and methodology employed inconsistent with
appraisal industry standards.
e
William Keith Campbell; ======
Vice Pw;;tG~:~
Certified Federal General
Appraiser ID#4001415
1
CAMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INC.
REAL EST ATE APPRAISAL
CONSULTING SERVICE
!TABLE OF CONTENTSI
Cover Letter................................. ~ . . . . . . .1
Scop.e of the Rejport................................ 3
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .4
Section #1 Notice of Hearing.......................5
\
Section #2 Dowdtown Beautification Plan............6
Section # 3 Notlice of Obj ection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
I
Section # 4 Phys!ical Inspection of Property......... 8
I
Section #5 Critiique of Kirchner Appraisal.......... 9-13
Section #6 Final Conclusion.......................14-17
2
"
e
e
e
CAMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INC.
e
REAL EST ATE APPRAISAL
CONSULTING SERVICE
SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
e
The purpose of this assignment is to review the documentation
pertaining to the Special ~ssessments levied by the City of
Stillwater, particularly the Kirchner appraisal on the subject
property, and to ascertain if and how much the improvements
finished by the Assessments increase the market value of the
subject property. Our main purpose is not to perform our own
appraisal and valuation of the before and after scenario of the
subject, however we have made a preliminary analysis at the end
of this report.
Including our physical inspection of the property and some of the
improvements under construction, our information has been
primarily gathered from the following documents:
- Notice of hearing on Proposed Assessment for
Local improvement No. 257 dated April, 1991
- Reduced Engineering plans of the Downtown Beautification
Plan; By SEH Engineers - Architect - Planners,
dated June 1990.
- Notice of Objection to Assessment; by Larkin,
Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, LTD. Attorneys at Law
dated September 16, 1991.
- Real Estate appraisal of Subject by: R. W. Kirchner
dated June 24, 1991
From an Appraisal reviewal standpoint the purpose of the
assignment is not necessarily to establish compliance with any
particular Institutional guidelines or regulations. However
sound methodology and logical inferences to assumptions and value
conclusions will be scrutinized.
This assignment we are primarily concerned with the additional
valuation or benefit attributable to the property due to the
improvements for which the special assessments are proposed.
The scope of this report is also not to estimate the value of the
property or scrutinize the value made by the appraiser,
or for other purposes typically associated with appraisal review
work such as spelling, mathematical, and grammatical errors,
verification of different sales and other market data, or any of
the adjustments leading up to the valuation of the property, but
specifically to analyze the before and after valuations, coupled
with the technique and methodology used establish a monetary
benefit that public improvements attribute to the subject.
The Scope of this report from our perspective is not to make
judgements on the legality of the assessments and the laws
pertaining to this, and finally it is not the purpose of this
assignment to estimate or comment on the total cost of the
e assessments as to being a reasonable amount for the improvements.
3
CAMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INC.
REAL EST ATE APPRAISAL
CONSULTING SERVICE
INTRODUCTION
For technical purpo$es this critique is divided into six
sections; the established order is a fusing of the chronological
order of documents, levents, and their significance.
1. Notic~ of Hearing of Proposed Assessments.
2. Maps 'Pf "DOWNTOWN BEAUTIFICATION PLAN".
3. Attorleys Written Objection to the City of
still~ater.
4. Physi~al inspection of the subject parcels and
improvements under construction in Downtown
stillo/ater.
i
5. criti~e of R.W. Kirchner appraisal.
I
6. Final! Conclusion of Critique and appraisal
4
e
e
e
REAL EST ATE APPRAISAL
CONSULTING SERVICE
CAMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INC.
e
e
e
SECTION #1 NOTICE OF HEARING
The first document to be reviewed is the Notice of Hearing of
Proposed Assessments of Local Improvement No. 257. This is the
document whereby the City Council allotted their special
assessments amount as follows:
The improvements consist of: Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, Curb
and Gutters, street reconstruction, street lighting street scape,
landscaping, beautification, upgrading of power lines, decorative
enhancements, and parking lots.
- Parcel No. 10690-2150 Assessed $155,832.90
- 6.355% of the total assessments
- Parcel No. 2028-0020
Assessed $130,578.10
- 5.325% of the total assessments
- Together the two parcels make up 11.68% of Total
Assessments
Total Assessment is $2,452,058.73
- Council Hearing, 7 P.M., April 4, 1991 Local Improvement
No. 257
- No interest charge if paid within thirty days from
adoption
- Interest rate is 8% per year
The above mentioned documents have been reviewed and analyzed as
follows:
This notice of hearing is straight forward, however it does not
break down the amounts of value for each of the individual
utility assessments which, in our opinion, are an important
factor as to estimating the value change of the subject property.
5
CAMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INCi
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
CONSULTING SERVICE
e
I
I
SECTION #2 DOWNTOWN BEAUTIFICATION PLAN
The next documents ~re the Phase I construction outlines of the
Stillwater "Downtow4 Beautification Plan". With an overhead
layout consisting of five overhead maps, depicting different
types of improvements such as: reconstruction patch and overlay;
sidewalk and curb; ~Iater main construction; storm sewer
construction; sanit ry sewer repair; sanitary sewer
reconstruction; and finally a composite map showing seven of the
different types of tmprovements.
Lastly the final pa~e from the Stillwater "Downtown
Beautification Plan'l is a break down of the assessable versus.
non-assessable, and!total construction costs attributable to
di~ferent aspects o~ the project: street; storm sewer; water
ma1n; sanitary sewe ; etc...
Percent
Item I Amount of total
Total e is $2,366,005 45.96%
Total $2,781,720 54.04%
Tota $5,147,825 100.00%
e
These are factual and not opinionated statements. The cost
estimates were not analyzed as that is not within the scope of
our assignment, no~ could we undertake this as a possibility
since there is no ~antity break-down of each item such as lineal
feet of street, or ~torm sewer. Thus, we could not actually
verify the reasonabieness of these cost estimates.
I
One point of question is that there is no ascertainable basis for
determining what is!non-assessable and what is assessable. From
this cost breakdown!we can not tell if the assessments are
divided proportiona~ly to those whose values increase from the
improvements, (i.e.; since 45.96% of the total costs are
assessed, then onlyi45.96% of the increase to market value should
be levied to each property.)
e
6
CAMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INC.
REAL EST ATE APPRAISAL
CONSULTING SERVICE
e
SECTION #3 NOTICE OF OBJECTION
The next document is the written n also includes the "NOTICE OF
OBJECTION TO ASSESSMENT OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT No. 257, from David
C. Sellergren, of; Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
Attorneys at Law dated September 16, 1991.
This document analyzed the proposed improvements and assessments
to the property from a legal and financial standpoint.
This was a thorough evaluation of the different aspects of the
assessment and its application to the property and establishing
the various legal arguments of why the property receives no
special benefit from these assessments.
Obviously this firm represents owner of the Marina. However this
does not invalidate their points or perception of the situation,
their arguments did not taint our conclusions.
e
e
7,
CAMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INC.
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
CONSULTING SERVICE
It
SECTION #4 PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PREMISES AND IMPROVEMENTS
On September 20, 199:1, we physically inspected the property
consisting of the d~y storage boat building, the office building
for sales which is tihe headquarters for the on-site manager and
staff, the service ~uilding, the recreational area with in-ground
pool and deck area, i small club house with deck area , Popeye IS
Bar and Grill, the ~lip area, the boat loading area, and the
other significant f~atures of the site.
The property was similar as to what was described in the Kirchner
Appraisal. The property was found to be well maintained. The
slips and docking area had a high percentage of occupants, and
the dry storage are$ was about 93% full. Both of these
occupancies are vertfied by Mr. Grund, the on-site manager.
I
The service area wa~ occupied with maintenance personnel working
on boats. As our inspection was before lunch hour, some of the
restaurant employees were arriving, while others already inside
were busy making ready for the noon crowd.
e
e
8
"CAMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INC.
REAL EST ATE APPRAISAL
CONSULTING SERVICE
SECTION #5 CRITIQUE OF KIRCHNER APPRAISAL
INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF SUMMATION
This is the real estate appraisal analysis, of the appraisal
dated June 24, 1991, completed by R.W. Kirchner and Associates
state license No. ID 4000780. The appraisal contains a before
and after valuation of the subject considering the effects of the
City assessed improvements now under construction.
Kirchner's valuation is summarized as follows:
e
After Value ==== $3,344,000
Before value === $3,140,000
Difference ===== $ 204,000 (Attributable to Improvements)
We believe that the appraisal lacks standard techniques and
procedures typically implemented in the appraisal process of
Income Producing Properties, and also fails to prove the increase
in value due to the public improvements in question.
The Kirchner Appraisal does not show a before and after
valuation; rather, it provides a subjective guess as to the
increase in value due to the improvements. The before and after
appraisal should show the specific physical or locational
differences before and after and how each one affects value.
APPRAISAL CRITIQUE
This is a "bare bones" appraisal, with approximately 34 pages
plus a nine page addenda. The analysis of the appraisal is as
follows:
The appraisal is easily readable and has an adequate format; it
covers many of the items readily identifiable with basic
appraisals published today. For this type of unique assignment
the appraisal might very well be all too typical, as it does not
address the uniqueness of the situation.
An obvious deduction is that this appraisal is merely a link in a
chain of a mass appraisal production rather then an assignment
based on the circumstances unique to the subject. For the
assessment to be placed on the subject for reasons other then
specified by state statute is unjustified.
e
9
CAMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INC.
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
CONSULTING SERVICE
It
I
SECTION #5 CRITIQU$ OF KIRCHNER APPRAISAL (Continued)
The body of the report is standard, the highest and best use
conclusions are consistent with its current use.
APPRAISAL PROCEDURE CRITIQUE
The appraisal ooes acknowledge all three approaches to value
but via some inadequate reasoning, The Income Approach to Value
is not used. We wi~l comment on the different approaches to
value as in order as they appear in the Kirchner Appraisal, as
follows: Cost Apprrach; Market Approach; Income Approach, (Not
used), and broaden our analysis of the significance Kirchner's
rejection of the Income Approach.
THE COST APPROACH is a standard type of format using Marshall
Swift valuation cost book which is more or less the industry
standard in real estate appraisal.
Here the appraiser does not identify between before and after the
improvements. This is understandable because there is no
physical difference to the subject within the property boundary
lines before and affer the improvements for project #257 are ~
completed. !
Since there are no physical differences, the alternatives for a
before and after diifference are the two forms of Obsolescence
namely Functional Obsolescence and External Obsolescence.
Functional Obsolescence is a possibility, for not having the city
water connection as that is considered more desirable then just
well water only. A!s to the other public improvements sought to
be assessed, none of which service the property, Functional
Obsolescence does npt apply in theory.
External Obsolescenbe, has to do with economic and locational
changes outside of ~he properties boundary lines. A possibility
can be made for thel fact that the new streets and sidewalks and
utilities on Main Street will enhance the downtown area and its
surrounding propert!ies as a whole. One has to careful when
making this kind of! an estimate because it is can be speculative,
which is against prpper appraisal technique.
It is not within th~n scope of our assignment to estimate the
values attributable! to these forms of Obsolescence, if they
exist, however we d~ make some preliminary value estimations in
the conclusion of this report.
e
10
CAMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INC.
e
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
CONSULTING SERVICE
SECTION #5 CRITIQUE OF KIRCHNER APPRAISAL (Continued)
THE MARKET APPROACH
The adjustment process fails to indicate a specific adjustment or
type of reasoning that would lead one to believe that there was
an actual difference in the subject property before and after the
improvements have been completed.
Adjustments for the two forms of Obsolescence, if found, should
be shown in the adjustment grid.
THE INCOME APPROACH
For some unknown reason the most vital of approaches to value was
eliminated from Kirchner's appraisal.
Kirchner define's "Income Approach" in his opening paragraph on
page 20 as follows:
"The income approach. is a process of capitalizing future income
expectancy into a present indication of value. This is
accomplished by estimating prospective income and expenses and
capitalizing the net operating income."
e His next paragraph is somewhat questionable, which is as follow:
liThe appraiser was unable to obtain reliable information on
operating income and expenses on similar marinas and therefore
lacked the market data necessary to develop a meaning value
estimate by using this approach. Therefore. the income approach
was excluded in developing an appraised value.
It appears apparent that the Kirchner appraisal did not use due
diligence, since rental data on other marinas and storage
properties is obtainable.
I do not know the appraiser's motivation for not using this
approach to value and we will not speculate of this matter, but
the income approach is paramount to the valuation of this
property.
Our position is that the subject is in fact an Income producing
property. The Income Approach to Value is paramount in the
valuation of income producing properties. Income producing
properties are valued on the income produced by the property.
Without a benefit or increase in income, there is no basis for an
Increase in Market Value.
e
11
CAMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INC.I
I
SECTION #5 CRITIQUE OF KIRCHNER APPRAISAL (Continued)
REAL EST ATE APPRAISAL
CONSULTING SERVICE
e
THE INCOME APPROACH (Continued)
To ascertain whether there is support for our position we have
researched and quot~d from several of the main reference and
informational text ~ooks found in most appraisal offices and
classrooms today. I
The following parag~aphs are include excerpts from these texts
which relate to the Isubject analysis:
An INCOME PRODUCING IPROPERTY is defined by The Dictionary of Real
Estate Appraisal Co~yright 1984, as follows: "A type of property
created primarily to prOduce monetary income".
There is not much question, about the fact that the Marina
property, restaurant and other structures were created to produce
a monetary income.
clo edia of Redl Estate A" we
iscussion 0 t e appraisa
find the subheading I "APPROACHES TO VALUE", in which is stated,
"The Income Approach (Capitalization of Net income) is generally the most ~
reliable indicator of value of a marina. Marinas are economic investments
similar to Ski Resorts, Tennis Clubs and Bowling Centers."
It is fundamental t~at income produced by the subject Property is
the nucleus for the Market value; thus, we find it logical to
assume any change in the income would change the value.
i
Chapter 14 of the "Jt.PPRAISAL OF REAL ESTATE 9TH EDITION" states:
"Income- roducin real ~state is t urchased as an investment and
from the investor's oi t of view earnin ower is the critical element
affecting property valu,. One basic investment premise is that the higher the
earnings, the higher th$ value. An investor who purchases income-producing
real estate is essentia+ly trading present dollars for the right to receive
future dollars. The in~ome capitalization approach to value consists of
methods, techniques, an mathematical procedures that an appraiser uses to
analyze a property's ca~acity to generate benefits (i.e., usually the monetary
benefits of income and reversion) and convert these benefits into an
indication of present v~lue".
If the improvementslfor Project #257 cannot be shown to increase
the income of the subject property, then they cannot increase
its' value. The Kirchner appraisal makes no such demonstration.
e
12
REALESTATEAPPR~SAL
CONSUL -rING SERVICE
OF KIRCHNER APPRAISAL (Continued)
THE INCOME APPROACH (Continued)
Kirchner's Appraisal failed to use this ultimate method of
valuation for the Subject and all Income producing properties,
The Income Approach to Value.
The essential element of Kirchner's appraisal should have been to
detect any difference in the Income Stream attributable to the
subjects improvements, both before and after the Improvements
#257 have been completed.
Therefore, we find that his final correlation, which is more or
less a unqualified guess, that the property is increased 6.5%, it
not based on any factual data, with no specification of the
intrinsic changes the property might have due to Improvement
#257.
KIRCHNER'S APPRAISAL CORRELATION AND VALUE CONCLUSION
e
This section merely gives greate:~~eight to the value indicated
by the Market Approach which is ~340,000 as his final value
estimate before improvements #257 are completed.
Kirchner discounts the cost approach due to the lack of similar
land sales (which is appropriate).
Next is the valuation after completion of proposed improvements.
Here the appraiser merely lists the improvement to be made, and
says the benefit is in between 5 and 10% which he guesses at
6.5%, this is totally unsubstantiated.
Then the amount of the difference is merely a subtraction of the
before and after value; which is: $204,000.
e
13
CAMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INC.
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
CONSULTING SERVICE
e
SECTION #6 FINAL CQNCLUSION
CONCLUSION OF CRITIQUE AND APPRAISAL
After considering a~l of the material presented to us in the
Scope of the Appraisal, and after examining the graphic
depictions of the Proposed improvement #257, as well as
physically inspecting a portion of the improvements, our final
conclusion is as follows.
The appraisal is set forth in a mass appraisal standard format,
and arbitrarily impdses an non-market derived percentage for its
calculation of value increase due to Improvements #257.
The general failure of Kirchner's Appraisal falls into three
categories:
i
I
(1) The lack of providing an Income approach to value.
(2) Failure to adjust for the specific adjustments in
the Ap~roaches to value used in appraisal.
e
I
(3) Failure to substantiate and justify the critical
adjustment factor of 6.5%, which is the crux of the
Before 1/ After valuation.
I.
I
I
I
As discussed in the \Income Approach Valuation section of the
Appraisal Critique ~he Subject is in fact an Income Producing
Property; The Incom~ Approach to Value is paramount in the
valuation of Income Producing Properties, Income Producing
Properties are valu ted based on the Income Produced by
themselves, and most importantly with this assignment, that
without a benefit on.1 increase in Income, it is difficult to
justify an Increase in Market Value.
I
From an adjustment ~tandpoint which should be the expertise of an
Appraiser, Adjustmeqts were left out of the Approaches to value
which would be the jlustification for a change in value
attributable to Imp10vements #257.
i
e
14
_CAMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INC.
CONCLUSION OF CRITIQUE AND APPRAISAL (Continued)
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
CONSULTING SERVICE
The 6.5% appears to be an arbitrary guess as opposed to a market
derived figure supported by sound appraisal practices, obtained
through research and analysis of comparable properties, and an
Income and Expense Analysis of the subject to ascertain the
effect if any produced by Improvements #257.
In strait forward concise words, Kirchner's appraisal does not
have any standard appraisal methodology as a foundation for any
value change while considering the before and after valuation
assuming completion of Improvements #257.
And we find no basis on which to conclude that there is any
increase in market value to parcels #10690-2150 and 9828-0020
attributable to Project #257.
e
POSSIBLE VALUE INCREASES
From our perspective there were two possibilities in which the
subject value could be increased, due to Improvements #257;
They are as follows:
External Obsolescence: This would be due to positive effect the
overall improvement to the area. The problem with this
assumption is that it difficult to prove.
Both the slips and restaurant are fully occupied. The dry stack
storage is slightly below full occupancy, but it would be
difficult to prove that this is due to the roads being in poor
condition.
e
The dry boat storage building is only 4 years old when first
purchased by Mr. Grund, in July of 1989. At that time it had 115
occupants and the rent was $60. Then in 1990 the rent went up
$10 and the occupancy increased to 130. In 1991, which were poor
economic times for much of the nation the subject's occupancy
remained at 130, but the rents increased $7 more to $77.
So it appears that although it is not at full occupancy now, it
is doing fairly well. The DNR will allow for 160 occupants in
the building, but since Mr. Grund has elected to put in larger
boats, it will only store 140. Thus, 130 divided by 140 equals a
vacancy rate of about 7%, which is considered quite good in
today's market, compared to other income investment property,
such as retail, office, industrial, which are experiencing much
higher vacancy rates.
To prove a benefit due to External obsolescence, one would have
to show a higher than normal increase in rents, and improved
occupancy over a holding period such as 5 or 10 years. In our
opinion this is speculative, and not standard appraisal practice.
15
CAMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INC.
REAL EST ATE APPRAISAL
CONSULTING SERVICE
e
POSSIBLE VALUE INCREASES (Continued)
Functional Obsolescence:
The other possible form of Functional Obsolescence to the
property is the lack of City water to the site. Improvements
#257 bring the watec mains closer to the subject property.
Therefore the property could be enhanced in two ways. One
possibility is affect the city water will have on the cash flow
to the property. The second is the potential buyers perception
that the property would be enhanced for improved potential city
water connections, the latter is speculative and will not be
negotiated. I
I
From our cursory andlysis, the cash flow on the property would
not at all be benefitted, but in fact decreased, due to the
fact that city water is much more expensive to use than well
water particularity with the restaurant. This would offset any
expense saving to periodically check the well for purity,
electrical and pump maintenance and reserve.
Cost to bring water main closer to subject is the other aspect of
this. We have not ~erified this through our own measurements nor
has the city produc~d any documentation to present to us on
specific distances nhat the mains have been brought closer to the
subj ect . \
I
I
According to Mr. Grund, who is experienced in this type of work
from his ownership ~nd construction of mobile home parks, there
is approximately 30q lineal feet of water main needed for both
buildings. I
I
For an accurate est~'lmate we have used Marshall Valuation Service
Which lists 8" Duct le Iron piping which ranges from $25.95 to
$33.55 per lineal loot, this cost includes trenching, backfill,
and contractor's ov~rhead and profit.
I
e
APPLIED TO SUBJECT
$25.95 X 300 LINE~L FEET
$33.55 x 300 LINE~L FEET =
Av~rage ...
$ 7,785
$10,065
$ 8,925
Plus 2 hydrants
Four valves
sub total
= $~,OOO
$~,OOO
T-O-T-A--j--====--
~ ------
ROUNDED TO
+ $6,000
$14,925
$15,000
e
16
.AMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INC.
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
CONSULTING SERVICE
POSSIBLE VALUE INCREASES (Continued)
CONCLUSION OF VALUE INCREASES
Based on our cursory valuation of the subject and taking into
consideration the two notable forms of obsolescence that could
affect the property by the completion Improvements #257; It is
found that only benefit to the property is due to the closer
proximity of the water main.
The Estimate of the amount of the benefit to the Property is
$15,000.
e
William Keith Campbell
Vice President
Senior Commercial Appraiser
-----
-----
State Certified #40011415
Federal General Appraiser
-----
-----
e
17
CAMPBELL APPRAISAL CO., INC.
REAL EST ATE APPRAISAL
CONSULTING SERVICE
e
CERTIFICATION FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES
THAT ARE NOT APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENTS
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief,...
I
the statements of fact contained in this report
are true and correct~
the reporteq analyses, opinions, and conclusions
are limited only by the reported assumptions and
limiting cogditions, and are my personal,
professiona4 analyses, opinions, and conclusions.
I
I have no p~esent or prospective interest in the
property that is the subject of this report, and I have
no personal:interest or bias with respect to the parties
involved.
my compensation is not contingent on an action or event
resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in,
or the use of, this report.
my analyses~ opinions, and conclusions were developed,
and this re~ort has been prepared, in conformity with
the uniformlstandards of Professional Appraisal
Practice. I
e
.
I have made ia personal inspection of the property that is
the subjectiof this report.
I
No one provided significant professional assistance to
the person ~igning this report.
I
Date of Opinion: September 20, 1991
Repectfully sUbmitte~,
I
William K. Campbell =====
Vice President I =====
seni~ir~;V1r
I
I
Certified Federal General
Appraiser I.D.#4001415
e
e
e
.
'.
. .
1;0/......
~Hivvater
.,~. 3-~
I!iO:: J"'\.
THE alRTHPlACE OF MIHIHSOTA .)
Li;:;.,~!',,::~Yil~',;,.,": ". ~:"NOTlCE OF HEARING ON' PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO" 257
... .......' ~.~ . "..~ - ..~.
St. Croix Stillwater Barge Terminal
1 Shannon Drive
Hastings, MN 55033
TO WHOM IS MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that the Council will meet at,7 p.m. on April.16, 1991,
at City-Hall Council-ehambers to pass upon the proposed assessment- for L.1. 257"
also known -as the "Downtown Plan". The following is the area proposed to be
assessed:
The area bounded by F1fth Street on the west, Pine Street on the south extended .,
easterly to the St. Cr~ix River, the St. Croix River on the east and Elm Street
on th~ north extended ~asterly to the St. Croix River including the former State
Prison site. .
The improvement.-consists of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, curb and gutte:r:... street... " _
reconstruction, lighting, streetscape, landscaping, beautificatio,n, '_..
underg~ounding of p~r lines; decorative enhancements and parking lots. ..
Your' Parcel is described as follows:. 10690-2150.
..;
. .
The amount to be specially assessed against your particular lot, piece or"parcel .
of land is $155,832.90. . You may at anytime prior to certification of the
assessment -to "the county auditor, pay the entire assessment on such property,
with interest accrued, to the date of payment, to the City or Stillwater
Treasurer. -No interest shall be charged if the entire assessmen~ is paid within
thirty (30) days from the adoption of this assessment. You may at anytime..
thereafter, pay to the Washington County Treasurer the installment and interest
in process of collectiOn on the current tax list and you may pay the remaining
principal balance of the assessment to the City of Stillwater Treasurer, with
interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made _ Such . . _
payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through
December 31 of the succeeding year. If you decide not to prepay the assessment
before the date given-above, the rate of interest that will apply is 8 percent
per year.
The~~.:>_~d ....a~~~::>..~~=~;:?l:!i~_~~_s!,~.~_l9.;-_.e..~j...s..l-.IE.f'..!:9..tioE.:.~~~~~~_~_ity clerk ~ s ......
of f,~.S~_,"",=.Tp:~,.... t9:t;al..amount:,~o.:f_theproposed.,. asse,~.~me~t _. is....$2~.4 52 ~ q?_~.:_?3,:~,~' .~:~ ~t~~~.~,,,,
or: .9.r_aJ,.,._:gQj.ect~.ons~,.will-.be...cons:id_ere9-_..~t...~e. meetJ.!l.g.",._~No.,:app'eal may"'be~_i;,~en'.:."
as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is filed
wi th:'thec;tE{rk.~prio~'-\~~~~'fhe;'.h~~ing" or"'presentecn:c;-the:- pr~6-iding;. of{i.s~r~~-tJ:he.. .. ":
heaXriiq::':"'2:~Et'::Colliict1:'maY~u:pon-:suc;:rC.notiC:e--coii"sTdei' any' objection to the amount. :'.. .__-,
'of:'the:proposed individual assessment at an, adjourned. meet,.ing-~upon such . further . "",
notice "to the affected property owners, as- is 'deems advisable", :
~::'( :"::.L.L :J 2~S ~~()RTH =~:JRTH ~'TILlWATER. MINNESOTA 55082 ;J 612,<119,iJ:::
~
rt....J ,....~ ..
...... I ....a.+:.....-....,. _,.... "-'_1"
~
,f' -."
,"-
NOTICE OF HF.ARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
FOR I.OCAL DlPROVEMEJ:iIT NO" 257
Stillwater Yacht Club
P.O. Box 231
Stillwater, HN 55082
'1'0 WHOM IS MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given tha~" the Council \ofill meet at 7 p.m. on April 16,
at C.i ty Ha.ll Council Chambe s to pass upon the proposed <~SGessment for L...
also known as the "Downto'.n Plc-..n".. The following is the areo propose..
assessed: i
i
The area Duwl'.led by Fif.th sltrect on the W'est, Pir,e Street on t.he south .:xtt:;:i".. _
8ast",,1.-ly t.o the. St. Croix Rjiver, the St. Croix RivE=!:r. on the east und Elm str~:,,;t
on th::? ~:.~n-1:b extended easte~'ly to the 3t. Croix Hiver including the form~r State
Pri::;orr :.:;.i.le.
). s.~ ~ .
The improvement consist,s of. sanitar<j sewer, stOl..'1ll sewer, curb and gut-ter, street
reconstruction, 1 ightinQ, streetDcape, landscaping, beautif icaticn,
under-grounding cf powerli1es, decorative el"'.hancp.ments and parking lot::>.
I
I
Your Parcel is desr.ribed A$ follows: 9028-0020
i
'I'he amountto'be specially ~ssessed agai:1st. your particular lot, pi.:;;ce or P.:tL',.;ci
of land is $130,578.10. I You may at -:,.":rr:,i!ne prior to certification of t!'le
assessment to the county ap.dj,to~.. pay t.~0 e:ltire asseSSll!ent on such property,
with inten'J.; .~C:'-li(:a to I th'" date of i..ayment, to the City of Stilhlct..-2r
'rreasurer. _'~" _~' :,.:~ ':; sh~a. 1 b..= cnarged, if the entire assess.m\:lnt is paLi ....ithin
thirty (jG)i:,Y:3 '-:':.Jm the ad::Ji?tion c:;= this assessment. You iIL."lY at .:;.nytin;e
~~'erA'l't=....:::\~ r-" I..... ..... T.T - en t-r '''01 t T :=\~.~ i-h .l'ns't l-,L. .,f- .-: ~'.l.\.. ......~......
,-11 _<......,,__, i?~.'i ~....' .ne l1a::; .l.g .....l ~ Ln .y.. re_....Lirer '.. e . a .ne..~ 2-D,. _;...c_<:.:;..
in process of collection OI[l the current tax list and you may pay the ~";:;\:3inir.g
J?rincipa1 ba.Lance of the l'-sessment to the .Ci ty . of Stillwater Tr.e:;'':'ln:rr., wi '.:h
:;.nterest accrued to Decemb r 31 of the year ~n wluch such payment ~'; T,~{de. Such
payment must be made befo. e November 15 or interest will be cha':'J~'d. Lhroug;:
December 31 of the succeed~ng year. If you decide not to prepay the ;!::;sessment::
DE:fore the date giVE:ll abovt, '-he rate of inte::::C'st, that will apply is ': ~Jercel1t
per year. I
I
I
'~'he proposed assessmnnt CQl~ is on file for public inspection at the city clerk' ~-,
office. The total ,:1J.:1Ount qf the proposed as~essment. is $2,452,058. 73. Writ:',_.:;~
or oral objection~ .,i1l bel considered at the Ir.1'::<;;ting. No appeal ma::' ;)e t~!j.~,;r,
?IS to thE: amount c~ an as1essment uoles:s a signed, 'OlL.:::tten objectio,~ iz filf~Q
with the clerk pri::l' to th~lhear,i.ng or presented to (:;10 presiding officE::- .:It ':~,~
hearing. The Counc!.l rn3Y i-pon ::;t.C:i notice consider any objection to t:'1t' 0;::i0;':'1.(
of the pr::;~~,r:f;~d. j,nd.i 'J'i~!l(Jl iassessn~ent at an ad.jollrned Ir.eeti:"lg upor ~~u::h ::~Jl'~:i.2i~
not:lce i' " r.l~,:~ ~ -=... . ,~, -<t ~"r'_+e.:-ty owners as is deems ..,dvi.;;db l'o-.
I
. - "I" ;-OlIRTH STILLWATER. MII\NESOT.~. :;5,;;-;:: ~ :; ,\
I
,
I
Ci-Y
~i. ..~.... ,~,
. -0'
" ,
e
e
e
e
PHASE I - STREETS
~,-A RECONST.
~1I11111 PATCH & OVERLAY
r-:.-.r --i SIDEWALK & CURB
~~
'~/I
<.t'.i:~
~'hC'..".::;;-';'~'HI..' ~' .,.,~
.~.... .~" (.,,11.' ~_ ...'IIIII/TTiTTTrrrr;:: ;:;a
~~ . %. ~<::,~
~~ 0 ~I..~;r, JlH!!fH!~I' ~~~ :~.:::~
, ~&~ Pi."r:... "",,,..... ~ : ~ Q )~\ " ....,,\......,1
"I, ~~~~{ --v B(O)~~,l\:/ .~"i'~ ~
I, '....'-.... ,. . B ( I 1 ~ 7"" ,...., , "lTr.V ~,.." ......., ..' ;.re.... .. ,.' " _';Z:: ..,..
'... ~ I I ""~un._'-....
Mht_l. . ~ .'(.[0) ~ ~...., ,.' I
pi... T~~~~ rj. ~~ _ - ~ ::::: If
/:~ .. ~~ 0 ~ 1--::=:t .... ~... ~ III'.'"
,/ (. ;,1 ~~~. ~_ 1>'~I, __ ~ U -' II
. ~ '--_ c....,. 11'1'"
! IL~ ...."'.l.~ ' , -
I' ~: /~ ~,~. . - )~, L' i-rU 0 0 ~ -, 1 ~~ Ilr (] i
o ~E1' \\ Iq ~",,[, II . ,LJ ~L 'r(, l'IIIlI~.1 ,1~1j 0 Cb cP I
o ~,Jj ~~. ~ ----=v r .Q:..h ',.jJ1 r;:v.., V Il-l ;J ~~1j8{ , 0 It
'=- ~ - L~I 1. \L-J ~!P...J 111nr II !I] 1:\ ~ . ~-~ Q..~
-...::.=:: .' "~D~ ~Ql: rno '~~~3-~ln .e'6iJ ~J , Wi ,iJ.o~nO-rh \ t
~ D~~;t(p rJ ,d ~ ~cfbOClD-: r' ~ ~~ fP':::;r- ~ $Ip Lr ~ L- · ~ .. f\ '...
~~IOD~J;:OO'= OOOG'iJ~DDrr.j.. 'Dnm."". "J,,~fi__~,OiT;\' = U :>,
E;;:5,.., _ r 1 r=-~ ...... ~ - -'.-
51, 001: IY'.uI
~\.
~
\1\\
1f\;J"I~ It(t!.~ ~
~\~~~~:;...~
--..' '. ~'~.J'lI.'V
_ ..~,~ '..::;,' ~
-.;~../" ,.JjrJ , .
_ -:-"Ih'~ -" ,'C:., ,~~
I,' ~~
l3B
,. eft..
1"..
.; Downtown Beautification
Stillwater, Minnesota
:seJ
STREETS
f)!ILIL1l
FilE NO. 89255
DATE: JUNE 1990
FIGURE NO.2.5.1,
...
ENeINEERS . ARCHITfCTS . PLANNERS
z
<(
::E
a:
w
~
~
z e
-
<(
2 f- itl
CC (/)
W Z
~ 0
0
S z
<(
~
a:
LU w
(f) ~
<( 5 c:
:c ..Q CIS
0.. 00 c;-
.So? ~
:t:: q)
- c:
:l J;
~:E
CD Lo-
c: q)
~ -
o CIS
- ~
c: =
:t -
o CI)
Cl
e
0 -
In 0>
In 0> ~
C\I - N e
0> w
co Z 0
:J Z
0 ""') w
Z W a::
w :J
~ ~ C)
LI.. 0 u..
-2
-~
== g
~
e
PHASE I - STORM SEWER
l--j STORM SEWER CONST.
Sf, aox PI-oUI
c::z .. GJ ~~ tJ
~~IOD~
(;5 r"> _ r I r:::::---......, -' ~- - -.--
...-l I
_ -->-C
Downtown Beautifiea tion
Stillwater, Minnesota
All" SE'tJ
STORM SEWER
fD!I~ILll
FILE NO, 89255
DATE: JUNE 1990
FIGURE NO,2,3.1.
fENCINfEfEl?S . AIKUtnCTS . Pu..NNfEl?S
. ~. ----_.~~._---_._..- 0
. "- en ~
1(' ~~ \ 0Cl \-,----, ~)).... ~..~ Lt)
Lt) 0> C\J
. . ~~~ 0 OJ cc=J C\l - N
0> UJ 0
" . '.,. \. ~~ ~ . ,~. ~ 0, ': _ '. CX) z
::> z
",' :~ '.~ ~ cfd!~ 0 ~ UJ
' :.- ~ . z a:
[~ .',:. '\Vl; ~ ' UJ UJ ::>
...J f0- g
.:-' .~~ ~ u: <:
If!! J\"\.!~~ j~ ~- I a u..
-2
.~ ~-- I~, CJ ~ I
'~Ill I,. '~ ~ -~
Ir~ .. 0 (
I ~~ i,. j~ . JO ==8
-
:i ~~ ~'i5 ~ U.;! ~
. , '-. , JlliawuI
:: lu J ~ ) ] LJ I:
,:i _ I. 0:
~:.. . ._.~. .II" ,.HJN~ UJ
--r-~ 1, ~ J;:.:J I I ~ \Sl- ~
1\6.... - : I -' - I- W
. I _ :'- '- .0 ' , ~ (
!!!; c:; 1I~ 0 ttJl-ll (j)
0: ::=~ ", . J ill r. ~ ~~ l ' I.... >-
.:~ I i "I ,. I D a:r a:
W ; -l ~ u: !. ~:: ~
S . - , :. 11"" I~
-; ; : : I z.. Z
w \ti~ r.cDD~t n l <:(
(() 00
>- ~ ~ ":. . : 0 I,'~ rb
Cf) ~W II 1',.0. !II. ("
a: a:z - t!
~ -0 .1(. l Jlijll 5' [Q] ilh ~ jJ ml
~o
- ww rJ [~ ' ....
Z 0:0: , ." .. - ~ .'b 0 t: I
<t a: 0: ' ~(f-SC: r ~ . Ci i
l\ V ~ c:JD i r- I:KJ, 0, () I
(() ww i tllHlHlIllf1 ~ = ~ 6'0 0 '5 I
~$
I ~
ww i~". /'rc= ~".. .." (
- Cf)OO Iii ,
ill ZZ W ; J~~~;"~~/;r' ~ ~D ~ ..
(f) <:(<:( ,o\~! -jf}f~~~ 00 ~~ I
<( Cf)(J) l .' ~\\\.;." I ~ ~~. ~ ~ V . ~ ~ 0 C 0 Cl ~
:r: & lEI (
0.. OO~ ~J. : ji >. <"17 lIJ'ilo.. 0 I r a1 (5 (
.!.? ~
:t: 41 (
- c:
:JJ;(
~ '~ l~ \ I r :g:E
m _
~ ~ ,- }-=..~) .. [? 0' ....
c: 41.
~ "ai
[j !j/~ 00 fu] ~ ~.
t ; f:-- ~ '1,:'.... . 0 l ~ -
o en
0
Ij: ..~... -!"'~ \.
1: .>~_.-... ' 00/.(
:// 1J" '~ 0 V:.
'/ /& ~(5 ! 1/ ~Co
. --=:"'''- ) J
.'.~ --~-~--
e
e
e
----
~
O(f) 'i
u.l 0: ,t"\
Ou.l \.;.J
.J~ ~
oc- .,.;
~ c6 en <!) ~
<.!)~ uJ ~ ~
zi ~'i.'?
-;:. 3- a: <!) 0
'J: <!):J ~
~ c6c6~~uJ,
\ ~'i~<!)()'i~
~\.U\.U~-(!)Z ~
\ - ~ ~ <;. ~ 3 :J~ \
uJ u.l ~ --- 0 Cf) r- Cf) \1
(j) u.l u.l uJ <f) b 0 u.l :: \\
\ <!. ~ cr. ~ ~ ..J ....1 0 ~::
. J: Cj) r- 0 .a:. (!) <!) Z ....
o..u>~~....1~~~
\ ~OuJu-~~r-
SS~3~~~
-~r- caC-
~ , B ~ \\ \1 ~ ~(O ;
. .1~ 0:
c::J. '
l\ '.J "
wlllHHl \1\ 1
_ IWOW
-
l
'-'---'
.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
~
\
~
It
~
~
-
STlll~ATER, MINNESOTA
STlll~ATER DOVHT~ PHASING
SEH FILE NO. 89255
NOH
ASSESSABLE
ASSESSABLE
TOr Al
o~r~ PlA~ PHASING SUHHARY 19-Jun-90
,". .
PHASE I
STREETS 480,850 (11) 1,'31,055 1,911,905
STORM SElJ'E~ 0 408,520 406,520
""TERMAI" 0 167,250 187,250
JAlIlIMl SE\JU~_ 0 566,450 566, '50
LIGHTING (ASSESS 15X) --~~
--- -----
(UEST OF HAIN) 200,635 35,410 236,045
(SOUrH OF NELSON TO MULBERRY) (1) 492,225 86,865 579 ,090
T.V. SElJ'ERS ANO FLOOD PROOF REVIE~ 0 13,300 13,300
STREETSCAPE 114,345 0 114,345
PARKING lOTS (PARKING DISTRICT) 264,580 0 264,580
NORTH HAIM STREETSCAPE 59,400 0 59,'00
MORTH I1AIM lIGHTING (ASSESSED Q 15X) 186,810 32,970 219,780
VARDEN'S HOUSE VAll 18,750 0 18,750
ENTRY SIGN (2) ",850 0 14,850
RR TREATMENT (]) 187,385 0 167,385
SIGNAGE LAHOSCAPING (4) 32,320 0 32,320
BLUFF AREA lAHOSCAPIHG (5) 49,655 0 '9,855
PD'JER DISTRIBUTION (6) 264,000 0 264,000
..sa=1:%:=::: 2:=:::====::::2 tl:s:===:=:=::=
TOTAL: 12,366,005 12,761,620 15,147,825
e
e
--
..r
"'AME.S .... LARKIN
ROBERT L. HO,.,.MAN .
.J....CK ,.. DALV
Q. KENNI:TH L.INDGREN
WENDeLL R. ANDEASON
GERALD H. "RIEOELL
'_l.AN C. MULLlOAN
BCRT ..I. HENNESSEY
foliES C. ERICKSON
OWARD oJ. DRISCOLL.
OCN C N. FULLeR
...-OA"IO C. SELt..ERGREH
RICHARD .... KEENAN
JOHN D. ,.ULLMER
ROBERT E. BOYLE
"RANK L HARVEY
CHARLES S. MODELL
CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN
JOHN A, BEATTIE
LINDA H.. ,ISHCR
THOMAS P. STOLTMAN
STEveN O. LEVIN
MICHAEL C. JACK"""''''
.I0HN E. DIEHL
.,ION S. SWIERZEWSKI
THOMAS J. "LYNN
,JAMES p. QUINN
TODD I. FREEMAN
STEPHEN B. SOLOMON
PeTER K. BECK
.JEROME H. KAHNKE
SHERRILL A. OMAN
GERALD L. SECK
JOHN e. LUNDQUIST
C....yLE NOLAN-
THOMAS B. HUMPHRCY...JA.
MICHAEL T. MCKIM
CHARLES R. wEAVER
HERMAN L. T....LLC
VINCENT G. ELLA
ANDREW ..J. MITCHELL
JOH'" A. COTTER-
BE...TRICE: .... ROTHWEILER
LARKIN, HOFFHAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
ATTORN EYS AT LAW
'500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER ZOOO PIPER .JAFFRAY TOWER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH ZZZ SOUTH NINTH STREET
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5S40Z
TELEPHONE 161Z1 835-3800 TELEPHONE 16.ZI 338-6610
FAX 161Z1 896-3333 FAX 161Z1 336-9760
NORTH SUBUR8AN OFFICE
8990 SPRINOBROOK DRIVE, SUITE Z50
COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433
TELEPHONE 16.21 786-7117
FAX 16121 786-6711
Reply to Bloomington
April 10, 1991
Ms. Mary Lou Johnson, City Clerk
City of Stillwater
City Hall
216 North Fourth
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
.e:
PAUL B. PLUNKE:TT
AL...,.. .... K'LDOW
K"'THLEEN M. PICOTTE NEWMAN
MICHACL B. Lit BARON
(;AEaORY E. KORSTAO
AMY OARR (;R...OY
CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON-
.Jf:FFREY c. ANDERSON
DANIEL L. BOWLES
TODD M. Vl.ATKOv'CH
TIMOTHY j. MCMANUS
LISA A. GRAY
GARY A. RENNEKE
THOMAS H. WEAVCR
SHANNON K. McCAMBfUOGC
GARY A. VAN CLEVE
MICHAEL 8. BR....MAN
GAY LEN L. KNACK
JULIE A. WRA$E
CHRISTOPHER oJ. HARAISTH"'L
SHARON L. BRENNA
...ARIKAY CANAGA L)TZAU
TIMOTHY j. KEANE
WILL'A'" c. GRIFFITH. jR.
THEODORE A. MONOALE
JOHN J. 5TE.FF"CNHAGEN
O...."lIEL w. voss
........RK ..... RURIK
JOHN R, HILL
.JAMES K. MARTIN
STeVEN P,I\ATI<OV
THO....AS oJ. SEYMOUR
MICHAEL oJ. SMITH
RENAV w. LEONE
FREDERICK K. HAUSER III
MARY E. VOS
LOREN A. SINGER
OF COUNSEL
.JOSEPH (tITIS
FUCHARO A. NOROBY!:
DAVID J. PEAT
_ ALSO AOMlflE:O IN
WISCONSIN
Stillwater Yacht Club Special Assessments for Downtown Stillwater
Capital Facilities Improvement Program and Financing Plan -- Local
Improvement No. 257
Our File No. 17076-01
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Our firm represents the owner and manager of the Stillwater Yacht Club
and Marina (the Property), Parcels 10690-2150 and 9028-0020. In
accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061, our clients have
filed a Notice of Objection to the amount of special assessments, the
horrendous amount of $286,411, proposed to be assessed against the
Parcels. With a single exception, no other property owner on the
proposed assessment roll has an assessment even close to that proposed
for our clients' property. The proposed assessment exceeds 20% of the
entire 1990 market value of the Parcels. The Parcels receive little
or no special benefit from the proposed improvements. On their
behalf, we vigorously object to and, unless they are substantially
reduced, we will judicially contest the amount of the assessments.
The Proposed Improvements Do Not Serve the Property.
With the exception of watermain, none of the proposed improvements
abut or are even nearby to the Property. The Property uses its own
private wells for water supply; city water is of no benefit to it.
~sanitary sewer infiltration and inflow is an overall City problem
LAH lO: 1 N, HOl(Fl'l AN, D^ LY 0:. 1.1 N))(; HEN, 1':1'1>.
Ms. Mary Lou Johnson, City Jlerk tt
April 10, 1991
paqe 2
A square foot assessment methodology under these circumstances is
arbitrary and bears no rational relationship to the benefits received
by the Property owner. Property owners either much closer to or
abutting the improvements, lor generating the same or more sewer flow
volume, are assessed minimal amounts. Our client, the owner of a
large parcel which cannot be developed, is assessed a huge amount.
Although constituting only i2 of 174 properties to be assessed, the
Parcels are burdened with dver 12% of the total assessment roll. The
methodology is irrational and, "thereby denies our client equal
protection and due process lof law.
e
Zoning Controls Prevent De~elopment, So Improvements Are of No
Benefit. I
I
Severe land use regulation~ effectively prohibit our client from
taking advantage of any of Ithe improvements for which the Property is
assessed. These regulations severely restrict any increase in value
to the Property which might otherwise be derived by the construction
of public improvements dis4ant from or even adjacent to (not the case
here) the Property. By co~respondence dated November 6, 1990, and in
an earlier meeting with th~ City Attorney and the City Development
Director, we requested earfY appraisals of the Property and the value
impact of the proposed improvements in light of these land use
constraints. No response ~as been received.
I
The Minnesota Supreme Court has clearly established the rule that the
special assessments may not exceed the special benefit to the
property. Buettner v. City of Cloud, 277 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 1979); ~
Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v.ICity of Windom, 240 N.W.2d 517 (Minn. ..
LARIDN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGHEN, LTD.
;&. Mary Lou Johnson, City Clerk
April 10, 1991
'Pag-e 3
.1976). In determining whether and to what extent the property may be
benefited by an improvement project, the Court conducts a fact inquiry
regarding value before and after the improvements are constructed.
Schumacher v. City of Excelsior, 427 N.W.2d 235 (Minn. 1988). This
fact inquiry should take into account the regulatory framework which
. both permits and constrains development of property. The test is
whether the land could be used for purposes which would benefit from
the improvement. Southview Country Club v. City of Inver Grove
Heig-hts, 263 N.W.2d 385, 388 (Minn. 1978).
The regulatory framework which overlays the Property severely
restricts expansion of current or future uses. Therefore, we be1ie~l
that it is impossible for a reviewing court to find that the Property
could be used for purposes which would benefit from the improvements.
The specific land and water use regulations which constrain
. development of the Property are set out below:
e
e
1.
Nonconforming- Use - The Yacht Club is a nonconforming- use in the
RB district, and as such cannot be enlarg-ed or expanded. City of
Stillwater Zoning Ordinance (the Zoning Ordinance) Section 31.01
subd. 9.
2 .
Residential Zoning- - The Property is currently zoned RB-Two Family
Residential. The Property is unsuitable for residential
development because of its location in the Flood Fringe and the
Riverway BlufflandjShoreland district. Also, its location near
the downtown district is inconsistent with residential
development.
3.
Flood Plain Ordinance - The Property is subject to the provisions
of the Flood Plain Ordinance. (Zoning Ordinance, Section 31.07.)
Development of the Property within the Flood Fringe District (FF)
requires extraordinary flood-proofing construction. Development
is also restricted to a very limited number of uses. (Zoning
Ordinance Section 31.07, subd. 7.)
4 .
Riverway BlufflandjShoreland Ordinance - The Property is subject
to the provisions of the Riverway BlufflandjShore1and Ordinance.
(Zoning Ordinance, Section 31.03.) Structures must be setback
100 feet from the ordinary high water mark; nearly all of the
Property is of insufficient depth to comply with that requirement
and other City requirements. The minimum lot size is 20,000
square feet, which along with the Property's location, immediately
adjacent to the downtown retail district, makes residential
development (the only permitted use) unlikely and impractical.
Therefore, development of the Property beyond the uses and density
already permitted is effectively foreclosed.
LAHIUN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, J...:rJ">.
I
Ms. Mary Lou Johnson, City IC1erk
April 10, 1991 .
;?aqe 4
e
5. Settlement Aqreement - !The Property is subject to restrictions of
the Settlement Agreemeri,t between the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR)!, the City, and the Yacht Club, dated
March 30, 1987 (the Se~tlement Agreement). The Settlement
Agreement limits the n~mber of watercraft which may be stored on
site, or launched from !the Yacht Club property and the Mulberry
Point site which is le~sed by the Yacht Club and integral to the
Yacht Club's operation$. The essential component of the Yacht
Club's operation is th~ river, not its land mass. The daily
launch limit is 76 wat~rcraft for the two properties combined, 40
of which may be from tije Yacht Club ramp. Thus, it cannot expan,t
its operations, even i~ the proposed improvements were to sameh,,,'.'
put it in a position to do so.
I
6. DNR Permit - The Yacht IClub is limited to 157 boat slips by DNR
Permit No. 79-6214. Although the DNR has allowed amendments for
reconstruction and reconfiguration of existing slips, the Yacht
Club has not been, and likely will not be permitted to increase
capacity by constructing new slips.
7. Downtown plan - The Stillwater City Council on October 24, 1988,
adopted the Downtown Plan as an amendment to the Stillwater
Comprehensive Plan. The Downtown plan calls for the development
of Mulberry Point, which is now leased by the Yacht Club, as park
and recreational open space. If the Council were to implement
that component of the ~owntown Plan, the loss of parking and
launching capacity at Mulberry Point would decrease the value" of
the Property because it is integral to operation at the Yacht
Club. Every infrastruqture improvement imaginable is of no
benefit if there is no I immediately proximate parking or launch
capacity. The Council I should reject and rescind that part of the
Downtown Plan, if it w!shes to consider collecting even a small
portion of the proposed assessment.
e
In summary, the improvements which are the basis of the special
assessments will not increqse the value or enhance the development
potential of the Yacht Clu~ or the Property on which it is located.
Except for watermain, the ~roposed improvements are far-removed from
the Yacht Club's propertYi-lthey do it no good. Existing restrictions
on density, use, and expan~ion of the Yacht Club or other development
of the Property render it ~ndevelopable for any use which might, in
theory only, take advantag~ of the improvements. The Yacht Club is a
nonconforming use which ca!.not be enlarged or expanded. Although the
property is zoned RB, its lood plain designation, downtown location,
density restrictions, and horeland controls make it unsuitable for
expansion, re-use, or deve~opment. Therefore, none of the
improvements which are thelbasis of the special assessments will
increase the density or de~elopment potential or market value of the
Property. I
I
!
I
e
LARlnN, HOFFHAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
~s" Mary Lou Johnson, City Clerk
~pril 10, 1991
Page 5
The Property receives no special benefit, and therefore cannot be
specially assessed. The proposed improvements benefit the City as a
whole or the downtown retailers on a per-business-unit basis, and
should be paid for accordingly.
We urgently request that the City Council not specially assess the
Property in any amount. Failing a substantial reduction in the
proposed special assessment, District Court appeal is inevitable.
Sincerely,
{)t:LvJ/C ~CcL;;2~-~
David C. Sellergren, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & L~GREN, Ltd.
cc: Ken Grund
D. Magnuson, City Attorney
S. Russell, City Development Director
~ C c. 7. /If-( I -y/J<L~
e
e
DCS:AYO
NOTICE OF OBJECTION
TO ASSESSMENT
FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO. 257
City of Stillwater, Minnesota
e
RE:
Parcel No.
10690-2150
9028-0020
Proposed Assessment
$155,832.90
$130,578.10
The undersigned is ~he duly-authorized representative of
and holds an ownership linterest pursuant to Contract for Deed
in the above-described iparcels.
In compliance with Minnesota Statute S 429.061, the own0~
of the Parcels objects ito the method and the amount of speci.:;o~
assessment proposed for each of the Parcels.
The Parcels are not increased in market value to the extent
of the proposed specia~ assessment, contrary to Article XI of
the City's Charter andiMinnesota law. The Parcels receive no
special benefit from the improvements proposed by Improvement
No. 257. Imposition of the assessments in the proposed amounts
violates Minnesota sta~utes, court decisions, and the
Constitutional prohibition against the taking or damage of
property without just compensation.
e
Utilization of a s~uare foot assessment methodology for
Improvement No. 257 is I arbitrary, bears no rational
relationship to the be*efits received by the respective Parcel
owners, and denies thelParcel owners equal treatment and due"
process of law.
Parcel No. 10690-2150:
ST. CROIX STILLWATER MARINA COMPANY
::~ STI7A~: :CH CLUB
K. Doran Grund
Parcel No. 9028-0020:
ST. CROIX STILLWATER MARINA COMPANY
DBA STILLWATER YACHT CLUB
bY'Ko Dof-~~d~ ~
e
DCS/GK5SG
1-1/4" 1.1/2" 2" 2-1/2"
$ 54 - $ 79 $ 65 - $ 98 $ 95 - $ 105 $135 - $ 230
63. 135 74 - 175 110 - 240 170- 350
........-.............................. 260 - 340 295- 375 C- -
.. --...... -.... ........... ----..- ~i'
.. -..-.......... ---................ -.. ..--........-.. .................. 330 - 420 445'- 590 \. ---
59 - 110 70 - 130 100. 190 190- 370
142 - 193 162 - 228 198 - 279 .... ........----.....................
........ -.... -..- ---.. ...----- .............--........................ 605 - 1,075 815 - 1,205
SE<<?TION 62.r.F 2
July J I/:/U
---
PIPII;
GENERAL INFORMATION
SERVICE PIPING
The pipe costs on this and the following page are averages of installed costs per linear
foot including contractor's overhead and profit, but excluding any design layout costs or
fees. All sizes refer to interior diameter of the pipe,
The costs are listed under two broad categories: SERVICE PIPING, for pipe, fittings and
valves within the building lines and UTILITY PIPING, fOr pipes, fittings and valves installed
outside of and up to the building lines,
Each category is further sul:,divided into pressure lines and non-pressure lines. Pressure
lines generally carry water, gas, steam, etc" under constant pressure, while non-pressure
lines, used for drain, waste and venting, are not subject to pressure from the materials
they carry.
Costs for pipe under service piping represent the plumbing, HVAC and processing systems,
ascending in that order. Typical fittings are included, but valves, hangers and supports,
and trenching and backfill, which are all listed separately, must be added if needed,
For small or intricate installations, costs may be 15% to 25% higher. For long straight
runs with minimum fittings, costs maybe 15% to 25% lower. For piping with mixed materials
(e.g. steel with plastic lining) use higher end of listed costs,
For galvaoized steel pipe, add 5% to 10% to black steel pipe costs, Use welded joint
pipe costs for victaulic coupled or flanged steel pipe.
SERVICE PIPE
PRESSURE PIPE 1/4 " 1/2" 3/4" 1" 1-1/4" 1-1/2" 2" 2-1/2"
Copper $ 3,90 - $ 4.50 $ 4.55 - $ 5.50 $ 5.40-$ 6,60 $ 6,50 - $ 8.25 $ 7,50 - $11.25 $ 9.25 - $ 12.60 $13,20 - $15,90 $19.45 - $23.75
Glass ........---...--........----- 7.10- 13,35 8,95 - 15.15 1 1.40 - 17,85 ..........-................-......... 15.95 - 22.60 20,40 - 27,65 ..... ....-...... ....-......--........
Plastic 3.45- 3,60 3,65 - 3,95 3,80 - 4,10 4.10 - 4,50 4,80 - 5,25 5,15 - 5,65 5.85 - 6,50 6,60 - 7.40
Black steel(threaded) ----........ --............-..-.. 4.40- 4,90 5,30 - 6.15 6,50 - 8,15 7,60 - 10.25 8.50- 11,95 10,40 - 15.40 12.45 - 19.15
Steel (welded joint) ..--...................---........ ................................... -- ............-....---................ 8,95 - 11.05 11,05 - 13.70 11.45 - 14.30 13.85
- 17.50 1 7.65 - 22.45
Add for trench & fill $ 1.15-$ 1,35 $ 1,20 - $ 1,55 $ 1.35 - $ 1,70 $ 1,40 - $ 1,90 $ 1,50 - $ 2,10 $ 1,55 - $ 2,75 $ 1.75 - $ 2,60 $ 1.90 - $ 2,85
PRESSURE PIPE 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 16" 24"
Copper $22.60 - $28.25 $38,60 - $49,05 $63,65 - $84,25 $114,00 - $156.00 ...................... .....- ----........ -------.. ..............- ......-.. ...............---.......................
----.. ......-.......--... ..........
Glass 26.80 - 36.90 33.80 - 51.20 39,35 - 81.95 ............. --... -.. ...-..._.. .....-.... ........ "'... .......-- --....- -- -.... ......---...............----......... -- -............
........-...... ----- . --....-----..---.....--......
Plastic 7,90 - 9,05 10,15 - 11.85 14,95 - 19,35 18,35 - 23.05 $24.15-$ 31,05 $ 30,75 - $ 40,20 ........ ........ ----....... -- ---.... ... -- ....... -...- ..-- ---.. --.-
Black steel(threaded) 14,60 - 23,20 19.55 - 31,95 50,15 - 55.75 69,60 - 83,25 94,80 - 114,60 126.00 - 142.00 .......... -- -- ----- -.. ----- -- ---..............--..............
Steel (welded joint) 20.85 - 26,85 32.60 - 42,35 42.45 - 56,05 50,35 - 67.35 62.05 - 83,60 72,85 - 98,80 $97.05 - $134,00 $ 191.00 - $269.00
Add for trench & fill $ 2,10 - $ 3,15 $ 2.45-$ 3,85 $ 3,05 - $ 5,20 $ 3.75 - $ 6,50 $ 4.40 - $ 7,70 $ 5,10 - $ 9.05 $ 6.40 - $ 11,65 $ 9,10- $ 16,80
DRAIN, WASTE & VENT 1-1/4" 1-112" 2" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12"
Cast Iron ...................-...........-.....--- $ 5.70 - $ 9.20 $ 8,65 - $13,15 $12,90 - $17.45 $18.15 - $23,30 $ 29.20 - $ 39,65 $43,10 - $52,90 $60,90 - $68.50
Copper $ 7,65 - $10.70 8,30 - 11,65 9.90 - 14,10 22.10- 32,25 52,55 - 79,60 140.00 - 217,00 ......-.. ....... ............-... ----- ..............................-.....--.....
Glass .......... --.. -.... --... ...-- -..-- 11.75 - 19,55 15,35 - 22,20 33.40 - 38,35 58,30 - 66.45 ...... --- ....... -....... -- --.....- -- --..- ..---_...... -- ....-- ....
--........... --....................-
Plastic (standard) 4.70 - 5,30 5,30 - 5.80 5.80 - 6,60 9,70 - 11.40 . 12,75 - 17,55 ... ...-... --- -... -- ---...... ......... ......... -.....---..... -- ..-....-.. ... --..--..-------------
Plastic (acid waste) ..-................----.........-.... 6,85 - 12,65 9,60 - 14,85 21,00 - 27.15 23.60 - 34,15 ..... --... ......- -- ..-_......... ...... ...... -. -.....- ------
-...-...O' .. .....-..--..... .......--......
SERVICE PIPE VALVES
Valve costs are averages of many types and are listed by their material composition and size of pipe they serve. The costs are divided into three groups: General Service (under 150
PSI), Medium Duty (150 - 300 PSI) and Heavy Duty Service (over 300 PSI), These three classifications are used to describe the pressure rating of the valves and not as technical specifications,
Most plumbing and HVAC valves will be priced under General Service, Medium and Heavy Duty valves generally represent steam and other industrial system valves only.
VALVES, EACH 1/4" 1/2" 3/4" 1"
Bronze, general $ 25 - $ 37 $ 31 - $ 43 $ 39 - $ 53 $ 46 - $ 65
medium 32 - 40 34 - 51 43 - 66 51 - 99
Iron body. general .......-.................-...-- ..........-.._...................... -.... --..-...-.. -.. -........... ... ........ ....-............. ....-
medium .................................. -...... .....-----...... ..-.... ..................--....-............ ....................-..-..........
Plastic, general 32 - 53 36 - 63 44 - 76 51 - 93
Steel. general (threaded) -..........-....................... ---... .....-. ..--............. 74 - 100. 11.4 - 156
medium ...................-................ .................................... - .------ --- --- ---;-- ....................-................
VALVES, EACH 3" 4" 6" 8"
Iron Body. genersl $ 320 - $ 415 $ 410 - $ 515 $ 650 - $ 810 $1,025 - $1,300 $
medium 545 - 715 790 - 1,075 1,350 - 2,000 2,025 - 3,025
Steel. general (flanged) 675 - 1,175 900- 1,525 1,550 - 2,525 2,650 - 4,225
medium 1,050 - 1,375 1,525 - 1.750 2,625 - 2,900 3,850 - 4,800
hellVY duty 1,875 - 2,200 4,025 - 4,625 5,250 - 6,050 8,075 - 9,225
10" 12" 16". 24"
1 ,650 - $ 2,075 $ 2,650 - $ 3,300 ____m____.._...___ _..............._m
2,725 - 4,225 3.400 - 5.425 ...-----....------__ ..____________...___
3,675 - 6,375 4,725 - 8,725 $ 7,975 - $14,775 $22,150 - $30,250
5,250 - 7,275 6,575 - 10,250 16,750. 18.000 mm_m.__m____
11.250 - 12,925 14,775 - 16,900 ---.....------___... _...____........_...
7/90
(~
(~
{~
!
rr ~..'i' )'1/
\_~
i
r~r~
~,~~ t
c.. ,
-~j
, --" t:
:= ~ "'\
~- J
'I
-:-. -> ')
....- ";",J
;,..- j i h"
u
SERVICE PIPE HANGERS AND SUPPORTS
HANGERS. per linear foot '/4" , /2" 3/4" '" 1.1/4" 1-1/2" 2" 2.1/2"
Cast Iron -.................-.................. -..---..._.... ............ ----.... .........-...........-.............--- ........----........-.....-- ---... -.. ..-..... ...--................-..-
$ 2,15 . $ 2,35 $ 2,25. $ 2,50 $ 2,35 . $ 2,70
Copper $ 1.10 - $ 1.35 $ 1.50 - $ 1.80 $ 1,75 . $ 2.25 $ 2,05. $ 2,55 $ 2.30 . $ 2.85 2,50. 3.10 2,80. 3,50 3,15. 3.95
Glass --.. ...---.. --- .......... ........ 2,25 - 2.75 2,35. 2,85 2,45. 2,90 -.. ....-..--.............. -......-- 2,60. 3,05 2,80. 3,30 .... -..................... -....... .......
Plastic 1,90 - 2,35 2.05 - 2,55 2,25 - 2,75 2,40. 3,05 2.55 - 3.20 2,75 - 3,50 3,10. 3,95 3,40 - 4.45
Steel (threaded) 1,00- 1.15 1.15- 1.30 1.30. 1,50 1.50- 1,65 1.65 - 1,85 1.80. 2,00 2.10. 2.35 2,45 - 2,75
Steel (welded joint) ...._..-......-......_-............ ................--.................... .................-............--....- 2,05. 2.35 2,20. 2,55 2,35. 2,75 2,65 - 3,05
2,95. 3,40
HANGERS. per linear foot 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 16" 24"
Cast Iron $ 2,50 - $ 2,75 $ 2,75 - $ 3,05 $ 3.35 - $ 3.75 $ 4,20 - $ 4,60 $ 5,10. $ 5,60 $ 6,20. $ 6,95 ..........-................................. ..............................-----
Copper 3,40 - 4,30 3,90 - 4.95 4.75. 6,05 5,45. 6,90 -..........-.......................... .............-........--....--.... ...-_..................-............... ----............-...........
........
Glass 3.15 - 3.65 3,50. 4,10 4,30. 5.30 ..-....................-..-.......... ---....--..............-.............. -------.......................... ... ..... -... ..-....... --..-.......
..................-....-...........-..
Plastic 3,80. 4,90 4,65. 5,85 6.05 - 7.70 7,55. 9,55 8.95. 11,40 10,40. 13,25 ....--_............-.....--_.... ..---...-- ..-.... --..- --.......
Steel (threaded) 2,65. 2,95 3,25. 3,60 4,55 - 5,00 5.75 - 6,35 7,05 - 7.70 8.25. 9,05 ..... ......._-.........-.... -. .....- .........-............-....-.....-
Steel (welded joint) 3,25 - 3,75 3.90. 4,55 5,10 . 6,00 6,35 - 7,50 7,60 - 8,90 8.80. 10.45 $11,30. $13,40 $16,30. $19.20
UTILITY PIPING
_____-------LosLperJjneeLJool-!ot-~nderilr~Hity--/ffies;-tnctuding-fittings;an--allowancef6ftienching and backfill and contractor's overhead and profit, For non-circular pipe. use the
average
d,ameter of the smallest and largest dimension,
~. -------.......
::. ~~~
_..-:.~....
-",. ~ ..
-
-...
PRESSURE PIPE 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" 18"
Asbestos Cement $16.75 - $21.30 $20,90 - $27,25 $27,00 - $34.55 $44.90. $55.50 $51.80 - $65,30 $55.05. $78,35 $74,00. $95,20 $91.25 - $128.00
Ductile Iron 15,40. 18,85 16,90. 21 .40 25.95 - 33,55 31.55. 41.50 35.15. 46.85 41.00 - 55.45 60,15 . 83.45 60.60 - 83,45
Concrete ..................--.....-.......... ...- ..-...._.. -.......- - - --. .........--..............-......... ...............-..-..-.....--.... --...... ---.. -.. ..--... - -..
-....-.---......-..-........ 27.40. 35.00 32.80 - 40.55
Plastic 9,80. 12,80 11.60 - 14,95 17,10. 22.00 21.00. 30.00 31,00- 39,00 ................---..-..-....-.... ..............-....-..-...........- .... - - -- - ----- --. --_..-
Steel 19,05. 21,00 23,35 - 26,60 29,20. 34,45 43,25. 52,35 50,15 - 61.95 52,65 - 66.10 61.95. 79,50 75.35 . 97,05
Valves. each $ 405 - $ 520 $ 865 - $1.080 $1,520. $1,820 $2,405. $2.810 $3.240. $3.920 $4.250 - $5.210 $5.515 - $6.705 $6.905 - $8.400
PRESSURE PIPE 20" 24" 30" 36" 42" 48" 60" 72"
Asbestos Cement $103,85. $147,45 $120.40. $173,70 $148,60- $220.65 $201,05 - $303,90 ..--..-.........-..--..-......... -....... --..-...... .......... -........ -.......-........-............-.-..-
................-...... ...... -..._-
Cast Iron 65.80. 91.30 71.30 - 100.25 81.60. 116,25 102,00 - 148.00 $ 1 23,50. $ 1 81 .50 $ 1 40,75 . $207,00 ..--..-...........-......-........... .. ..-.. - - ..--...... ..-...
....--
Concrete 34,70. 45.40 46,20. 61.40 65.35 . 88.70 87.60. 120.00 107,00. 150,25 132,25 - 187,00 $ 1 87,00 - $270,00 $248,75. $365,50
Steel (treated & wrapped) 80,15. 104,25 93.40 - 124.00 118,65. 161,00 165.20 - 227.20 227,20 . 319,00 255,00 - 360.00 ..---....----.........-............ . ................ .........-.........
Valves. each $ 8,400 - $10.195 $ 11,890 - $ 1 4,875 $ 18.065 - $21,785 $25.500. $30.815 $34.000. $41,440 $44,630. $52,600 ..-.........-....-....-.........-.. -...- -..........- -.. ...--
-._-
DRAIN & SEWER 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 15" 18" 21"
Asbestos Cement ---.. ----........ -.... -.. -..... $ 8,20 - $10,60 $ 9,45 - $12.05 $ 1 8,00. $22,90 $ 19.65 - $24,95 $25.60 - $32,80 $37,00. $47.15 $40,60 - $51.90
Corrugated Metal _........_.........-..................- 9,90 - 11.75 13,05 - 16.40 1 9,60 . 25.60 23,15 - 27,10 29,75. 40.45 28,20. 39,15 35,90. 49,80
Plastic $ 3,95. $ 4,35 5.60. 6.75 7,85. 10.35 10.15 - 14,60 12.40. 19.45 16,40. 29,65 .............-............-......-..- ..-...-..-........-......-.........
Plain Concrete -....--.............-............- 10.05 - 10,85 12.50. 14,25 15,30. 18,10 1 7.40 . 21.15 18.50. 23.25 21.90. 28,00 27.75. 35,80
Reinforced Concrete ........-........-.......-.......- ...........................--....... ...........-...-...-............-.. ................-.....................- 18,20. 23,40 20.00
- 26,15 25,65. 33,25 34,05. 44,30
Vitrified Clay 11.10. 12.05 1275- 14.25 15,35 - 17.45 25,55 - 29,25 28,55 . 33,00 38,55 - 44,95 50.35. 59.25 61.60. 73,95
DRAIN & SEWER 24" 30" 36" 42" 48" 54" 60" 72"
Asbestos Cement $44,75. $57,20 $ 53.40 - $ 68,10 $ 76.40 . $ 97,55 . --..--..-----....... --..-.....----.-...........- .....-................-................ ..............- ---..-............-
..-...--.......-.....-....-........
Corrugated metal 39.45. 55,55 45,95. 60.4 5 71,50. 99,75 $ 82,90 - $ 116.20 $ 99,90 - $139,00 $125.00. $174,00 $161,00. $223,00 $180,00. $246,00
Reinforced Concrete 41,60. 54.70 47.20. 61,50 70,00 -. 91,75 94,25 - 125,00 99.70. 138.00 132,00 - 184.00 170.00 . 235,00 206,00 . 282,00
Vilrifie~ Clay 75.20. 89.35 91.00 - 109,00 11900 ; 148,00 ....-.......-......................... -..........---.........-..-..-.... -......-... ........-...........-- ................---..........-.
.... .....--........-.......-...........
DRAIN & SEViER 78'" 84" 90" 96" 102" 108" 114" 120"
Corrugated Metal $197.00. $267.00 $212.00 - $287.00 $227.00. $307,00 $244,00. $328.00 $262,00 - $350,00 $277.00. $370,00 $295,00. $391,00 $314,00 - $412,00
Reinforced Concrete 248,75. 327.75 287.00. 374,75 312,25 - 414,25 343,00. 454,75 ..........-..-..-............-...... ..-..-..-....-..........-..-.... -.....--..........-.........--
...-............-.............. -..
.,.;..~o;'Ll \.AlUAlIO.... SE~\'ICE
; ':-F~;. J.'.c.F1SHAll' ~Wlf', l='l; P'lil EO I~ U.5"
7/90
, ..,';.~~~;.:\;;~i,~t'i;,-,{.);}~~'~;~,{r;'::\';,~~;'&S'~~~fh!~t~0'~~~,,~,~,~,- ..,....
e
e
~.
SUBDIVISION D'VELOPMENT COSTS
RESIDENTIAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Costs for residential street improvements vary greatly due to local code requirements
for different materials, street types and layouts, and utilities. The folowing costs are averages
including ordinary charges for engineering, plans, and inspection. Costs include contractor's
overhead and profit but not developer's, which is realized when each lot or house is sold.
They do not include extensive enviromnental impact reports, special charges (impact or
entitlement) or assessments sometimes levied against the subdivider such as annexation
charges, or costs of new or existing trunk sewers. They assume that the utilities are at
or near the subdivision boundary with no special connection problems or costs, Singular
lot or cul-de-sac development costs can run 25% to 50% higher,
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PER L1N, FT.
AVERAGE TYPICAL
COST RANGE UNIT COST 40'STREET
$ ,10 .
,33
.07 -
.42 -
.07 -
.97 .
.22 .
1,55 -
,20 -
4,05 -
6,00 -
7,00 -
,65 -
3,60 -
15,25 -
3,60 -
'Grading and surplus disposal, sq. ft, ......
'4" rock base, sq, ft ......................
add or deduct per inch of variation ......
6" cement treated base, sq, ft. ..."..,...
add or deduct per inch of variation .....,
'Paving 4" asphaltic concrete, sq, ft .......
add or deduct per inch of variation ......
Paving, 6" concrete, sq, ft ..,....,....,..
add or deduct per inch of variation ....,.
Concrete curb 6", no gutter. lin, fl. .......
'Concrete curb 6", l' gutter....,..... ....
Concrete curb 6", 2' gutter .....,.".....
Concrete curb 8", add to 6" costs ........
Asphalt berm 4", lin, ft. ......,.........,
Granite curb 5", lin. ft .............,.....
Concrete curb, rolled, lin. fl. ..........,..
'Concrete cross gutter,
at intersection, sq, ft ..................
'Concrete sidewalk, 4" thick, sq. ft. ....,..
add or deduct per inch of variation ......
'Concrete aprons. 6" thick, sq, ft .........,
add or deduct per inch of variation ......
Sewer main, 9' average depth, lin, fl.
add or deduct per foot of depth .....,...
'8" vitrified clay ..,...,...............
8" asbestos cement ..........",.....
8" plastic ..........'........'........
add or deduct per inch of diameter ...,..
Sewer laterals, 5' average depth, lin, ft,
'4" vitrified clay ...................... 7,60 -
6" vitrified clay .,'.,.,......,......... 10.85-
'Sewer clean outs, 60' o,c" each ..."..., 305.00-
. Sewer manholes. 400' o,c" each "'"....1,150.0:> -
Storm drainage, lin. ft,
18" reinforced concrete ......,....,... 20,70.
18" corrugated metal.,...,..,..,...... 24,25-
a.dd or deduct per inch of diameter ....,. ,82 -
Storm manholes. 400' o.c., each .,..,....1,150,00.
3,05 -
1.95 -
.19 -
2,15 .
,20
.28 -
16,25
10.4 5 -
9.00 -
1,30 .
"'- ~~"iAL l \'A.l UA' ION S[RVICE
t ~H1. MAfl5H"ll & SWIFl . r"'Nl[O IN lJ S A
$ ,27
.43
,10
,62
,10
1.16
.28
2,55
,35
7.40
9.45
10,65
,75
4,05
18,35
5.85
4,20
2.70
.30
3,10
,32
1.08
19,90
14,85
12.30
3.55
9,20
13,70
525.00
1,600,00
24,90
33.50
2.50
1.900.00
$ .16
.38
,08
.51
,08
1,06
,25
2,00
.26
5,45
7,55
8,65
.70
3,80
16,75
4.60
3,60
2.30
.24
2,60
.25
,55
18.00
12.45
10,50
2,15
8.35
12,20
400.00
1,350,00
22,70
28,50
1.45
1.500.00
$ 9,60
15,20
3,20
20.40
3.20
42.40
10,00
80,00
10.40
10,90
15,10
17,30
1.40
7,60
33.50
9,20
1.80
18.40
1.92
6,05
.58
,55
18,00
12,45
10,50
2.15
8,35
12,20
13.33
3,38
22,70
28,50
1.45
3,75
Se
66 F1
June 1991
LIGHTING AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
Water, gas, and electric costs vary considerably with local requirements and codes.
Often all or a portion of the initial cost, maintenance, and replacement is included in
an assessment or increased utility rate charged to the consumer. Sometimes, an additional
charge is made in remote or hilly areas for special service or additional equipment. These
requirements should be checked locally. The average costs below are approximate maximum
costs for a typical subdivision, all or part of which may be borne by the community or
secured against the property, Some of these costs may be refundable to the developer.
Specific pipe costs can be found in Section 62. For general site clearing and grading,
see Section 51.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
PER L1N. FT.
AVERAGE TYPICAL
COST RANGE UNIT COST 40'STREET
'Water main, 6" ductile iron, lin, ft, $ 16,00 -
6" asbestos cement ......,.. 19,25.
6" steel ..............,..... 18.10-
6" plastic .................. 1 1,50 -
add or deduct per inch of diameter ,..... 1,25-
"Water lateral, 1", lin, ft. .,.,....,........ 6,80 .
"Water meters, 60' o.c., each ...,....,.... 110.00-
"Fire hydrants. 300' o,c" each ............1,600,00-
'Gas main, 2" steel, lin. ft .....,.......,.. 6.50-
3" steel ...................... 8,50-
4" plastic ....,'.......,....., 8.40-
"Gas lateral, 3/4", lin. ft ..,..",."..,... 4,25
Electricity, overhead,
on poles, lin, ft .,.......,.,.....,......
Electrical lateral, lin, ft. ..,...............
. Electricity, underground,
in conduit. lin, ft. ................,.,...
"Electrical lateral, lin, ft. .......',.,.,....
"Telephone lateral, underground .....,....
Trench only, lin, ft. ......,.,..'..,...,...
Conduit only, lin, f1. .........",...,.....
"Street light, underground
wiring, 200' o,c., each...."..".....,. 950,00 - 3,250.00 1,750,00
Street lights. overhead
wiring, 200' o,c" each...........,..,., 625,00 1.600.00 1.000,00
7.75 -
2,20 -
9,55 -
5,90
4,20
2,55
2,20 -
$ 18,70
21.45
20,25
13,80
3.70
8,65
235,00
2,400,00
7,50
9,70
10,20
6,20
$ 1 7.30
20,35
19,15
12.60
2.15
7,65
160.00
1,950.00
7,00
9.10
9,25
5,15
$ 17,30
20,35
19.15
12,60
2,15
7.65
5.33
6.50
7.00
9.10
9,25
5.15
10.35
2,60
12.15
7.70
5,30
3.70
3.15
8,75
5,00
Catch basins ...,....,....".",... $800,00 to $825.00 plus $170.00 per foot of depth,
Concrete headwalls ........,. $325,00 plus $38,00 to $52,00 per inch of pipe diameter,
Gunite, 2" - 3", surfacing for open drains ........,...... $2.55 to $4.00 per square foot.
Soil cement, roads: ....., $.40 to $.50 per cu.fl. embankments: $,60 to $ 1 ,05 per cu.fl.
Street signs .....""....,..,..,.....,.................,.... $60,00 to $200,00 each,
Survey monuments ,.....,...,....,.,....".,......,...... $100,00 to $250,00 each.
13,80
3.10
10,35
2.60
'The cost of complete double loaded street improvements with the components indicated
above totals $220,0:> to $255,00 per linear foot of street in ordinary level subdivisions,
or from $ 1 40,00 to $ 1 75,00 per front foot of lot, including side street allowance. Costs
may run twice as much for extreme hillside conditions.
15.50
10,10
6.70
5,30
4.50
12.15
7,70
5.30
3,70
3.15
6/91
e
City O~
g ti!QQwatelr, uUhUlegota
cP IrOcQamation
IN RECOGNITION OF
SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS
AND
NATIOIJAL SCHOOL BUS SAFETY WEEK
IN STILLWJ\TER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT #834
e
WHEREAS, many of today's schools are of some distance from students homes; and
WHEREAS, many students have 110 transportation to school and it is necessary
that these students be transported to and from their particular schools; and
WHEREAS, School Districts have employed responsible individuals to transport
these students to their place of learning; and
WHEREAS, School Bus Drivers touch the lives of many of America's children and
playa crucial role in the safe transport of these children to and from school
and various extra-curricular activities; and
WHEREAS, School Bus Drivers meet challenges daily in traffic and maintenance
of discipline on school buses with kindness and fairness;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, WALLACE ABRAHAMSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DO
HEREBY PROCLAIM that Wednesday, October 23, 1991 as
SCHOOL BUS DRIVER DAY
IN
STILLWATER AREA SCHOOLS, DISTRICT #834
a time for a public salute to School Bus Drivers contribution to the lives of
our children and all of us.
Signed this 22nd day of October, 1991
e
;jdj ~
vUaYOh
.
M E M 0
SUBJECT:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
MARY LOU JOHNSON, CITY CLERK
GAMBLING LICENSE FOR THE AMERICAN LEGION
TO:
FROM:
Attached is an application from the American Legion for a Pull-Tab Gambling
License.
Recently, the Elks were granted a license to operate an off-site Pull-Tab
facility at the Legion. Mr. Rheinberger explained that they had to pull their
original license because expenses exceeded profits and the Elks were invited.
to run the operation for three months. The Legion will then, hopefully, run
the operation after that.
Your decision, with resolution, is requested.
-~
.
I
-
"'_.&'ti~*4'$>?'.
UJ.Jlf.w.uR: ".
Bank Name
Bank Address .....
'\' """';.:"-""';,{- ;-.
.-,.~',.
..-'\ ,'-
, - \-\~
":'
. - ,,' , --,": ~-'- -
'~,:{'~_.\.,' -:.,::-;'", ~:.~ f/
",.--^:,:
'- .~!,.." -"",,"",,0 '0"'C_-:,-::,;_".,;:,'t :;,: _~ ! _ ~.
>"'. .-.
tl-. --;.-~- :~/- >~;,"; ~
-:;_S,'"
,- 0, C',', "t,,,~) _,_, .
_.', ,-r
- '-;r','
11111:::,:,:::,,;>:,:::.,,:
GambUng Site Au 0 on',
I hereby consent that IocaJ law enforcement officers, the
board or agents of the board, or the commissioner of
revenue or public safety, or agents of the commissioners,
may enter the premises to enforce the law. .,."
Bank Records Information
The board is authorized to inspect the bank records of the
gambling account whenever necessary to fulfill
requirements of current gambling rules and law.
Oatli . . . -f. .
1 declare that:
-I h~ve read this application and aU information submitted
to the board is true, accurate and Complete; ..
-a1I'other requiredinformatioll t,asbeenfully disclosed;
"t4Z s.... a.t reoft)()1e ...... .iv.e.. Offic.. er
..lD . ..... U..~ .>
~._.
"I am the chief execuf e officer of the organization;
"I assume full responsi i1ity for the fair and lawful opera~
tion of all activities to ~ conducted;
-I will familiarize myself with the laws of Minnesota
governing lawful gamt)ling and rules of the board and
agree, if licensed, to ~ide by those laws and rules,
'includingamendment to them; .
,",any changes in appl' ation informationYiiU be submitted
to the boardand 1oca~1 unit of government within 10 days .
r of the change; and ..' '.. .. ............ '" . ....... .., J.
.....~.f.und.erstand that fail re to p. rovide requ.ire.d... info.r..mation.'
or providing false, or isleading information may result in
.: the deni~l,or revocatrnOfthe Iic~r~s~, '. ......
.. Date
OJ{. 17/
f
1. The city.mustsign this application if the gambling prem-
ises is Iocated.within .city limits:
2. The county HAND township" must sign this application if
the gambling premises is located within a township.
3. The local unit government (city or county) must pass a
resolution specifically approving or denying this application.
~~~so~1~~::=~:~~~:=o,
5. . If this application . s denied by the local unit of government,
it should not be sub~itted to the Gambling Control Board.
Township: By signiture below, the township acknowledges
that the Organizatio{is applying for a premises permit within
tow~ship limits.!. .',..' ..... . '" ............. ....... ....
I
Townshl ** . !
Township Na,me..:'
.
,
e
e
e
.,
~~
n~ _.. , %J
0';.;';':;:: i , h>:';O
I ThursdaYN~=~~;r7, 1991 I
* 7101 Northland Circle N. *
~ I
* Brooklyn Pork, Minnesota ~
. (One block north of 1-94/694 and Boone Avenue) ,
i Spouses. slgnlflcant ;:~:: :;~ guests welcome II
i 5:3~~:~" II
I Buffet style dinner I
I ~~ I
I ft)Aastea cfiict..n ~l
~ J\Y ~ <
J s~~~~~~n ~ I
I ~~ffl~.,ri~ s::;;;~~:;0 ana ~'m I
I,,,,,,'::: Dinner reservations ($25 per pars::: :::::.:s (227-4008) no later than 1:,:.":,:.' !
;i noon, Nov, 4. (Please channel ALL reservations through your office of City Man- ::
ager / Administrator.)
:~ ~:
~ x
~ Want the low down on what the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- *
tions (ACIR) plans to do with local government aid (lGA/HACA) and the local '
~,i Govemment Trust Fund? Minnetonka City Manager Jim Miller. a member of ACIR. I,.:::,
:< will discuss the commission's action to date.
~ ~
* i
! Will the AMM and the Metropolitan Council be in sync on legislative proposals at ~
i the legislature in 1992 or...? Choir Mary Anderson, a former AMM President, will i
:< briefly outline the key legislative goals for the Council and its Agencies. i
~ ~
~ ~
~ Tours of the new Brooklyn Park City Hall complex will be conducted from 4:30 p.m. !~
I to 6 p.m. See enclosed letter of welcome from Mayor Jesse Ventura for details. I
i Reservations are not needed, nor is there a fee charged, for attending I
IJ;.""... only the business meeting at 7:30 p.m'.;.;,:.;,:.D
U:~ Disfribution Not~: This notice has ~een mailed directly !o all member {J.
'; Mayors, CounCil members, and City Managers/Administrators. ,~
,I],:.:,:,:<<*,~,~,:,:,,~,:<<,:<<<<,,:,~.>>:<<-=~,:<,~<<,:.~.!!<<~:e:,:~n.2<<2~!22:2H2~~~~:,:<<-,:<-.<'w.<<<<<=."..<<.:<-=,:<,~,:<,:<<*:<<',:,:<<-,:.,:<<<0
I, " ':.::::.:.:::::::::::::::.::::::::..::::::::::::::::.::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::.::.:::::.:.::...::::...:::::::::':. .:::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::,
, , , I
'i?Jc.:,'\.
<"\~
,
~O'
....................................................................................................................................................................~.....................
r-"'--~
i Business agenaa i
I 1. Call to order. I
j 2. Welcoljne. Mayor Jesse Ventura. Brooklyn Park. ~
~:~ 3. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) update. Jim ~.::.
:, Miller. Minnetonka ~anager and a city representative on ACIR. '
" 4. Key t 992 legislative th~usts of the Metropolitan Council and other Metropolitan *
\.~,;;:..... Agencies. MarY Anderson. Chair. Metropalttan Council. i.,,:~,:::.,:,
~ 5. Consideration and ad~ption of t 992 Legislative Policy Program. Copies were ::
i:3 previously mpiled to City Managersl Administrators. *
I 6. Input on es~bl~I~~~~~~EE ~i~o1we prio~ies. I
~~#
[ID[p@@~DWITil ~@l[Pfk
@D~W D=aCIDOD
5200 85TH AVENUE NORTH
BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA
( 1/2 MLE EAST OF %AlE AVE." 85TH AVE..
LOCATED BETWEEN HWY. 252 .. 169 ON 85TH AVE.
.
.
.
:
I
~
,
e
e
e
,.
"
Office of the Mayor
. Phone 612 424-8000 . Fax 612 493-8391
TDD 612 493-8392
JESSE VENTURA
Mayor
October 7, 1991
Dear City Officials:
On behalf of the City Council, staff and citizens of the City of
Brooklyn Park, I wish to welcome you to the AMM Annual Policy
Adoption Meeting on November 7, 1991, at the Northland Inn in
Brooklyn Park!
e
As the sixth largest city in the state of Minnesota, Brooklyn Park
is a vibrant, growing and diverse City that has much to offer
everyone.
As part of our overall civic campus, we have recently completed
construction of a new, 45,699 sq. ft. City Hall located at 5200
85th Avenue North. We are very proud of the fact that in addition
to the beauty of its architecture, the building was designed to be
customer service friendly. with the exception of the Police and
Maintenance Departments, the administrative staff of the city is
now under the same roof for the very first time.
You are all invited to tour our new facility prior to the AMM
meeting from 4:30 - 6:00 p.m. For your convenience, a map is
included which provides directions to both the Northland Inn and
the Brooklyn Park Government Complex. I hope to see you there!
Ventura
mm
e
~ ~:..,..
~E::""'''CI/'Ime/'lt
e
~
e
, -l,----..:,
e
GAB Huslncss :>ervlces 'fie
9531 West 7Stl1 SV~t Sl,Iite 320
Eden Prairie Mint'le$O~ 55344
Telepnone 15 IZ-942.~ 1 ~
FAX 612-943-2383
Claim. Control Branch
October 11, 1991
Stella Casanova
223 West pine street
stillwater, Minnesota
55082
.......~~"'...-.~
~'.li.Lllrl~
GAB FILE NO:
INSURED:
CLAIMANT:
D/L:
56509-01095
City or stillwater
Casanova
04-26-91
Dear Mrs. Casanova:
I am writing regarding your claim against the city of
stillwater for an accident that occurred on the 26th of
April.
I am still awaiting the signed medical authorization for
our investigation of ~our claim. Based on the information
I have now I am w~11in9 to offer you $750 for the
settlement of your claim. If this is acceptable please
verify that with me and I will issue a Release for your
signature. If this is not acceptable would you please
sign and rQturn the medical authorization, Qnolosed.
If you have any questions you may contact me at the above
number or address.
Si~cer~,!,Y I
L.~
Timothy Olson
Adjuster
TO:KAR
enc
cc: McGarry-Kearney Agency
243 So. Main street
Stillwater, MN 550B2
kD OCr 11 'B9t
4~
e
..:
Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
St. Paul, Minnesota - Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin
I Letter to the' Editor I'
.Frustr~tion e)(pressed
with downtown project
As ?ownto~ ?usiness owners who tried to partici-
pate ill the CIty s redevelopment project, we felt a
duty t.o respond' to last. Saturday's front. page' article
featunng remarks from Gordon Hydukovich and
Danny KveI].volden.
About the only thing there was for us to "participa-
te" in was deciding if there shouId.be two or four
'lights pn the lamp posts. Mr. Hydukovichand cOll).- -
pany invited us to.. City IIall, to explain. their projects.
to us and we took our noon hours to go: Some of tis'
f~lt a definite need to object to parts of their plan .
such as the nodes, brick sidewalks, trees expensive
clock to:wers and . fountains.. We feltsostr~ngly about
safety, a.ccessibility '.' and the.. expense and " upkeep of.
these things that we helped circulate a petition that
was turned in with 300 signatures on it. . .
This lengthy, expensive project hasbee~ going on'
I for four long months now and still is not completed!
We wonder .how long it would have taken to put in
new sewer and waterlines (old sewer lines were
left), cement sidewalks, good lighting and public res"
, trooms. Maybe the city could have thrown in some in-
centives for remaining and new businesses to fill
stores and create more customer traffic. All()f. these
things were brought 'up at the' meetings 'we'attended.
How many otters wollId it take to build a band
shell? How many people could the food shelf feed for
. the price of one clock tower? .:~
. This has been a very frustrating project for us. from
its inception to its still pending completion. We
only hope that once it is finished the city will follow
through on. the upkeep and maintenance of. what they;
have begun. "
Keith Jacobson..'
Kathy Jacobson
", Swanson Surplus
Locators' & Supplies
JOB~ ~ ~7'&lvn ..:z:A?/,.
SHEET NO. _ P~/~ "' -j?h~ I
, t./
CALCULATED BY
DATE
CHECKED BY
DATE
SCALE
I Letter to the Editor
Trying to mc,tke the best
of a difficultsituatio.n
We have been told many times now that the streets
have been redone and we might as well accept it and
not complain. Work with it now and make the best of
it.' ,,'
. Granted it's true, but it still doesn't change the fact
that it hurt our businesses tremendously and that we
still.don't know,ifwe.are goingto make)t. We just
took over our business a . little over Ii year ago, and
it's hard enough starting , out: without having this
againstyo\l.".......<....... .: .'c." .<iC, ;,'
;. Had we known' it' was going' to be like this, we
would.have waited to buy our business; Our summer
months are supposed to help carry us through the
winter months. Our summer months are gone! All the
people who have said to accept what is ar~ those that
the street closing has not , hurt in any w~Y'. We find a
little hard to accept the fact that we mIght lose our
business because of this project.. · '
We'te trying to make. thebestofa. bad situation
and we'll work with' downtown to try and make every-
thing workout, but it might be too late for us. So if
we look a little. down. in the mouth or depressed by
the project, please' don't knock us ~~r ,i~., It's i>een a-
mghtmare.J'...:.i ,.: "r.c'," '.Y"!<.. <,
: Bruce and Jeanette Priebnow
" " City Cafe an~ Bakery
?
JOB
, ," w" "N"~"." ""NO" , ,~ ," , ","" '-,...."r.';<;;>i'~.ff.j;'" ~'_
:y:<Ji=~{' > .:\ \r~~;'~ <> ,~ ',,',' >, /V "'<~~i~~;it~t'~J-"tJ!l._~i:(l~~.~~
" '~ ^ .NV ~ ~ -.... ~ , ,~ .., _ , _ 9 ""'_''''""''' ~_""'~~~~f
...
~ _ ,,~J~,'__~/' ;,' \:): /t:
>~B"'" 1tu~~"I~~s~~';J.I' ;.le.'.'....,.....S' .;5'.'." .t!~}ci:;:tl,a. ..,.,1;..."....'5."".....'.'.
... '.. i)I,'1 .... .' ". 4,,",' ". '.I~.I:I 'C
,118i;!~\I~llJit~;;I~'je,ct.
sfar. e"ow.n.e. ;~'('}say,f?, ~~:~~:npo~~ ~~~~~~e:C~~yhi~~~~~o=r'
Rite's. claiin blames the 'city for extended street
downtown delails Closings, 'continued delays, failure to meet self-im-
~ . , . posed construction deadlines,. failure to, take into . ac-
~~~K. ~E~~,U~,G,ideo re,;htals t,E:~!iilit~~=:;~O!h;
, Staff Writer ","; .. ,I .,.~ : i;"'~rve had it," ,Rite said in an inteI'View. By the end
of October;' Riverfront:Yideo:will ,have made $12,000
/ "','.i<.." '<'x.', '. ". .' " i 1,essJhisY~ than'lasLy~:through thes;,)lJle~10
;.'fh~,?wneI;, ?.(.~ eOW11t~W11F~rgus F s. Vldeostore'm.onths,he,s,a!d' ';:'iiV;";l',..'i:':: '. 55;:>.,;!)
claIms constrticbpnonL1Il9<>m Avenuevvillhaye cost:;"rin"so:siCk of a few loud people'sayingit'sbeen .
him~1~,~90in,Jos.t~u~itles~bY;the time th~projechis ,; gI'eat,'h ~etSaid, addirig.:that most of the busiDes~
done.: ,'t;';- ...'~;~';;:".:::i,1{n;:;~." ,.' ... '", ;':~wrie~;on.~,b~Ock ar,e also angry about delays. .,'
DerinisHite ,'owner olRivel'front Video hand-deliv-' '., Rite' eIaimShe was'toldth~project would.be com~
,._..".,.,J,.... '"<"'-',.''''" --'{'""f'~"',~_:","'-'''''-':''':'''''-'' :' " .. ,:,,- ,d_" : ,.- ~~;.};'_..)_.'i:-.../':-;-.,- i.'.: ".,", ",,,., _.. '-""', ,.. _':'_c.~
ered a bill for.thal~riiotlIlftoJ~itYJlall;11is lawyer, his See ClairT!~ Page .~. . '. " . ,
. ~L -' .. -<! ~"":, >,~ 'U ':T;~->-~~ };i;..,<",;'" ,_,,,,--j 'Ci_~,~:~,-_.::~.:_~._".:~>.~,.._>.:~..,....:-:.:,:,:-, ~'!,.._::.. _ ._ _ :;____..____.~~.. ._____~.". __~:~_ ~~~_:~_
-:--;.-:- "/..'n ",,_j- f/~<~ ~__~_~___..._.__~, .. - - - -
.;, ;<;;-;,',:;::';';:i e,,'-';'
. Co',
,
1~!J~~~P3l!~Jn "'~~~.:.~~~"':
(pleted ' by. September.and'~ch". cess to "'811 the bu.sinesses
jblock would be. cl~sed totr~cfor downtOwn, at least thTough the
about four to SIX weeks. . Our back door," he said. '"
block was close$! on May..12and,. .. >.,' .' 'd th t d
rerrniiried closed off for A4 long:: Kvenv~ld~n'8lso SaI "." ~. o~d
weeks" Rite' wrote in a 'le.tter' aC- 'town~'7l~~ :~vmers v:ere ~mVlth
I comp~ying the claim.' to p~*te m p~g lor the
1 U In' spite of cutting ~own. on ol}!" ,reno~tion U frQm ~:~g ~ e
! movie orders and ,cutting .costs mend. .,i .... '.?:>'i/.' .
other ways, we. are suffenng c:~n- But Hite said'th~~~-door,. ac-
siderable finanClal stress," he sald. cess hasn't 'been good"enough.)>e-
Community Development ])irec- cause heavy traffic ,has ,made
tor Gordon Hydukovich said stich a access' to . the parking \ lot behind
claim. is not unusual and will' b~ Riverf.ront difficult. U I seE; my reg,
processed thfoughthe contI'actor,ularS.coJl!ing o~t of S!Wgens and
to the city's 'insuranc~company",More 4,.. .he sald, ad~g that he
I which will investigate. It isunusual. will.. have, to convince" people to .
that the claim is' now in "so m.any . b~. their new habits once the
, hands and receiving:attentiori, Hy.. ;renovation project ~cOP1plete. .
I'dukovich said, adding tha~!l~~th~r:"Sincethe store' de~ in snian
claims have been filed1>e~~e of transactions, 'it needs ;~a l~t'of~-
downtownreconstru~tton. ,',fic"toremain viable; Bite SaId.
\ "U (Downtown bU,. sl.ness) pe.oPle Riverfront has to keePb. u.YIn. '.g.m ov-
I've talked to have either had a . ies to bring people in,'but ~t's in-
. same" or bet~r ye~ than last . creasingly difficult wh,en}liere. are "
year, HydukoVlch SaId. _ less customers he said. '
City Councilor Danny Kvenvol- .'..'... . .
den, who. represents.. Rite's 4th.. l!ite SaI~ he IS .sel}.9us ab?ut his
!Ward,' said that he has heard n~,,'claim~d 18 cOn8!-denng takin~ ~e
I complaints from downto!J1.'bUSl- ,ma~r to co~. ~ n;cessClo/' .Its..,
nesses in his ward." . ..' a distinct poSSlbility, he said. , .
.;,;..' -~ ','1.:-
"'.".'~ .' ..
... -.-
".
,-e
3 �': G�
�,`� , 3 J g r L
u) . . * ,,,,,:......,:„...,:-..,:.i .o.,,,.4.17.1,...i?;:m.:46,[j..z.,..-,,....,:::::01,,....:.,‘., ,. /: '.f.,...„.1..-,,,.,t.,!....,;p:,.......!0:;::::::.,t-,..,.,, 1., ■
fl
9V a
o
a.) . . .... ( ,, . „:„.:„....,,, .....„..:..±,:„.-1;1,4 E 'S` m s„ ` �# N rk
= V
laC - -f.:0* - ... -i-7.,..,i,7...-,,,A-s y; ct:�* c :a?.4r 3e�s -1) . O 0
,10#4, ilk
X )
0 ' I. i ....:.-- .. '-'... .. —.2—.2-7.----,..---...';'----''''''''.--- ..€� � 3� � l�\axa\?spa P" � , � w e 711k, f..
��ah �.G.. <.,,_ , s P . d �+ y .
+ `` ,• 7 Ay '!".Z.*::,.....� � \ \ \ v LO
.j.....apC0...- '- IiA d O - .I
0 0
L �- `�f f, c3
?: a y a 14 1
?�• ,� %E x3 ,r`p.,' gyp, II•` 3 � U.8
. �- C•0) ..„ , .. . ... .Yid �` r� \ 0 O q
r,
4s a�s �'\max: � ''�.;3" a t0 _C '0' .
s 1 F, Y
., . .I......!,4g.".',t*:,:,-..... .,:.:-.........--.., .....4...;‘,7,,,,,,..t::::....,-':=A;-, ti.:1‘,1*.:.:4..,..:.:,:.',....,.::, -'....:.:..-- ,.....i.:colf.,`P.:,.:S.:.-"::M.'.....:,'- :',,-:::'!'."-.!-....J....'-,:. h. 0 M i°
.,.. .. . , .---.•.41:a.,...;.!7.,.,. -...i7 .•.,',.:. -`•5*..:::..:.'....-4,.,..:::-',,,..:1,,,'"---'..:!._,,,.,,,..-..- -..,.,.:-:,-:....: ...41-,',141..:::::':',...._..... .-..'. '.. ..n.- 0- 2 c . -a cz
li
a) .' : .„,„ , ._, .,„ - °"x' ,ate < E 0 0 ' 0 0 0
0 m... — : - -' .' ' . . ti 3 � .f . a1 a1 a1 c. a>-113,� `^o' �3 � ti.c•s `� � l'Ei 0 x ,r ��t X1 . � 0 �' MN1I:y tv, x fib • . cro'o v 41� 0al 0 imillt. (/) fit ..:- �+ �0 a; e 3 0 EL hl 3~ oq. p $ >
ti- . 0 .� o,�; ai t c `-ci, fr).o o U,0 0 ti - o .(� U z 0 0� O obA0 " 00 o..7 CV ` --� *A• ca. 'J 0 t� •fa y O w 0 O ai '� a• Q � e� off � E g. : o9 . E,o �°c� '� �b. a1 v: �+ a>' ,-.� "c�Q. o o
0 •Q� .`� � W Ow,.:�� ya �50!,q3 :'
-;, .°�,cy.oy � a c� c� o � 3 1.6 ao.
W; m r a 0 .G p w'S� o 0 b. u..- O- O' 5 G0 V y ,cs,
L 0 0 3 o y.4 gE- 0 Vi a; H ,, o^o �,. o '
�: >„ti o o w °� a`� ai aH 0 0 >'� a3i tiq� 'ca 0 ws c aiH �.-805�M ai 0
�°' �� oDcn �o•r� � � :. L. �1T�js � .r4 ca a. �ar� o > :~ 0 x ��• •
C.)
.
i—. v;4 fi a sx i-; - a ° ¢ �,A --L$ms'„
a gee �' £ '
5' �.- f� - F d iy �
•
® BY.� °. \1 , E 'fig// �� Z 4
6
1/44%,ate" ..��
_,. ,
y
v w +��g s d � �
. µ
. y : v x t 3 y
C) ilk.
rtl .. d ,x "* \.s '3 tip-
- :.° e- i ' ‘'.."'":''''''-ttYik';1,.:', ,'k<, r'-',.'''' i/
:''' : f.- • ,- :-' tr /V, ,,, ' .J.,t,',it"' "%, '4%- .:;'-z, ,,,,,,,,;, ' - i
(I:It
a4
sa
fW
z .,,;:. - ,'} 94 '"'''''''' ' ' -
•
K
/
.«;W F e d . fJ - assi 3' , ! � Fy' pyaro� S
s.s S $
, CI*
/-NF a� :�y ids
, !, i i a , Et _4 ¢
0
, �_aU'o- CO.0 2 ' 0,1)- d,a t cis f" > N d(1
T3. U
a> 3.5.E - o..00
•
t T
2,51)v)1 § 2:1 U
L / t, U L ms.
• -00 -
13 14.0 0 4"' •- -
4) 1„, C 4*.. ii C 4), °
. ••,..... 03 2 en co 0 I- cfs-- C 5...,ri.44=-:113 G 15 33•••:,.12 T..
-,..0,fl, ' 2`t_c wo70.0 :047 . 0 •-'0- .- .. -.
- cu•-.(60.0
2 >. ''''' ESS ''013.i., 10)(5•P- L- g.astii.gc7)--04-::..3.°•-t)-:: ' -
.0 ,
Z; 3 ...-.., Ecuil..) 0P. °) • .,
0E15- cs'..owtomogliuf. eo4340.....vg = 0-s3 (ato)r.oct.4:9
-a= ',-,—,, '°-t I:1-1 ci:10, ED c ri• P- o .4).;2 tsui-_,,•-c,t.-•-•
E cis:3.0 P....ct 13 0 u-. _ 7
SLoni (17.5-0t, .-. .f..
HBO 0:11 ' r ' . ' ilvtip '` •
0 1 4 ......,. ----- - ' ,... , , ..,•: ,..
-)*„ .-1. ' ....
1 .<
4- ,
t ,,,,,,i
ki, , • • 't
''
.„, ,..,,
, .. ,. ,...
. , 1•
1
'
-4 •
. ,
.,. . .,,,.,"
''' ' l''' i,,o
c, ,,*fri,,,,,,,..,
, .., ,4.:,,1.,v;,,..,„,,,4 , • .. ‘ ,., ,
,..0. , :. ', , -.s.,:-...- t k-,, '.4 ..-..i. ' '-• , . 7
,,„....,,,,,,,,,,, _,... ..,,,,,„:,. . , „T.: 4,....,,,,. ..,. .. ••,... _
ItA
, ,:.;', 7„,,Jks. iii.'""......,..; . ,—,:k! 1. —•.'
, a .i.„.•,•,,.•., ,.• $.,•••• ,•-•
' i,.,-.,-.,,, ... -2,, -. _,...:_,__._... • .,• ,,,.,. :- P . AL..*
,,,,,,,,,, .„ • ,.-.„..,- ,.,,,,,,,-,* ,...., .. ,. ,4. -. . .
t
.,.. 41- '1'4,1;416,, : .•-; i ; ' 4 - ".•
$
i ....,,'
ir
.
..,,,..- -A.,.,;
'
,,,,,..-.5t,
:;,:ix-41,4.44.4".,t:.,./itt,..;':., 4" ,,,- '',,eptei ' -, 1.1 4 pl •', '
Ai
l'f:'"''-i;:."4.-!9•‘',,;,t'.,'';', ," -, (., i s„.• ;. , ,
0 „,%
, . .. .. .... ,
—- :.-
'-: ,v- s:— --',--'t •, 2-: -—4.,:' - ,-,it-..* .,..-1,—.1!' 1 7'
8
kt•,' .!-:t''.1...,,,,,,-'':- ,..:- :..-.4".-::- ft"4' ''.. )''6.'ioik:'‘''i''''':1*
4%.t.,,o, .,....-,..•..V.,... . • . .k.,,, ..',,-,.•. - : ''.:APT”. :' '
.,..,-:•'..4.-!:;01.;:-.,-,',-(.-.4, -‘,,'''. ,,. . . ,A,..4.3,.,k
•-.,,-. ,,--'..:----x--,..4--?"...,,,,*,..----,..,w•-• ''' - .,,..,‘....:4,4:1X-' '',.,;:,;„,;::'.,..ktr111,1...,.,..7,17',,Rtt,-:''.:'''..d.. -
„ _„....,(-,...,'-!..,•.-:-...., - ,. , , ,,
-,spk-V-- . ''',--''' - it' ',?•,,.„Vt,.
N,,,i.",.;-,..-•-,%....-,,i-iL.••••---, 4,41.•
, ":,'1.-•=?.cy -„:-.L.--.., "--,....---- ' , '-'.'.,.'". it,..
- - _ .- -,--...,,,sr.,..,-.-,._, .;• .,•.,_ . . ,..,,,, ... .
, .
., .'-•„-,.-','..t.;-- ,,;,*,-,,,--,-.,,, .,...., ' ., ,,04,4:!,,- . , . - „•,-,--,---',..- .
. . . ,-,„ _ ,.:=. •...... , CA-sj CD"CS 'cl)a a)
--ri tlr)= t--T'.8 E E 1:`)°Fo ti ' • 5 "
' 4, • e:c1),:--1 ct) Ps g'&11, . ,;.,' g.c ,t cn 0 2 Ts >—-t3.1:j ...in.5-al •
o2tocot4 "zeuo.o'cts.o 6 go-°*-o 'ca.' '4. g &.-.. 41, - 34) .Eigc1.0.- '•.•
v4 :40.ca ' , (DE '' ,S ".5., "-'-' •c. 0.1.1:- -.-. •■-,Le) 0 °), CO.v) 4..; CD.^.. "'.
0•ri - cr g..z-F) II ,c2'..0- --c, 4.)•cu >• ul
sRzrx4cugss.. ./...1g ,.. , 6, -.cn -. •,, c.);5. g a> g s.... CL■ cneu4sv2 •
zii.5.1 a) 5 ,„ e,-N,_ .•5 0>-.-i a T3c„.,...---•,:,... i 4.4.z.., cp .":".. ta 10,-; ,:3,).g = ci) w.4.1
Is' tr) ,-. 0 • ,k1 =
W,-..0-
.- .ii
g).040E -=4 IA - b.0 eg,]'•=1.i:1 °:0". fill 92 1:-1"cl'ri .0 -'.-.5 S 4-'z E
m.g..-@cv .. USt)..A.
")
v 1 a) tiz.4 4:'•E .''', ,.4.) bp' '15 ,... , E g 2 cciu) t, .....a scri.....A.)t: 4,
Q g E. g-) 2r4b4V ._ar-10= C12-P,31EF %)
E-4 5 R,. o 6% mi •Iz g"1‘
~
~
~.
e
October 17, 1991
Mr. Wallace Abrahamsen
Mayor
216 N. 4th St.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor,
This letter regards our conversation concerning the parking ticket I
received in Stillwater on July 20.
When I received this ticket I thought it was a mistake, so I found the
Ticketing Officer(Kara C. Badge * 241) in town and brought her back to the
parking spot(See attached picture. Red X indicates the parking spot that I
received the parking ticket.) She stated that this spot was a no parking
area. I asked, since it was no parking why wasn't the curb painted yellow
like the spot in front of it. She stated that the Public Works Department
had been contacted but that they had not painted it as yet. I asked her to
take the ticket back and she stated that she could not do that and she was
only doing her job. "I feel it is every employees job to correct the
situation if necessary." She did not appear to be interested in correcting
~the situation. I also asked her how many other tickets have been issued to
ople parking in this spot. She stated that 12 tickets had been issued on
hat block from June 15 - July 20. She stated that most of the tickets have
been given in the same spot that I received mine. However, she could not
tell me the exact number because they only keep records by block and not
parking stall. She also stated that the Police Chief, David M. said it was
ok to issue tickets for this parking spot. This made me extremely angry,
that the ticketing officer continues to give tickets when the no parking
area is not clearly defined.
I wonder how many other tickets were issued to innocent people for the
remainder of the summer? The parking ticket amount was $25, which is a
large amount. Imagine how many other people the Town of Stillwater has made
mad this past year and may never return. Also be reminded that people who
wrongly get a ticket also tell others who also get a bad taste for the Town
of Stillwater.
Most people would likely pay the fine and not go through the hassle of
going to court. This situation did not seem right to me so I went to court
on August 20. I sat there a 2-3 hours waiting my turn and they then set a
trial date of October 15. So I went to trial on October 15 and I won the
case the parking spot was not adequately marked no-parking.
It was noted that I had a clean driving record which shows that I am
conscientious how I drive and where I park.
It very much disturbs me that I had to spend this amount of time and money
~ defend myself in this case. I have a full-time job in St. Paul and it
~ costly for me to take off of work. I also incurred travel costs to and
from Stillwater for court appearances and to take pictures of the parking
stall, etc. to defend myself. I estimate the cost to be approximately $350
to defend myself.
The expense of $350 to defend myself does not include the costs for the
time of the Judge, Public Defenders, and court.
The Town of Stillwater can not afford to treat their customers in such a
fashion. I spend a lot of time and money in Stillwater shopping and going
to restaurants. I expect mut~al respect from the Town of Stillwater and I
don~t appreciate be treated ~nfairly when I come to town.
I
Mayor, I appreciate you list~nin9 to me and I hope incidents like this can
be prevented in the future.
Sincerely,
N~~
Dennis Treml
2715 Lake Elmo Ave.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Phone number (W) 282-8766
~
"
e
e
e
•
:•1
KF ,
.ham _„.. .1 _ .
t
I. '.. ce.
CI
F s -.k'1Y� �' . rte"
iF0
, •.nom -:
lommunatimmanniesnommaimitimeserweammiumei,,..„.
' ,4,,..g.,,,,,,.. : ' ''. .:1 . .•..1' '':.11. r'' - : _
•
e
e
e
TOWN of GRANT
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
I<ayor and CouncilmEmbErs
City of Stillwater
216 Ko. 4th Street
Stilh'mtET, IilL. 55082
Dear Mayor and Councilm(mbers:
October 21, 1991
It has comE to the attention of the Grant To~n Board that
you are proposing to annEX the MinnEsota Transportation
I,:useum property in Still'water and Grant Townships.
The Grant TO'lNTl Board is in opposition to this proposal,
and ask that any discussion and/or public hearing be
delayed until they can attend your meeting. The Grant
Town Board meets on TUEsday, NovEmber 5 at 7:00 p.m.,
so would be unablE to attend your meeting that night.
cc: Vicki Gifford, Grant Tovm Attorney
Stillwater Township
Sheila S. Davis, Clerk
111 Wildwood Road
Willernie, MN 55090
(612) 426-3383
Sincere ly, :
d ~:---,
. (/ \ .
WI u-~hc/ /~e-/ L/)
Sheila S. Davis
ClErk