Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1991-04-16 CC Packet
• AGENDA STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL April 16, 1991 REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION ROLL CALL 7:00 P.M. /APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Special Meeting - March 26, 1991. Regular & Recessed Meetings - April 2, 1991. /INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS v 1. Roger Meech - Request to have Motorcycle Parade through Stillwater on evening of June 29, 1991. ✓ STAFF REPORTS /PUBLIC HEARINGS V 1. This is the day and time for the Assessment Hearing on Downtown Plan Improvements, L.I. 257. Notice of the hearing was published in The Courier on March 21 and 28, 1991 and mailed to affected property owners. • /1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Final Plat Approval for 24 -Lot Single - Family Subdivision located in Oak Glen Development 11th Addition, south and east of Eagle Ridge Trail, David Johnson, Applicant. /2. Final Plat Approval for 43 -Lot Single - Family Subdivision located in Oak Glen Development 12th Addition, north of Eagle Ridge Trail and east of Neal Ave., David Johnson, Applicant. /NEW BUSINESS u 1. Resolution correcting Delinquent Utility Special Assessments. L/2. Reapportionment of Special Assessments for Outlot Q & Outlot S., Oak Glen 10th Addition. /PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS & DELEGATIONS (Continued) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Resolution Directing Payment of Bills (Resolution No. 91 -60) 2. Applications (List to be supplied at meeting). 3. Sewer Bill Adjustments. 4. "Application for Exemption from Lawful Gambling License" - St. Michael's Church, June 30, 1991. 5. Set Public Hearing Date of May 7, 1991 for the following Planning Cases: a. Case No. V /SUB /91 -8 - A Variance to the lot size requirements for a minor subdivision of a 3,528 square foot lot parcel into two parcels of 1 896 square feet a d 2,688 square feet at 208 South Main Street in the CBD, Central Busi ess District. Arlen Rivard, Applicant. b. Case No. SUP /91 -1c - A Special Use Permit for the placement of a twenty four by fourteen oot CT scanner modular unit on the west side of Lakeview Memorial Hospital (emergency entrance). The hospital is located at 919 We •t Anderson Street in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Cory Kissling, Applicant. c. Case No. V/91 -14 A Variance to the frontyard setback requirements (thirty feet required, twenty six feet proposed) for the construction of a garage /livin space addition and a Variance to lot coverage for all accessory str ctures (1,000 square feet required, 1,183 requested). The property is located at 1019 North Second Street in the RB, Two Family Residentia District. Joseph Samuelson III, Applicant. d. Case No. SUP /91 -1• - A Special Use Permit for a miniature golf course at 204 North Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Todd j and Laura Shely, applicants. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS STAFF REPORTS (Continued COMMUNICATIONS /REQUESTS 1. Charles R. Weaver, M CC - Information Regarding the 1990 Final Cost Allocation., 2. Mary E. Anderson, Chair, Metro Council - Concern regarding the Fiscal Disparities Law. QUESTIONS /COMMENTS FROM EWS MEDIA ADJOURNMENT 2 FOR BOARD USE ONLY Fear :Z -- Legal Name of OY anization ._. Business Address of Organization - Street or P. 0 Box (Do not use address Of gambling manager • a.71E:'vi17a Tip Code . County Business phone number W T � R I JYGTO `` b� -) • -sa- Name of chief executive officer (cannot be gambling manager) Tide Business phone number Address-of-chief execu eve offic r - Stre tv IJ J c Woo � 1 City .: Class of Premise Permit Fee lass A Bingo, Raffles, Paddlewheels, Tipboards, Pull tabs $200 Class B flaffles, Fadeftewesfs, Zipkieertie, Pull tabs < Y $125 ❑ Class C Bingo only $100 Q Class D Raffles only $75 Bingo Occasions If class A or C, fill in days and beginning and ending hours of bingo occasions No more than seven bingo occasions may be conducted by an organization per week. ,r ginning /Ending Hours The class of premise permit must be reflected by class of the organization license. ❑ .' New premise Fill in base organization premise permit number -' z Renewal of existing premise permit - Fill in complete premise permit number 13• D /Q5f- 0 0a ❑ Previously expired premise permit — Fill in complete premise permit number .4.4 Minnesota Lawful Gambling - 'ry„zr .�-;uT�b�a.� e ermit Application ame1of establishment where gambling will be conducte< . We". :: , N -N. � r �e. C.. L i4 4 ` KCB s the premises located within_ city Iimiits? treet Address (do not use a post office box number; ity and County where gambling premises 'is located OR Township and. County where gambling - premises is located if outside of • city limi oes the organization o NOTE Organizations may not pay themselves `rent rf they own; the building or have a holding company; A letter must be su mitted showing rent payments as zero from gambling funds if the organization's holding company owns the premises -.The ,q, iJ � 5+*?e Ks a 1 �•c t y a r r,v y f r; y letter must be signed by the chief executive officer) z9 �t;r zt. .�..y�:w,�,^ .:.i'y ',r r r.:?, :J � x#�'e,f ty %t ?'T� +(,it '4A F��tiJ•s� P 3r '. > ?X �y> � -5� € M � - >fi� :' �? � F �, 6 +ri • V Z ra• 4 -•, rf } •� tP f� .3} nit %{ '.{ k* r-+. ts. a !` .( >' ti } . If NO attach the foilowtn(] t " ' tt'�'�' ifk�f �''S2 ta.a v �,�: f f rt 9�. 1X a; sr'i �.i , u t z c � � < � Y � } r t r `. �� •t r`+y .,.: `�. "*r z -� .�a, 2 r �, -: .✓ J rk.�' h e Y, flk a r ,t yY" �t�r - tfi.t$ ua atc- `' s i''t �.ey f H 5 t� - �c. �cz,°A? �P Imo- tint+{,'' y�p•� � '�..r �..ai� °y--� p � ..�7 � , � � � *;,, . a copy of the lease with terms for ., o n e year..,., , ` R )t , ,— a copy of a sketch of te floor -plan withdimenions, showing what poriot n �° 1� . , -t ^ ti r t ; r� } ti • , is being leased % } lease and sketch are not required for Class D applicantionsj £rte; x ur .t -• ±,,:R::1 ,.., r,r. y'rr.;c ':mss f!d X k} a4 y v or gambling without bingo otal square footage leased otal square footage leased tt rJ: `''tea �rkf'"C•ie. ;a4iyX, sa -.`•a. {.,i U *r . ;a .:;?- :"E:"twc ,' dress of storage space -of gambling equipment }. n rt t r3 , .�,}��'�► .tb o.: tt. .ti: f.: <ra.:.• .; o .k,y: •::, »x..::: •: : >:.. a: - ::..t?::. :: • •. r:. b*:. ,> ; t : k;;:ti•;ri� + >.., :S > •Y:t {y:::; :; - :- ::;�;�:fi �� ► 77T�t :L ::- :..••,.,.:, , Fz.. w.:::: wrr: •.a : }. :...t..,+x,:'t- •,...: :.- h.:•.;.i•. •;• g?,r 9 .fC.;aYC'::fi:.K.s, <„x $0. :Mil:..:. :.,:,,,,:::.1. n : :t•:• :, !�1FK:...* .:. 4 2t• :-:: V:\ tirtiC;vtiio:v:7. »:; ::::: ::: : r : ::: :::.:»: tf{t ra.:.:, .sr:: \t:::: : :,.,:,:: :r.;: ' :::kMi :t:>...:gg.,::tr :S.: ^::::::.. w,r.!vti•...:t•:.- .. ...... .�:![d: +.�.r-- N•A,.:.t . <. :,•w:•,•:.L: h „f>•:.,.. :YCiti : ..,.'.>,: ::.�•.,•.<. t•:.,•.to: •.:,•:t.. y .:.t, : :.:w ::::ttr � :::: :.wnv : ....... ..... ... F... .... .................:....:}..•1i' ^ .itii \,P \....:.n.....M:�.ii }: {x .fin,..:: yv: i,tt:}jiin::.i}• :d:...., M.....' :t.........4....... `•' }}:!.i %r ,,:,n• c.��}}�::1 i ^•.t:.ii }:: itY.:S (each permitted gambling premises must have a separate checking account) , . ; << .� Bank Names =� ; >Y } °,"1 Bank Account Number J Y,. .:u; i ns'` :L �,'+ _,.r f_'9 '' ?4' E v � ( Name,`address, and title of persons authorized to sign checks and make deposits and withdrawals kj w,in?Jt�"r .., 3?.x%wi'h`3_v:- :y,+�"i+.iF n, .N �;?Y.'a+•, �';',,.w.9�f ,2, ±;Yl a1.n "4�; 'r.r ht'Mr tJ.�F.;` -, w- 'ry.. tAnCIIE tI Gc mbIsr g a *.t ; „art;.,, lication� i32: f , x� "r�'„��^°' A •i .z'•svF c vi a'.� .��:.,y�"t 'a r. ?> ,a-- it ir' �✓"'. A s Z s t � A.. .F � -+4•. -a �„. 5 r i. xs � a-•S :,f`1 - 'r � •x..i�r. 'k3. 4.�s'g` ��. N F '3 -_ '� K, {(R S �f P v 3 1 d S 1 s'?' nfL�``L.• ' y7- y e P• ri ;ambling Site Anthorization { ; v hearby,consent that local 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 Informations e board is authorized to inspect the bank records of the gambling account whenever necessary to fulfill requirements of current gambling rules and law.r have read this application and all information submitted to the board, III information is true, accurate and complete, aII other required information has been,fully disclosed am the chief executive officer of the organization, assume full responsibility for the fair and lawful gambling and rules of the board and agree, if licensed, o abide by those laws and rules, including amendments to them`' >f- 7 g .. .. ... f membership list of the' organization will be available within seven days after it is requested by the board, *r: 4ny changes in application information will be submitted to the board and local government within 10 lays of the change, and termination plan will be submitted to the board within. 15 days of the termination of all premise permits. Failure to provide required information or providing false information may result in the denial or revocation of the icense. � ..;;Signature of chief executive officer ;13^4cc.",. .. „y:,•'.^•,:{•y •S`^`r"J"lY •m../yrF ra}}Kr:: >::L.o1Jl.P.. f. f. rfr,..,yy; r�':;:.�.r.%,n;�..:` /fx`Y•y ,r�o+^�•yyy i/ �J.,.'-' >Y.r}�'.x?c",J^s:fss_Ry?'J.•`.: iJ >1.".', •7f%Y1 ..x�r..:?i�f•S:i� vt f.. �..:•: �.r; ^'•: :::; •rf< : ::.:: rr•Nf � , .<:•, „,..y <ryy:;t•::::•,•: r. :7. ::::r:fi ..: tr�5,+ ��igY.�Y. y:•:: x!•..: t: r�3.:..v, ,.- ..r,`Y.`,., .., r / ..,ir:.3a;. :;fi:: r-: �li••?;,fr{ t:.. ?° r.7'!f f <.;::of %::'° } ,: £ •�:?, :.:. exx>n>x.i<%fc;�xa�ill• ren::. pfi ' > �. .......: . :r.v��;�:}�i���i'+'f i�'�1Si ii”: •r�'Fy r..: rr�'•i' � rA! -0 :y! • iY • :Yi it r• { r •:•:: y�y: y• y>:::•.:•:. a::y y.<. .:: ::::y::•y:::c:,..<x:r:�::••: r: yx »r..yyy <yy::•w.r t? .r.......; ...f f.C4i:: y::::::::: ••: v:.+�.2:!�l {: f:3:: $,..•!: frS:;2,. }:Y:i; '....:::..: .............::.:....................:.:.........r...r..............:.... .....•...i.......•9.::r; ? r: »:::.; n: y.; E6.. � .55::::!::::!•:: :..::::..:•r... f..................... Y.•.:: 02•. .. :............................ r......, • sy¢$"r ,:# r #` r .!6 .e,ka �t + >` e'e., .,ri ,x5 +' `k' .1.4+� s r•'yy 4 �. .„, �Y� r5 ,%F, tst- yR The city *must sign if the ' gambling premises is located within city limds . e county "AND township•'. must sign if the gambling premises, is located within a townshi .. b P The local government (city or county) must pass a resolution specifically approving or denying the application., .;.; A copy' of the resolution approving` the application must be attached to the application j ' F Applications which are denied by the local gov�Ferning body should not be submitted to the Gambling Control Division. & t YF %, -7 la'(. 1 1-y.4. Township: By signature below; the township acknowledges the organization is applying fora premises permit within ounty Nam Township Name Signature of person receiving application ;w ,Date Received ring application to focal iiuiesata Lawf bi i Fermat Application `tr•.. z i4 FOR BOARD USE ONLY FEE •'.� .. CHECK;'' =��''� � � INITIALS ` _F • 5 DATE ea: w} }x:? {.}}}:. •? a;:ii ?i ?: ^:•X??vv. :{{?.. v.•}}} v.} 7t}}: M`:•:? Y.} }vY.? ?ti} }j'?`:. \ \ \- •:{ ::}? ^:C:_ _ _ ...: ..::. .v. v::::::{• }: ? ? ?'•:ai.......... n: v. }•n :n`.•i }::•:i::�i::i:;:i• :y iy � `i::j.:irb: i }:� ?v.: nv... v. ..... .. \• .t•.; .. . i}: ^}:t•:ti0i:;:• }:•: ?• }ii:4Yi::::s }ti;:� > {Y:B:$v'C�'i�:tii', .M: ::::i.�• �' �' i/. .:: W}•{: rr.:::?:-} j:•: i:} j:}}}: 3?; }:Y•y }: ?;i:•t.•:: ?i }}r�C:iQ::4: gal ame of Organizapon .,� ',Q(�; FL (Siiss17 T''I1ttiAT� usmess Address Of O anization Street or P 0 Box Do not use rg� . ( se address of gambling manager Name of chief executive officer (cannot be gambling manager YO Addressof-chief executive officer : Str et or P. O. Box Business phone number r ti (�+ ) y • ;6-0, Business phone number )2..) is 3J - '�`jT/t(^,'"Y f•'C r }. ... i g .- ^tv. }"'y' }w•r,.,;;•,t;e.:.w... ,*k y,; >��r��4= �:�'iS•��*< %., ts'x. :.'rtY X''ifi���tr � .�.. nv, y.�rb+' _C c� s- � z rat•�C Class of Premise Permit Class A Bingo, Raffles, Paddlewheels, Tipboards, Pull to i•s .; x e l ;t *- f %e 6'r f'-k i t s '_.: v " t v ❑ Class B ylRaffles, Paddlewheels, Tipboards, Pull tabs 3�C t ert 5 rs 4.v. N.b`r��'y�°� °,; n 3 a ,•" 4 i ❑ - :Class C Bingo only t t f ❑ • ;Class D Raffles only The class of premise permit must be reflected by class of he organization license New premise Fill to base organization premise permit number Renewal of existing premise permit - Fill in complete premise permit number Previously expired premise permit Fill in complete premise perreit number �' s G214 dame of establishment where gambling will be conduc sr ca, `R O f" C{Its 79 fir,, , w h Is the premises located within city limits ?' n es `^}eC �ta„roea•,Yt .,N.,yy,,,, 1 Jtiw.+$�'}ut,M„v•r, �+hea• :'...••cccr+C„M,`�c'.. �vn};ry+'a�, n' • ....•. uc� s'�j., } { ~} a uw �h� \}y'•0t \''�...ty{ 4', \�i,i w�`,. <., ,,,'E', '`�.. �- Street Addres s (do,yynot use apost officebox number) Z•F 8,n..u:* s A'4`;;H dak-!rvq'r ' t .u.+asa 3`4iru -M d r• • r:. -'t 4'q tt -.x•a 1 <'{ ! ...?iS: '.r:�'ii a ; -,Y. • Ii and County where gambling premises is located OR Township and County where gambling premises is located if outside of :city limn 44 •r�`,<��y.�4. e r.'.,,w R r r; y •w g` } r v l . q i. �" NF ' ■+: �+`. 1 � �rk a�sz � � ^13�,e�r t ; t•u` ra.uF°>i?�i., er.:- �.... 1. :��r; kY t�' 34 �= y411. i�K ' ►� 'Y`'�y4'r rD M ��/ A^j�57.61V., /rJ'i'" Iuift n I I /t + i%tI�J%t //Y li© r +, ''^ )f q•. -. x.l Ytr..- 1 .i.- N rc} J - a `T �Ct' ar i_x. ,�i s ame and Address of Legal Owner of Premises t " City , ° "., 1 f,� States b : -� 3 a ; ,r sZ�p Co oes the organization own the building where the gambling will be conducted ❑YES `° { .N�O `�� ` ` {t = �� •`�) r r'r n r �"',� +� � �a SEC � ux `t� ,G.4 ' t tit, � �•- * sf d v^+. µ � �� yT �} i h •'� "P` r "?�jl r'�s'+ °: '. < {'a i,w .?plc;, l�rak"!", C.7,�n.� -"lit C v�sr t..J fir• § b iuY.l t.rc# 11'Y'x' T,"Sx,a f Eg. y� „rs.».1{i:kz 4eT� NOTE Orrganuzations may not pay themselves :rent if they own the building or have a holding company kA letter must be su niittted showing rent payments as; zero from gambling funds if the organ'�,�zat�on s holdi g company owns the,premises. ,The r letter must be signed by the chief executive officer. )`r <;]]�,"�� g,7 ..'Sh•- xiG��Xxp5�9 ��Si 4 : is 9 "`t,•i;w • '• 1,*,4 r '',- „k,S5v .- 'r ', "t • If NOattach the following fid Jy,9 ;` -tY "y"%1$''�'4 �'F- 'SC•p�,: C' 2"� »eP. ,,�• a copy of, the lease with terms for one year:, < �� �^rt `a copy of a sketch of the floor plan dimensions ease: and sketch are not required for Class D appitcantions "��F 'fr.r r K.A 1�i+.;'.4,r zia•:; :Ran or gambling without bingo �rt�L1• •i sl• lr •Fi"?.f�.� 'r'�. 3y YJry t",:.. i t fiY. squarfootage asase4 3 v 0 0 5Q, • °�+�d3:- E�Y•si st ,c;�''s• ,f :ys.'r .'. � � .< �: •dq,x'`x.� " ^.' �g otal square footage teased< �. +fax f rt YE' a � ”{ i}.t.. ^� y � , • t�',. \i ?: :�tythi'fiY: •k-. ,4 4: ':: v- }Yr�-J'•v'4Y' \ "^ .. ,}Y ' O:•}: },nA1.. �^:•:Ctt•J :t }}:iiii. } },}}Y.•iy:C: }.v , •�y •,p•,.: ., }••: ,}:':• }:Sii {• }}5.- yv}: 9. +: nh :i' { { \v•', }Y•tS..A. `{ j•i t : { .{ . {•4•:v,,�: , ::i(v?.+-ti {^n,:.}�'..., .. x'v: fry. '+'• �,L {}:i+., .. •n.+i: .. Ri:.• }:.+c�.k -.x }.3 w'•:c:;i...JOC•:�.). ..+1....',a2:.. ...s 3., :} JJ.',.\.• .�,'2,,.0J:'- : };rr:�{c%t.:J.r +: J. J.. t... x }:aY : y:<•, ::::.,:.- :.:•!S�:- .!�.....}:�'& :•:�•:, .�°ry.,tC'n%:Y•'�.J�., :.,i. ,:., s:.::.:,-:::.. nf?':......,,•).%••. tayatiw'':, ••ti..'•.,•:.,+.•x�tJ�t• „•:2. },. .,t.�`,.,vtt• }:r}•'�.s.3�- �.� -. : • :........................t• ».;, }:........'•n. ... a•:.,}}:. r. �} J•: .{y }: ?•w:•JJ }X }:. {;t. } };. {;:: }: psi{ i{::.}: tc::. a:. J;.}:.:...:\ J:.} x{.. Y.................•{............... ...........)...,.....a.:....... .}J:•.•............. each permitted gambling premises must have a separate checking account) >> r _. nk Namr e S ;< y� £� y �r y J r Je a� of T a” Bank Account Number i fII `,��� /llt� �fi%�.f�� +J JY SV' h Tfr.t d�. � � .I ✓'^' b,ji^ .... _ ., ... e._. Bank Address Name,'address,'and title of persons authorized to sign checks and make deposits and withdrawals.' .2rs riitt `o 1 { J k-! kk , q.,- ; t 4t o5'.yi e �'���58:`'�a<x�t�'�$„ '"'.+`•..arx�1�•S, .ir�_ <.n t+y�}s --; }4C v•$'r. 7�.,�r-r+�"�..':�'Nr'^"�iC _ I! li ■ 'd h! 7 4A-414,14, s Minnesota Lawful Gambling roc- k�. Permit =A cation rX +y aA s r rY gambling Site Authorization t • . r 1 �' + ,�` *� sr��- iYdtu,�}�a^s 4Y Rv '�, krs ... .r+ ..•, +d.3'` hearby consent that local law enforcement officers, the board or agents of the board, or the commissioner of revenue or ublic safety; or agents of the commissioners may enter the premises to enforce the . =ill ....v..•�n T -4=,A b-S. ii.Y ": •£a}, nom... `C .�i..._ C, ,... Y'L• . .. .. .. - . _. f a. .. sr .. U. eY._.yfh ;.� ..= lak Records Information pc, e board is authorized to ins ed the bank records of the gambling account whenever necessary to fulfill I g wrements of Current gamblin rules and law. � :<l. +`` ',' ,.. -. = .,� � .:_�. • ; -: I have read this application and all information submitted to the board; All information is true, accurate and complete, All other required information has beenyfully disclosed, am the chief executive officer of the organization, g assume full responsibility for the fair and lawful gambling and rules of the board and agree, if licensed, f` to abide by those laws nand rules including amendments tothem, ; � Y y , , , A membership list of the organization will be available "within seven days after `it is requested'by the board, ny changes in application information will be submitted to the board and local government within 10 fidays of the change, and termination plan will be submitted to the board within 15 days of the termination of all prem ise permits •sY' Failure to provide required information or providing false information may result in the denial-or revocation of the icense },�Y,,F:;".•Fn}j?;r .}e....,.f,.-- °.A :.r...... ..i ..", :ir .:..: m.. . cmax>m.. :. v:..lg.. .ts.:�c.s..,�.,. rxt 1.: - :rCfr�,: fa1 .r...>.rt.,r, c..�..u.�:.�...� . . . �; A.. ..eY; �'A� ....g: f.rf •:. f:f• t •: „site '•:ryn'•?3.r;xy„;.,:� •}.f::t�:,.i •l. a':.f`.;. , w ' x`:, >r•- F:..;73:,rF�. }' F� r» ,.fF : F�F.f;F: . iF,F:..ry ..:f.r . , . 4,J{3f :! 3}:F.Y:.%. : �f. 'r ,. :::.v, .•w .'-•.•i• '6f r: :-'rf, :}:}a r . :5: } ;: }.v. :} • 3} }:}• :'., :::? 3:}:Sr.,:r.rr/•, K•:�: r ••: •'.•;F.. r :.<h;. r. . 1:.= .yTr:,.: :,.}yM.: F:..`:, :r ; t`- •rni :. g:? i <}:yT::.yr:,.r ..}3:; :::,r;:.•`f.: .'}{ k:: .:y, : r:. r..}::..},i.•; � , < .v...7..::. } } }'•� }gin.... .0 ...G.v..s n4..<f . f/fs.,:.rc };fsF:r.,.:vivFFyn .2i <2y.�::X• {:r..`;.•:'.gi!•33 iiF'• i,^ iFi'..{•; ct: FSi• LF3:' /.•fr {.Xir.$ccFF:�iri:.r, ;2i•-i .........................� n...,........ ,.....v.........br...........:. ; ...:..rsrry; :�..; ......w::vv :;�v::;. .}...........?.. .............................:. .... •' The citymsign if the gambling premses limits. is located within city ;.° . The 'coup •ty'•AND township ".muss sign�ifi the gambling premises is located within a township The local government (city or county) must pass a resolution spec fically approving or denying the application. ▪ A copy of the resolution approving the application must be attached to the „application _ ry ▪ Applications which are denied by the local governing body should not be submitted to the Gambling Control Division aunty Name ceiving application a Date Received 3t (1; governing body Date -1-s hip Organized ❑ Unorganized„; . ❑ Unincorpora is yiv- '§+:1'*' Department of Gaming Gambling Control Division Rosewood Plaza South, 3rd fFloor 1711 W. County Road B Roseville, MN 55113 Stillwater Elks Lodge No. 179. B.P.O.E. Telephone (612) 439 -5276 April 3, 1991 Gambling Control Board TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 279 East Myrtle Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Zero amount of gambling funds are used for rent that B.P.O. Elks #179 pay to Richard Kircher as and for rent that the aforesaid Lodge pays per month as rent. • Respectfully, Bruce A. W. Kamperschroer Exalted Ruler LG202 (11/14/90) PrernL es:Informatior Name and /I Address of Lessor deid Minnesota Lawful Gambling Lease Agreement ut.N6 if , Address City/Zip 3) yl rTL s Phone A/39- I9 Name of Legal Owner of G. bling Premise c,AT '• i�i� Leased VAI.I LocJ.k Name and Address o Pr mises Address City/Zip Code Phone a-31 7"i rr .tE (,,X) 2/37- 0//7 Address City/Zip Code - O)O.r& 00 License Number, if known Name of Organization Leasing the Premis s (lessee) ................. ................. .,sQtIf� The lawful gambling activity which the organization will conduct is (check all that apply): I bingo D raffles 1 1 paddlewheels Rent Information (See Rules 7860.0090, Subp 3) Class A and C premise permits: Rent for bingo and all other gambling activities conducted during that bingo occasion may not exceed: $200 for up to 6,000 square feet; $300 for up to 12,000 square feet; and $400 for more than 12,000 square feet. Rent to be paid per bingo occasion $ pull -tabs 1 I tilpboards Class B and D premise permits: Rent for gambling activities not including bingo may not exceed $24 per square foot per month, with a maximum of $600 per month. Rent to be paid per r ttn $chr` %.cy W is Rent may not be based on a percentage of receipts, profits from lawful gambling, or on the number of participants attending a bingo occasion. An organization may not pay rent to itself or to any of its affiliates for space used for the conduct of lawful gambling. emzses llesertpta.on The area leased within the premises is feet by 5 feet, for a total of 30 feet by feet, for a total of feet by feet, for a total of square feet. square feet. square feet. Attach a sketch which identifies the location of the leased premises when a portion of a building is the leased premises. That sketch must include the dimensions of the leased premises. Effeetwwe. Dates:.;: The lease will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. on A� 19 q a , fora period of one year. es 'and :Days of Bingo' 19 ` ?' , and will end at 12:00 a.m. on MNrreti, 3/ ................. ............................... none, `inalcate:N/A) The bingo occasions will be held: from (hours) (a.m. /p.m.) to from (hours) (a.m. /p.m.) to from (hours) (a.m. /p.m.) to from (hours) (a.m. /p.m.) to from (hours) (a.m. /p.m.) to from (hours) (a.m. /p.m.) to from (hours) (a.m. /p.m.) to (a.m. /p.m.) on (days of week) (a.m. /p.m.) on (days of week) (a.m. /p.m.) on (days of week) (a.m. /p.m.) on (days of week) (a.m. /p.m.) on (days of week) (a.m. /p.m.) on (days of week) (a.m. /p.m.) on (days of week) O VC) c0 N. q O) O T r r N CO V LC) (D ; — q C) T T T T r 11!'1; 1' O T N M V) O CO 0! N N N N N N C`.! N N :V d!oiLiz wj iI • ,v11• JJ 1 V/ J/.dJe.ir YAJJE/ Lo G ,�f . SPECIAL MEETING STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 26, 1991 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Abrahamson. 4:30 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Bodlovick, Funke, Opheim, and Mayor Abrahamson. Absent: Councilmember Farrell Also Present: City Coordinator Kriesel City Attorney Magnuson Consulting Engineer Moore City Planner Pung - Terwedo Recording Secretary Schaubach Press: Mike Marsnik, Stillwater Gazette Julie Kink, The Courier REVIEW BIDS FOR DOWNTOWN PLAN IMPROVEMENTS, L.I. 257 Council reviewed the bids received for the Downtown Plan Improve- ments which ranged from $4.5 million to $5.3 million. The low bid was submitted by Johnson Brothers. Consulting Engineer Moore explained the base bid and the four alternates. Council discussed the project with Mr. Moore in preparation for a decision at the meeting of April 2, 1991. PURCHASE OF GLACIER PARK PROPERTY City Attorney Magnuson reported that Glacier Park has proposed deducting $100,000 from the purchase price of the downtown property in exchange for making the City responsible for the clean up of hazardous waste. Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Funke to adopt the appropriate resolution approving the purchase of the Glacier Park property at the new purchase price using TIF bonds, pending approval from the City's Finance Director and the City's Bond Counsel. (Resolution No. 91 -59) Ayes - Councilmembers Bodlovick, Funke, Opheim, and Mayor Abrahamson Nays - None PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR ARMORY SITE Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Funke to adopt the appropriate resolution approving the payment of $25,000 earnest money for purchase of the property for the armory site. (Resolution No. 91 -58) Ayes - Councilmembers Bodlovick, Funke, Opheim, and Mayor Abrahamson Nays - None 1 Stillwater City Council Minutes Special Meeting March 26, 1991 OTHER • Ranum Development City Attorney Magnuson informed the Council that Al Ranum had submitted a revised Development Agreement on the property located on No. William Street. Mr. Magnuson said the revised agreement lessened the City' ability to assess the subject property for future street and utilities as originally conditioned. Council directed the City Attorney to return the Development Agreement to Mr. Ranum with the correct language in the contract regarding future assessments. Bids for Tiling Restroom Motion by Councilmember Funke, seconded by Councilmember Opheim to award the bid for retiling the women's restroom at City Hall to Advanced Interiors and Floor Covering for $625, and to hire a plumber to remove the fixtures. (All in favor) Damage Claim - Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Funke to turn the claim for damage to an automobile, owned by William Scheel, over to the City's insurance company. (All in favor) Meeting with Oak Park Heights - Council will meet with the Oak Park Heights City Council at 7:00 p.m. on April 30, 1991, at the Oak Park Heights Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Funke to adjourn the meeting to Executive Session at 6:00 p.m. (All in favor) ATTEST: CITY CLERK Resolutions: MAYOR No. 91 -58 - Approving payment of earnest money for armory site No. 91 -59 - Approving purchase of Glacier Park property at new purchase price using TIF bonds 2 • REGULAR MEETING STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 2, 1991 The Meeting was called to order by Mayor Abrahamson. 4:30 P.M. Present: Councilmembers Bodlovick, Farrell, Funke, Opheim (arrived at 4:40 P.M.) and Mayor Abrahamson. Absent: None Also Present: City Coordinator Kriesel City Attorney Magnuson Finance Director Deblon Consulting Engineer Moore Comm. Dev. Director Russell Building Official Zepper Public Works Director Junker Asst. Fire Chief Stevensen City Clerk Johnson Press: Julie Kink, The Courier Mike Marsnik, Stillwater Gazette Others: Jan Edstrom, representing the Minn. Transportation Museum ONE YEAR REVIEW OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION MUSEUM TRAIN Motion byy Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Farrell to accept the report regarding operation of the Minnesota Transportation Museum Train rides and approve the renewal of the Special Use Permit for placement of a temporary trailer ticket window along with several portable toilets on the east side of Hooley's for the 1991 season of the MTM train. (All in favor). STAFF REPORTS 1. Finance Director - No report. 2. Public Works Director - Bid for 1975 Ford Truck Chassis Motion by Councilmember Funke, seconded by Councilmember Bodlovick to accept the bid of $655.00 from Stillwater H20, Inc. for the purchase of the 1975 Ford Truck Chassis. (All in favor). Bid for Railroad Crane on Aiple Property Motion by Councilmember Funke, seconded by Councilmember Bodlovick to accept the bid of $500 from Ray G. Koehnen, with a signed agreement, for removal of the crane from the Aiple property within thirty days. (All in favor). 1 Stillwater City Council Minutes April 2, 1991 Regular Meeting Sale of Old Public Works Road Grader Motion by Councilmember Funke, seconded by Councilmember Farrell to authorize the sale of an old Public Works road grader at the County auction. (All in favor). Councilmember Opheim arrived at 4:40 P.M. Review of Uneven Street in front of Larry Dauffenbach's House on Poplar St Motion by Councilmember Farrell, seconded by Councilmember Bodlovick to direct Consulting Engineer Moore to review the terrain of the roadway in front of the Dauffenbach house on West Poplar St., the water problem in that area, and to make a recommendation to Council for resolution of the problems. (All in favor). 3. Community Development Director - Workshop for Preservation Commissioners Motion by Councilmember Farrell, seconded by Councilmember Bodlovick to authorize the attendance of three members of the Heritage Preservation Commission at a workshop at Fort Snelling on April 19, 1991. (All in favor). 4. Consulting Engineer Report on State Aid Funding & Possible Project Mr. Moore stated he had received a letter from the State Aid engineers reporting that the City of Stillwater has a balance of $360,000 for street projects this year for State Aid streets. He suggested completing a portion of Curve Crest Blvd. No action was taken. He also stated he is trying to resolve a problem with the State Aid Engineer regarding the variance on Myrtle and Second St. in conjunction with the Downtown Plan. 5 Fire Dept. - Purchase of Printer Motion by Councilmember Farrell, seconded by Councilmember Funke to authorize the purchase of a printer for the Fire Department at a cost of $239.96. (All in favor). Community Development Director (Continued) Field Trip to Brooklyn Park Mr. Russell announced that a field trip to Brooklyn Park to review their Armory is scheduled for Wednesday, April 10, at 9:00 A.M. 2 Stillwater City Council Minutes • April 2, 1991 Regular Meeting 6. Building Official - Motion by Councilmember Opheim, seconded by Councilmember Funke to authorize the purchase of a jacket with City identification for the Building Inspector. (All in favor). Identification Badges for City Employees Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Funke directing City Staff to investigate the possibility of obtaining identification badges for City employees. (All in favor). 7. Public Works Director (Continued) Employment of Ken Kress as Part -Time Worker Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Funke to adopt the appropriate resolution employing Ken Kress as a part -time worker in the Public Works Dept. effective April 15, 1991. (Resolution No. 91 -55) Ayes - Councilmembers Bodlovick, Farrell, Funke, Opheim and Mayor Abrahamson. Nays - None 8. City Attorney - No report. 9. City Clerk - Application for Exemption from Lawful Gambling License - St. Mary's Church Wild Rice Festival Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Farrell to approve the gambling application for the Wild Rice Festival at St. Mary's Church on September 8, 1991. (All in favor). 10. City Coordinator - Executive Session - April 9, 1991, 4:00 P.M. The Council scheduled an Executive Session Meeting for Tuesday afternoon, April 9, 1991 at 4:00 P.M. to discuss personnel issues. RECESS Council recessed the meeting at 5:00 P.M. ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR Resolutions: No. 91 -55 - Employment of Ken Kress, Part -Time, in Public Works. • 3 • • RECESSED MEETING STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 2, 1991 The Meeting was called to order by Mayor Abrahamson. 7:00 P.M. Present: Councilmembers Bodlovick, Farrell, Funke, Opheim and Mayor Abrahamson. Absent: None Also Present: Press: Others: City Coordinator Kriesel City Attorney Magnuson Finance Director Deblon Consulting Engineer Moore Comm. Dev. Director Russell Public Works Director Junker City Planner Pung- Terwedo Planning Comm. Chair Fontaine City Clerk Johnson Julie Kink, The Courier Mike Marsnik, Stillwater Gazette Tim Nolde, Ed Stuart, Doug Lacher, Jack Junker, Martha Hubbs, Philip Barbatsis, Monty Brine, Clayton Patterson, Vern Stefen,Tom O'Brien, Dennis Sullivan, Chuck Dougherty, Jim Kellison, Fred Brass, Scott Zahren, Terry O'Brien, Don Valsvik, Linda Hinz, Mr. & Mrs. Michael McGuire, Kathy Francis, Marlene Workman, Richard Kilty, Terri Galles, Mr. Hunt, Mark Desch, Tim Stefen, Wilbert Monson, Dorothy Spaise, . Jack Evert, Wally Milbrandt, Cheryl Marshall, John Jewell, Brian Simonet. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Councilmember Farrell, seconded by Councilmember Funke to approve the minutes of the Regular & Recessed Meeting of March 5, 1991; Special Meeting of March 12, 1991; and Regular Meeting of March 19, 1991 as presented. (All in favor). INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS AND COMMENDATIONS 1. Tim Nolde - Cases No. V /SUB /91 -9 and PUD /91 -10 on Agenda. Tim Nolde, applicant for Planning Cases No. V /SUB /91 -9 and PUD /91 -10 reported that he is withdrawing his request and will come back to the Planning Commission with a revised request for single - family homes for that particular parcel of land. 2. Public Input on Council Decision to be made on Alternatives for Downtown Plan. 1 Stillwater City Council April 2, 1991 Recessed Meeting Martha Hubbs, 626 No previous opinion to Plan improvements. Anna Danielson, 1222 the wishes of the ma the decorative alter Vern Feinsasser, Map Island will not rece Council responded th Assessment Hearing. Richard Kilty, 118 W taxes would have bee Improvements due to costs of the project already spent one -ha should use TIF funds Terry O'Brien, owner downtown Stillwater anything that can be general property tax PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. This is the day and the Sign Ordinance f and a Special Use Pe retail establishment District. James Cummi Notice of the h and mailed to affect Comm. Dev. Director request for a varian projecting sign, but tearoom /coffee shop. Fontaine stated the Mayor Abrahamson clo Motion by Councilmember the withdrawal of reques Use Permit to operate a at 232 South Main Street Cummings, Applicant. Ca inutes 4th St., asked the Council to reconsider their llow decorative lighting and pavers for the Downtown W. Pine St., stated that the Council should respect ority of the people in the business district who wish atives be kept in the plan. e Island, Inc., 219 No. Main St., stated that Maple ve proportionate benefit from the assessments. t these issues will be taken up at the April 16 Oak St., stated that TIF funds are not free and his less if TIF funds were not used for the Downtown igher County and School District levies; also the are already higher than planned -- the City has f million dollars on engineering fees; the City to get property back on the taxrolls. of the property at 317 So. Main St., stated that as been in a gradual decline for many years and done would be favorable to the business owners and ayers and will help the tax base. me for the Public Hearing to consider a Variance to ✓ the placement of a wall sign and projecting sign mit to operate a small tearoom /coffee shop with a at 232 South Main Street in the CBD, Central Business ngs, Applicant. Case No. SUP /V/91 -6. aring was published in The Courier on March 21, 1991 d property owners. ussell reported that Mr. Cummings has withdrawn his e to the Sign Ordinance for the wall sign and will need the Special Use Permit to operate the The proposed use does not increase parking. Mr. lanning Commission approved the permit unanimously. ed the public hearing. arrell, seconded by Councilmember Opheim to accept for a variance for a wall sign and approve a Special mall tearoom /coffee shop with a retail establishment in the CBD, Central Business District. James e No. SUP /V/91 -6. (All in favor). 2 • Stillwater City Council Minutes April 2, 1991 Recessed Meeting 2. This is the day and time for the Public Hearing to consider a Special Use Permit to conduct a Karate Studio at 1754 -1798 Curve Crest Boulevard in the BP -I, Business Park Industrial District. James E. Kellison, Curve Crest Properties, Applicant. Case No. SUP /91 -7. Notice of the hearing was published in The Courier on March 21, 1991 and mailed to affected property owners. Mr. Russell explained that a Karate Studio is proposed to open in the new Con Spec Building on Curve Crest Blvd. The use is not specifically defined in the Zoning Ordinance, therefore, the Planning Commission reviewed the request and made a determination that the use may be considered a cultural activity requiring a Special Use Permit. The parking demand will probably be less than that proposed. Mr. Kellison, representing Con Spec properties, and Mr. Hunt, operator of the business, were present to answer questions. Mr. Hunt stated the studio would open at 3:00 P.M. and classes would be held late afternoons into evening and on Saturday mornings. The studio would not have a retail use. Mayor Abrahamson closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Bodiovick, seconded by Councilmember Funke to approve the request for a Special Use Permit to conduct a Karate Studio at 1754 -1798 Curve Crest Boulevard in the BP -I, Business Park Industrial District as conditioned. James E. Kellison, Curve Crest Properties, Applicant. Case No. SUP /91 -7. (All in favor). 3. This is the day and time for the Public Hearing to consider a Variance to the lot size requirements and a major subdivision of an approximate 5.0 acre parcel into eight lots ranging in size from 6,400 square feet to 10,800 square feet and a common open space area of approximately 2 acres located on Eagle Ridge Trail adjacent to Lake McKusick in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Tim Nolde, Applicant. Case No. V /SUB /91 -9. Notice of the hearing was published in The Courier on March 21, 1991 and mailed to affected property owners. 4. This is the day and time for the Public Hearing to consider a Concept Planned Unit Development for the construction of eight duplex attached single family dwelling units with a zero sideyard lot line. The proposed development is located on Eagle Ridge Trail adjacent to Lake McKusick in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Tim Nolde, Applicant. Case No. PUD /91 -10. Notice of the hearing was published in The Courier on March 21, 1991 and mailed to affected property owners. Mayor Abrahamson opened the public hearings for Nos. 3 and 4, relating to the development proposed for the property lying between Eagle Ridge Trail 3 Stillwater City Council April 2, 1991 Recessed Meeting and McKusick Lake. presented by Mr. Nol Motion by Councilmember withdrawal by the applic requirements and a major eight lots ranging in si common open space area o adjacent to Lake McKusic No. V /SUB/91 -9; and a Co eight duplex attached si line. The proposed devel Lake McKusick in tne RA, Applicant. Case No. PUD/ mutes he Council accepted the letter of withdrawal e earlier in the meeting and moved the following: pheim, seconded by Councilmember Funke to accept the nt of the request for a Variance to the lot size subdivision of an approximate 5.0 acre parcel into e from 6,400 square feet to 10,800 square feet and a approximately 2 acres located on Eagle Ridge Trail in the RA, Single Family Residential District, Case cept Planned Unit Development for the construction of gle family dwelling units with a zero sideyard lot pment is located on Eagle Ridge Trail adjacent to Single Family Residential District. Tim Nolde, 1 -10. (All in favor). 5. This is the day and ime for the Public Hearing to consider a Variance to the sideyard setback requirements (thirty feet required, ten feet requested) and reque t for private access to an unimproved road at the Northeast corner of hird and Aspen Streets in the RB, Two Family Residential District John and Heather Haug, Applicants. Case No. V/91 -11 Notice of the hearing was published in The Courier on March 21, 1991 and mailed to affect.d property owners. Mr. Russell explaine setback from unimpro existing bituminous The provision of wat Fontaine stated the concerns as to who w Wilbert Monson, 105 these two lots and h continued, the propo Dorothy Spaise, pres Heather Haug have wi because it has beco the aspects of this case for request for a ten foot ed Third St. with access to the site provided by an riveway that crosses the adjacent lot to tne east. ✓ services off Wilkin St. was also discussed. Mr. equest was approved, but the Planning Commission had uld pay the costs of the driveway. . Wilkin St., stated he owns the property north of is in favor of seeing the property put to use. He ed use of the road is a sensible use for a driveway. nt owner of the property, announced that Jack and hdrawn their offer to buy the property and build too expensive and trrere are too many problems. Mayor Abrahamson clo ed the public hearing. City Attorney Magnus n suggested that a Development Agreement should be negotiated with Mrs. Spaise in order for the land to be developed at a future date. Motion by Councilmember pheim, seconded by Councilmember Funke to accept the withdrawal of the reques for a Variance to the sideyard setback requirements 4 1 Stillwater City Council Minutes April 2, 1991 Recessed Meeting (thirty feet required, ten feet requested) and request for private access to an unimproved road at the Northeast corner of Third and Aspen Streets in the RB, Two Family Residential District, by John and Heather Haug, Applicants, Case No. V/91 -11; and to approve future development of this property as outlined, including the conditions of approval and the drafting of a Development Agreement regarding private road access. (All in favor). UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Resolution approving the issuance by the Washington County HRA of Single- Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds. City Attorney Magnuson explained that these bonds are intended to help first -time homebuyers who would have a difficult time in purchasing a home. There is no obligation on the part of the City to repay the bonds. Terri Galles, from Washington County HRA, explained the guidelines for first -time homebuyers. She stated, the revenue bonds are paid by those who take out the mortgages. Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Farrell to adopt the appropriate resolution approving issuance of Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds by Washington County Housing & Redevelopment Authority. (Resolution No. 91 -56) Ayes - Councilmembers Bodlovick, Farrell, Funke, Opheim and Mayor Abrahamson. Nays - None 2. Council Decision on Alternate Bids for Downtown Improvements. Mr. Russell summarized the plans and specs and explained the bids received. The lowest base bid was received from Johnson Brothers, of Litchfield, in the amount of $4,576,818.85, 6% less than the Engineers' estimates. The alternative bids, which include accent pedestrian lighting, pavers, and landscaping, were also less than the estimates. Finance Director Deblon further explained the expenses for the project. She stated a bond issue for the project would be tax exempt. The financing is coming from four different sources -- State Aid funds for streets, Special Assessments, TIF funds and Water Board funding. She further stated financing is available to construct all of the proposed project. Consulting Engineer Moore explained that the reason the contingency fund was added is because they don't know the condition of sewers, etc. underground and they may run into some problems there. Further discussion followed on engineering costs. Further discussion followed regarding funding available and TIF policy. It was noted that if the pavers or decorative lighting is added, the 5 Stillwater City Council April 2, 1991 Recessed Meeting assessments to prope included that the Ci concern that there i people refuse to pay was also discussed. the cleaning of the Motion by Councilmember the base bid for the Dow alternatives: shoebox 1 ($512,000), parking lot ($250,000), contingencie - 3; Nays 2, Councilme Council recessed for NEW BUSINESS 1. Transfer of On -Sale Ribs, 1975 So. Greel Motion by Councilmember the transfer of an On -Sa Ribs, 1975 So. Greeley S CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilmember the Consent Agenda of Ap 1. Resolution Directing Ayes - Councilmembers Bo Nays - None inutes ty owners will not change. Council discussion y could afford to do everything that is proposed and a possibility that the City could end up paying if assessments. The use of old bricks under the streets Mr. Moore stated there may be additional expense for ricks. odlovick, seconded by Councilmember Funke to approve town Plan ($4.4 million), plus the following ghting ($89,000), the undergrounding of NSP utilities mprovements on No. Main, Mulberry & Second Streets ($250,000), and engineering fees ($550,000). (Ayes bers Farrell and Opheim). ten minutes and reconvened at 9:20 P.M. on- Intoxicating Malt Liquor License at Pizza Plus y St. to Theodore L. Robertson. arrell, seconded by Councilmember Funke to approve e Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for Pizza Plus ., to Theodore L. Robertson. (All in favor). 2. Licenses: BFC Homes 8420 DeMontreville Trail Lake Elmo, Mn. 55042 odlovick, seconded by Councilmember Opheim to approve it 4, 1991, including the following: (A11 in favor). Payment of Bills (Resolution No. 91 -54). lovick, Farrell, Funke, Opheim and Mayor Abrahamson. Custom Remodelers, Inc. 1633 N.E. Hwy. 10 Minneapolis, Mn. 55432 DeMars Signs 4040 Marshall St. N.E. Minneapolis, Mn. 55421 Contractors General Contractor New General Contractor New Sign Erection New 6 Stillwater City Council Minutes April 2, 1991 Recessed Meeting Donovan Carpentry General Contractor New 1415 Main St., 19 -B Houlton, Wi 54082 DNS Construction General Contractor New 928 No. Owens St. Stillwater, Mn. 55082 Gardner Brothers, Inc. General Contractor Renewal 450 E. County Rd. D Little Canada, Mn. 55117 G. P. & Son Remodeling General Contractor Renewal 12360 Goodview White Bear Lake, Mn. 55110 Krey Development Corp. Masonry & Brick Work New 5548 Golfview Lane Oakdale, Mn. 55128 Lawrence Sign, Inc. Sign Erection Renewal 945 Pierce Butler Rt. St. Paul, Mn. 55104 Miller Excavating, Inc. Excavators Renewal 3636 Stagecoach Tr. No. Stillwater, Mn. 55082 M. J. Raleigh Trucking, Inc. General Contractor Renewal P.O. Box 261 Stillwater, Mn. 55082 Schulties Plumbing, Inc. Sewer & Water Excavators New 1521 94th Ln. N.E. Blaine, Mn. 55434 Signcrafters, Inc. Sign Erection Renewal 7775 Main St. N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Summit Energy Products 2770 No. Fairview Roseville, Mn. 55113 Fireplace & Woodstove New Installation Stillwater City Council April 2, 1991 Recessed Meeting Minutes Gary Teed Construction Co. Masonry & Brick Work Renewal 10155 Perkins Ave. No. Stillwater, Mn. 55082 Twin City Storm Sash Co, Inc. General Contractor New 10825 Greenbrier Rd. Minnetonka, Mn. 55343 Vanderhoff Excavating Excavators New 6109 24th St. No. Oakdale, Mn. 55128 Woodsmith Builders General Contractor New 419 W. Maple St. Stillwater, Mn. 55082 Pizza Plus Ribs (Theodore L. Robertson) 1975 So. Greeley St. Stillwater, Mn. 55082 Cigarette License Transfer COMMUNICATIONS /FYI 1. Northern States Power Co. - Electric Rate Increase. Motion by Councilmember Opheim, seconded by Councilmember Bodlovick to adopt the appropriate resolution objecting to the rate increase proposed by Northern States Power Co. (Resolution No. 91 -57) Ayes - Councilmembers Bo Nays - None COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS Use of City Flag at Councilmember Bodlov Flag to be displayed conference in Roches the flag. STAFF REPORTS (continued City Attorney - Motion by Councilmember letter to the Minnesota review of the plans and dlovick, Farrell, Funke, Opheim and Mayor Abrahamson. _eague Meeting ick noted that the City has agreed to donate the City at the upcoming League of Minnesota Cities annual ter. Discussion followed regarding transportation of unke, seconded by Councilmember Opheim to send a ollution Control Agency objecting to their manner of pecs for the Downtown Plan. (All in favor). 8 Stillwater City Council Minutes April 2, 1991 Recessed Meeting ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Farrell, seconded by Councilmember Funke to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 P.M. (All in favor). ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR Resolutions: No. 91 -54 - Directing Payment of Bills. No. 91 -56 - Approving Washington Co. HRA issuance of Single - Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds. No. 91 -57 - Objecting to the increase in NSP rates. • DEAR MRS. JOHNSON. CITY CLERK MY NAME IS ROGER MEECH AND I AM REPRESENTING THE NORTH METRO CHAPTER OF THE MINNESOTA WINGS MOTORCYCLE CLUB. I WAS IN YOUR OFFICE ON MARCH 1 1991 INQUIRING ABOUT OUR CLUB HAVING A LIGHT PARADE WITH OUR MOTORCYCLES THROUGH DOWNTOWN STILL - WATER. AT THAT TIME YOU REQUESTED THAT I SEND YOU A WRITTEN LETTER OF INTENT. OUR CLUB IS HAVING A STATE MOTORCYCLE RALLY AT THE WASHINGTON COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS IN LAKE ELMO. ON SATURDAY EVENING JUNE 29,1991 WE WILL BE HAVING A BIKE DISPLAY IN THE CUB FOOD PARKING LOT ON HIGHWAY #36. AFTER THE BIKE DISPLAY AT ABOUT 9:30 P.M.ON JUNE 29,1991 WE WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH SOME PART OF STILLWATER WHERE THE PEOPLE CAN LOOK AT ALL THE LIGHTS ON OUR BIKES. IT WILL BE EXLUSIVELY NICE LOOKING, QUIET HONDA GOLD WING TOURING MOTORCYCLES. ANY HELP YOU CAN GIVE US WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ROGER MEECH 8601 NICOLLET AVE.SO. BLOOMINGTON, MN. 55420 (612)884 -3639 • illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 1991 March 26, 1991 TO WHOM IS MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the council will meet at 7:00 p.m. on April 16, 1991, in the council chambers at city hall to pass upon the proposed assessment for the improvement of L.I. 257, also known as the "Downtown Plan". The area proposed to be assessed is bounded by Fifth Street on the west, Pine Street on the south extended easterly to the St. Croix River, the St. Croix River on the east and Elm Street on the north extended easterly to the St. Croix River including the former State Prison Site. The improvement project includes improvements for sanitary sewer, storm sewer, curb and gutter, street reconstruction, watermains, streetscape, lighting, landscaping, beautification, undergrounding of power line, decorative enhancements and parking lots. The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the city clerk's office. The total amount of the proposed assessment is $2,452,058.73 Written or oral objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is filed with the clerk prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. The council may upon such notice consider any objection to the amount of the proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as is deems advisable. An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the mayor or clerk of the city within thirty (30) days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten (10) days after service upon the mayor or clerk. Under Minnesota Statutes Section 435.193 to 435.195 and Stillwater City Code, Chapter 56.05, the Council may, in its discretion, defer the payment of this special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older or retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) the death of the owner, provided that the spouse is otherwise not eligible for the benefits hereunder; (b) the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; (c) if the property should for any reason lose its homestead status; or (d) if for any reason the taxing authority deferring payments shall determine that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612 - 439 -6121 Any assessed property o' ordinance adopted under for such deferral of paym call City Hall at 439 -6 assessment deferral). ners meeting the requirements of this law and the t may apply to the City Clerk for the prescribed form nt of the special assessment on the property. (Please 21 if you desire more information about the special Publish: March 21, & March 28, 1991 o'er, / q _zvc 4 1 o (-9) - 31"M; 323 o °-f4—d/e/L: 4,7—+ 1, I 0 6 q. -)4 57) 16642 -- )2/ 16601 -57C6 1 -5126 b 9� 3356 fic4ev , -- a 3b )-o 1 3 6/ `1 °3l /01 Lt 8 1013/a 3/ 833 I() ?77 !(),2V7 I /13 9 /2 ),1q �l y, L62_ l6�6. /61 726 --)c-7 C. `" .7575' 1 000— 39- 10696- 1 — 75-0 WOO - 39( 0 16 6 Q 0 -3 S ID 6q0 (16,2-g ' (30,D - V97o i- J G / o 6 % y(4114,t,t,1-e24 Jarx44-- j)69 - 72, 1 23-7_ 22-2-5— 069/-6'. R a /0 61( -S-2S6 9 31/5 ./e)--6 i3 VS- -z0 /c 42- ).ss-n jo6clz- L 100,2- , (05-6 '1b22 --2brtra 16671 -;-1S0 gi,efA"4-52— ID I 414- 5-Ctfb 1 3n7.g� ti 2 ?69. 155;g3`/ 12-2 1‘-..2.-) r-, /2 7Y, / �/ . 7 l3, /so ILfigera IIS67- 3/ 1(,/ 37 a9, 17O, 6 6q 1-5-‘130 b 30. °-� 1 1 5-s‘ 4 6 �, 5' 3. 'Ogg - 846. it (66ga- 375-6 ' - ;go -0 35'38 X6.7• itz ge".44' io t*3 t 106Q 3- -Vi b uI 06y, e 0560 (Or) (06 q o et )11- 9 3 4 A A n k I 6 1 ' 2 - 6 5 - 0 , I 0q,1 -30-az7 5� ) VV/3 10 6Q l0 6� 6.hl /6,(0-y$00 367y- /00 9 -Lin 3 (p G,7. (94' 7.194' p_ 10 (0_0-3g (To A3 P4 c `v &tit l.hvvvr i o_kg0.----) i 6-0 q 02, q ( qic-511 , 0-t /00 12 - ),0-oc. iao50 gJCilib E " Cet-1-11--'4Zt it g 5-1 . 675 I o6q6 —3759 3qL 6 ?69. e° 6 r6 reAc „Q7 13 5-7 /66916--Vg6 6g/ 36 6' Ir15 // 31 /-)/ 14W-33So) 3126?-37 -6— -16,3-q-96 y 7) ,15/7 16-24 /e* o vo v 7 0-0 V7J22 0 693-9fev /4410-40s--0 o.„ 1 e,G9, yen A3I • April 2, 1991 Stillwater City Council City Hall 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: In reference to your proposed assessment for Local Improvement No. 257 we wish to have this letter serve as our written notice of objection. Our Parcel numbers are 10690-3750 in the amount of $9,413.20 and Parcel 10690-3960 in the amount of $7,438'65. Please advise us of our next action to be heard on this matter. Sincere arles and Jo Ann Eichacker -16788 Second Street South Lakeland' MN 55043 (612) 436-8878 • April 10: ,1991 Councilwoman Ann Bodlovick, I am writing in regards to the rroposed amount of assessment of x;29,704.10 on parcel # 10690 -3800. My homes valuation for 1991 is S56,200 and 1 feel that the the business places will benefit more from the improvements than 1 will. I do not even have a decent road for a car or emergency vehicle to get to home. It will be very hard for me to pay such a large assessment. I am a widow, retired about a year ago, and am not yet 65. 1 receive Social Security and it is very hard to live on less than :400.00 a month. Sincerely, %a-1 Caroline Fraser 512 N. Main St. Stillwater, MN 55082 cz/.1-/ / • 4 6 a,/95/ 2A-17 dei-ACZ-r-71), 4 0-14-) 1/2I lec.-re.sl-L : j) l >c1- 3 - -► ' Af.% 7 ' 10 _5 % `2/ie • Wtotids 402 South Main Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL 216 N. 4th Street Stillwater, Mn. Sirs: April 9, 1991 re: Parcel #9337 -2225 Assessment # 257 Objection We recently received Our assessment for local improvement #257 pertaining to My Condominium Unit #10 in the Steeple Towers Complex, Stillwater, Mn. This property is listed, on the tax rolls as parcel # 9337 - 2225. I have understood that the method of determining this assessment of $1318.05 was to divide the total Steeple Towers property square footage by the number of Owners and equally distributing the assessment. Unfortunately, the units are of different sizes and in this case, My unit is one of the two smallest units in the complex. Based on a suggested re- apportioning method, My assessment would be approximately $922.00 ( 7% ) rather than the listed $ 131805. Unfortunately, previous commitments dictate that I can not attend the April 16, 1991 meeting as I will be out of Town. I thank You for Your attention to this matter and for Your consideration. Si cerely, Sondra G zzi JAMES P. LARKIN ROBERT L. HOFFMAN ' JACK F. DALY D. KENNETH LINDGREN WENDELL R. ANDERSON GERALD H. FRIEDELL ALLAN E. MULLIGAN ROBERT J. HENNESSEY JAMES C. ERICKSON EDWARD J. DRISCOLL GENE N. FULLER DAVID C. SELLERGREN RICHARD J. KEENAN JOHN D. FULLMER ROBERT E. BOYLE FRANK 1. HARVEY CHARLES 5. MODELL CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN JOHN R. BEATTIE LINDA H. FISHER THOMAS P. STOLTMAN STEVEN G. LEVIN MICHAEL C. JACKMAN JOHN E. DIEHL JON 5. SWIERZEWSKI THOMAS J. FLYNN JAMES P. OUINN TODD 1. FREEMAN STEPHEN B. SOLOMON PETER K. BECK JEROME H. KAHNKE SHERRILL R. OMAN GERALD L. SECK JOHN B. LUNDOUIST DAYLE NOLAN• THOMAS B. HUMPHREY, JR. MICHAEL T. MCKIM CHARLES R. WEAVER HERMAN L. TALLE VINCENT G. ELLA ANDREW J. MITCHELL JOHN A. COTTER. BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER April 10, 1991 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 TELEPHONE 16121 835 -3800 FAX 16121 896 -3333 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE (6121 338 -6610 FAX 16121 336 -9760 NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE, SUITE 250 COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433 TELEPHONE 16121 786 -7117 FAX 16121 786-6711 Reply to Bloomington / / t i PAUL B. PLUNKETT ALAN L. KILDOW KATHLEEN M. PICOTTE NEWMAN MICHAEL B. LE BARON GREGORY E. KORSTAD AMY DARR GRADY CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON. JEFFREY C. ANDERSON DANIEL L. BOWLES TODD M. VLATKOVICH TIMOTHY J. MCMANUS LISA A. GRAY GARY A. RENNEKE THOMAS H. WEAVER SHANNON K. McCAMBRIDGE GARY A. VAN CLEVE MICHAEL B. BRAMAN GAYLEN L. KNACK. JULIE A. WRASE CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL SHARON L.BRENNA MARIKAY CANAGA LITZAU TIMOTHY J. KEANE WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH, JR. THEODORE A. MONDALE JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN DANIEL W. VOSS MARK A. RURIK JOHN R. HILL JAMES K. MARTIN STEVEN P. KATKOV THOMAS J. SEYMOUR MICHAEL J. SMITH RENAY W. LEONE FREDERICK K. HAUSER III MARY E.VOS LOREN A. SINGER OF COUNSEL JOSEPH GITIS RICHARD A. NORDBYE DAVID J. PEAT n ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN Ms. Mary Lou Johnson, City Clerk City of Stillwater City Hall 216 North Fourth Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 • Re: 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. 410Sanitary sewer infiltration and inflow is an overall City problem LA RK IN, Ms. Mary Lou Johnson, Cit April 10, 1991 Page 2 OFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Clerk which is not fairly asses area. As is described la no future development or constrictions. Its land received from improving t None of the streets to be improvements are within t the Property is in some s sewermain repair, but the the assessments for each therefore is unable to as sewer trunk repairs. Non special benefit; there is any of those improvements. ed against the Property based on its land er in this letter, the Project has little or edevelopment potential due to legal ass is irrelevant to special benefit e City's overall sanitary sewer system. improved abut the Property. No storm sewer o blocks of the Property. It may be that all portion specially benefitted by proposed assessment roll does not itemize ype of improvement. The Property owner ertain whether it is fairly assessed for of the other improvements provide any no increase in market value attributable to Method of Assessment is U A square foot assessment arbitrary and bears no ra by the Property owner. P abutting the improvements volume, are assessed mini large parcel which cannot Although constituting onl Parcels are burdened with methodology is irrational protection and due proces Zoning Controls Prevent D Benefit. Severe land use regulatio taking advantage of any o assessed. These regulati to the Property which mig of public improvements di here) the Property. By c an earlier meeting with t Director, we requested ea impact of the proposed im constraints. No response The Minnesota Supreme Cou special assessments may n property. • • • • fair. ethodology under these circumstances is ional relationship to the benefits received operty owners either much closer to or or generating the same or more sewer flow al amounts. Our client, the owner of a be developed, is assessed a huge amount. 2 of 174 properties to be assessed, the over 12% of the total assessment roll. The and, thereby denies our client equal of law. velopment, So Improvements Are of No s effectively prohibit our client from the improvements for which the Property is ns severely restrict any increase in value t otherwise be derived by the construction tant from or even adjacent to (not the case rrespondence dated November 6, 1990, and in e City Attorney and the City Development ly appraisals of the Property and the value rovements in light of these land use has been received. t has clearly established the rule that the t exceed the special benefit to the Buettner v. Ci y of Cloud, 277 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 1979); Carlson -Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 240 N.W.2d 517 (Minn. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY SC LINDGREN, LTD. 410Ms. Mary Lou Johnson, City Clerk April 10, 1991 Page 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 Heights, 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 believe 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: 1. Nonconforming Use - The Yacht Club is a nonconforming use in the RB district, and as such cannot be enlarged 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 Bluffland /Shoreland 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 Bluffland /Shoreland Ordinance - The Property is subject to the provisions of the Riverway Bluffland / Shoreland 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. LARKIN, 11 • FFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Ms. Mary Lou Johnson, City Clerk April 10, 1991 Page 4 5. Settlement Agreement - The Property is subject to restrictions of the Settlement Agreement between the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DN'), the City, and the Yacht Club, dated March 30, 1987 (the Se tlement Agreement). The Settlement Agreement limits the mber of watercraft which may be stored on site, or launched fro the Yacht Club property and the Mulberry Point site which is leased by the Yacht Club and integral to the Yacht Club's operatio Club's operation is t launch limit is 76 wa of which may be from its operations, even put it in a position 6. DNR Permit - The Yach Permit No. 79 -6214. reconstruction and re Club has not been, an capacity by construct 7. Downtown Plan - The S adopted the Downtown Comprehensive Plan. of Mulberry Point, wh and recreational open that component of the launching capacity at the Property because Club. Every infrastr benefit if there is n capacity. The Counci Downtown Plan, if it portion of the propos • • • In summary, the improveme assessments will not incr= potential of the Yacht Cl Except for watermain, the the Yacht Club's Property; on density, use, and expa of the Property render it theory only, take advanta• nonconforming use which c property is zoned RB, its density restrictions, and expansion, re -use, or dev= improvements which are th= increase the density or d_ Property. s. The essential component of the Yacht e river, not its land mass. The daily ercraft for the two properties combined, 40 he Yacht Club ramp. Thus, it cannot expand f the proposed improvements were to somehow o do so. Club is limited to 157 boat slips by DNR lthough the DNR has allowed amendments for onfiguration of existing slips, the Yacht likely will not be permitted to increase ng new slips. illwater City Council on October 24, 1988, lan as an amendment to the Stillwater he Downtown Plan calls for the development ch is now leased by the Yacht Club, as park space. If the Council were to implement Downtown Plan, the loss of parking and Mulberry Point would decrease the value of t is integral to operation at the Yacht cture improvement imaginable is of no immediately proximate parking or launch should reject and rescind that part of the ishes to consider collecting even a small d assessment. is which are the basis of the special ase the value or enhance the development b or the Property on which it is located. proposed improvements are far - removed from they do it no good. Existing restrictions sion of the Yacht Club or other development undevelopable for any use which might, in e of the improvements. The Yacht Club is a nnot be enlarged or expanded. Although the flood plain designation, downtown location, shoreland controls make it unsuitable for lopment. Therefore, none of the basis of the special assessments will velopment potential or market value of the LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. • Ms. Mary Lou Johnson, City Clerk April 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, fi David C. Sellergren, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & L •GREN, Ltd. cc: Ken Grund D. Magnuson, City Attorney S. Russell, City Development Director DCS:AYO RE: FOR City Parcel No. 10690 -2150 9028 -0020 The undersigned i and holds an ownershi in the above - describe In compliance wit of the Parcels object assessment proposed f The Parcels are n of the proposed speci the City's Charter an special benefit from No. 257. Imposition violates Minnesota st • • NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO ASSESSMENT OCAL IMPROVEMENT NO. 257 of Stillwater, Minnesota Proposed Assessment $155,832.90 $130,578.10 the duly- authorized representative of interest pursuant to Contract for Deed Parcels. Minnesota Statute § 429.061, the owner to the method and the amount of special r each of the Parcels. t increased in market value to the extent 1 assessment, contrary to Article XI of Minnesota law. The Parcels receive no he improvements proposed by Improvement f the assessments in the proposed amounts tutes, court decisions, and the Constitutional prohibition against the taking or damage of property without just compensation. Utilization of a square foot assessment methodology for Improvement No. 257 is arbitrary, bears no rational relationship to the •enefits received by the respective Parcel owners, and denies t e Parcel owners equal treatment and due process of law. Parcel No. 10690 -2150: ST. CROIX STILLWATER MARINA COMPANY DBA STILLWATER YACHT CLUB by: 04 v.. K. Doran Grund Parcel No. 9028 -0020: ST. CROIX STILLWATER MARINA COMPANY DBA STILLWATER YACHT CLUB by: K. Do DCS /GK5SG • RE: NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO ASSESSMENT FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO. 257 City of Stillwater, Minnesota Parcel No. 10690 -2150 9028 -0020 Proposed Assessment $155,832.90 $130,578.10 The undersigned is the duly- authorized representative of and holds an ownership interest pursuant to Contract for Deed in the above - described Parcels. In compliance with Minnesota Statute § 429.061, the owner of the Parcels objects to the method and the amount of special assessment proposed for each of the Parcels. The Parcels are not increased in market value to the extent of the proposed special assessment, contrary to Article XI of the City's Charter and Minnesota 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 statutes, court decisions, and the Constitutional prohibition against the taking or damage of property without just compensation. Utilization of a square foot assessment methodology for Improvement No. 257 is arbitrary, bears no rational relationship to the benefits received by the respective Parcel owners, and denies the Parcel owners equal treatment and due process of law. DCS/GK5SG Parcel No. 10690 -2150: ST. CROIX STILLWATER MARINA COMPANY DBA STILLWATER YACHT CLUB by: 4VUA-, K. oran Grund Parcel No. 9028 -0020: ST. CROIX STILLWATER MARINA COMPANY DBA STILLWATER YACHT ,CLUB by: K. Doran Grund April 9, 1991 City Council City Hall 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 To Whom It May Concern: I hereby give notice that I oppose the amount of the proposed assessment on my property, with regards to Local Improvement No. 257. My parcel designation is 10690 -3900. The amount to be assessed against this parcel is $3,817.80. Sincerely, Linda R. Amrein 307 East Laurel Street Stillwater, MN 55082 ACS April 10, 1991 ixt ttnt Count pizbaricat *tidy P. 0. Box 167 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Stillwater City Council 216 N. Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 lie: Parcel No. 10690 -2160 602 N. Main Street Dear Council Members: We acknowledge receipt of your Notice of Hearing on Proposed Assessment for Local Improvement No. 257. We wish to file an objection to the amount of this assessment based on the fact that the assessment does not equal market value increase. We would also like to stress that we are not in the retail business. This is a museum, open'May through October, on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday from 2 to 5PM. We are closed November through April. Last year approximately 2500 people visited the museum. With this information in hand, we are confident that you will agree that a reduction in this assessment is justified. Sincerely yours, ��- Charles Woodward President arben's pause Atuseum 602 N. Main Street Stillwater, MN 439 -5956 loliannes'rickson'JIog, Cabin pug Take ,$cljool 1lluseum Co. Rd. 3 & Old Marine Trail Scandia, MN 433 -2762 !outtnell (Qemeteq Boutwell Road Near Co. Rd. 15 Stillwater, MN itiwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 1991 March 26, 1991 TO WHOM IS MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the council will meet at 7:00 p.m. on April 16, 1991, in the council chambers at city hall to pass upon the proposed assessment for the improvement of L.I. 257, also known as the "Downtown Plan ". The area proposed to be assessed is bounded by Fifth Street on the west, Pine Street on the south extended easterly to the St. Croix River, the St. Croix River on the east and Elm Street on the north extended easterly to the St. Croix River including the former State Prison Site. The improvement project includes improvements for sanitary sewer, storm sewer, curb and gutter, street reconstruction, watermains, streetscape, lighting, landscaping, beautification, undergrounding of power line, decorative enhancements and parking lots. The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the city clerk's office. The total amount of the proposed assessment. is $2,452,058.73 Written or oral objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is filed with the clerk prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. The council may upon such notice consider any objection to the amount of the proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as is deems advisable. An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the mayor or clerk of the city within thirty (30) days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten (10) days after service upon the mayor or clerk. Under Minnesota Statutes Section 435.193 to 435.195 and Stillwater City Code, Chapter 56.05, the Council may, in its discretion, defer the payment of this special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older or retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) the death of the owner, provided that the spouse is otherwise not eligible for the benefits hereunder; (b) the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; (c) if the property should for any reason lose its homestead status; or (d) if for any reason the taxing authority deferring payments shall determine that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612- 439 -6121 Any assessed property o ordinance adopted under for such deferral of paym call City Hall at 439 -6 assessment deferral). Publish: March 21, & M ners meeting the requirements of this law and the t may apply to the City Clerk for the prescribed form nt of the special assessment on the property. (Please 21 if you desire more information about the special rch 28, 1991 Cit y Clerk/�� z • To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Lost business at the peak of my business cycle. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. 1 Business S k~ 6\n Business Owner � be L_'\�/1 ~/ ` / ^( " av-v OV\o��� ' 78c / / �� 6 • • To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Lost business at the peak of my business cycle. 3. Increased rent with no visible improvement. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business 0 wedee / / -- / Business Owner • To 'Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Lost business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement.• • Increased maintenance expenses due to construcLibn. Therefore, would you ple;:uqe reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We mould then realize' benefits to our businesses. L. J. Business Ei; 5 0 ner _1((rki,l+r 6 c; a i‘11 (C #b CO " 9 , c.J _S 714 -frc, s ce o 4t- (/ 44. cle :7-Gt yt 4 , 574ci "- -c- h -C -27-7a_ 67 7L4 .c.; (1.-17 /' • %L7 (, /zi Y-/ // /1 • To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business •is affected in the following ways: 1. Lost business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. Incrpa,,I.ed maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. ---- Business GifaLS t@8\—���H /�`�- ~ \rOw\h) Business Owner _AP kitN,AL—fal • • • To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Lost business at the peak of my business cycle. Increased rent with no visible improvement. • Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. � Business �� 77C/9��°^ - �� , ^^ ) Business Owner • • _ • . �//y/��/ To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Lost business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. • Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business Business Owner ' / ,0-!!!!!:111110, *- ��� Here 1 ���� ' ��/er�^�^^/' Et C� / uu+� • 1' r 3 3 h 7 3 1S9 /�3ytsy r o f p 1t,r,r -tx-� L, Ui- Lc� . C -- - v oZ0v 0o6 Cri--- /446 04)a. L6 (i.:-/e" J L ---a,„,,,,-„ , tiL,,,,,(,),,_,,,-A wia.,, go, 0 c) 3 a_4-6.i. - 'Vt6L,z_ Uait,:kr6—(---t.L. et,...,,,,,t4f,a__ 61_4_,,.c 67,...._.:„1 .,,4 _ j 22 Z' ,L —741 kF----- 1 1 April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel (s) number /a cy- Respectfully Submitteed, C7Xel / • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the'property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel (s) number /0 6 f J "S 9 ° Respectfully Submitted, • • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel (s) number SO Respectfully Submitted bAvio tikzEpin/ /c.c�. ', /7 ,7 C7 / April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel (s) number �' _Sqs E /CDC7 Respectfully Submitted, �. /u • • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel (s) number q3 4s Respectfully Submitted, • • April 16, 1991 To Mayor Abrahamson and City Council Members; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase -in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel numbers 10692 -2550, 10692 -2600, and 10692 -2650. Respectfully Submitted, Fred and Mary Sue Brass • April 15, 1991 Mary Lou Johnson Stillwater City Clerk City Hall 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 (7/76 /9/ Re: Local Improvement No. 257 a /k /a "Downtown Plan" Proposed Assessments Dear Ms. Johnson: This letter is to advise you that The Pendleton Co. objects to the proposed assessments against Parcel #11022 -2000 described on Exhibit A attached hereto for the above- entitled project. The Pendleton Co. objects to the proposed assessments because the property will not be benefited to the extent of the proposed assessments. The Pendleton Co. -(_f By: William Stouvenel President .r SHEET 3 of 5 SHEETS JOB NOI None CE SURVEY MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR: DESCRIPTIONi TIFICATE OF SURVEY BARRETT M. STACK STILLWATER, MINN. 550112 MINNESOTA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR Tel. No. 439 -5630 EXHIBIT A Mr. Bob Langness c/o Mr. Duane Arndt, Atty., and Mr. Bill Stouvenel, Maplewood, MN. PARCEL 2 DESC'IPTION: (includes abstract property) All that part of Tract as described on Certificate of Title Number 65. and delineated upon the map marked "Exhibit B" attached thereto. as the same is recorded in the office of the Registrar .f Titles, all that part of Registered Land Survey Number 28, on file in said Office of the Registrar of Titles, and all that part of vacated North Water Street, all in Washing on County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the inter ection of the easterly line of Main Street and the northerly line of Laurel Street, as sh.wn on the plat of the original town, now city of Stillwater, as amended by Myron Shepard' Perfected Plat of the City of Stillwater dated May 21. 1878; thence North 08 degrees 36 m nutes 08 seconds East, assumed bearing, along said easterly line of Main Street 48.00 fe t; thence South 81 degrees 23 minutes 52 seconds East 18.00 feet; thence South 08 degree 36 minutes 08 seconds West parallel with said easterly line of Main Street 351.17 f et to the point of beginning of the parcel being described; thence continuing South 08 d =grees 36 minutes 08 seconds West 86.88 feet, more or less, to the intersection with a line run parallel and distant 9.00 feet southeasterly (when measured at right angles), f om the centerline of the spur track located across said tract prior to Oecember 1, 1.35; thence northeasterly a distance of 23.27 feet along said parallel line on a non -Lange tial curve concave to the northwest, having a radius of 529.00 feet, a central of angle of degrees 31 minutes 13 seconds and the chord of said curve bears North 52 degrees 02 mi utes 32 seconds East, to the point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with and .istant 34.00 feet easterly (when measured at right angles), from said easterly line of Main Street, said point of intersection being the northwesterly corner of said Registered La d Survey Number 28; thence South 08 degrees 36 minutes 08 seconds West, not tangent to said urve, along the westerly line of said Registered Land Survey Number 28 a distance of 253.10 feet to the northwesterly corner of the southerly 7.00 feet of said Register Land Survey Number 28; thenc South 81 degrees 23 minutes 52 seconds East along the northerly line of said south -rly 7.00 feet and its easterly projection 206.99 feet; thence northerly a distance .f 76.48 feet along a non - tangential curve concave to the East, having a radius of 2415.56 f -et. a central angle of 1 degree 48 minutes 51 seconds and the chord of said curve bears North 08 degrees 07 minutes 29 seconds West; thence North 07 degrees 13 minutes 04 seconds West. along tangent, 123.03 feet; thence northerly a distance of 134.67 feet along a tangential curve concave to the East, having a radius of 1109.45 feet and a central angle of 6 degrees 57 minutes 17 seconds to the intersection with a line which bears Scutt 81 degrees 23 minutes 52 seconds East from the point of beginning; thence North 81 degrees 23 minutes 52 seconds West along said line , not tangent to said curve, 138.67 feet to the point of beginning. Note: Parcel 2 will be subje Burlington Northern Ra 1 and 2. See seperate Parcel 2 includes part overall Tract 2 descri Cherry Street as being some time in the past the vacated status of The 34.00 foot wide st as described on Certif Minnesota. I assume t Highway Number 95 (a.k intent or public use o Parcel 2 is subject to and across the easterl retained by the City o Due to the lack of rel mainline track, which location of this 20.00 the ground. t to a temporary railroad spur easement to granted to ilroad Company by parties holding interests in Parcels sheet for temporary railroad spur easement description. of platted Cherry Street. This street is included in the .tion in Cert. of Title No. 65 but does not refer to vacated. I suspect this street may have been vacated at .ut have been unable to locate any documents that verify herry Street. rip adjoining Parcel 2 along part of the westerly line thereof, icate of Title Number 34900, is owned by the State of is tract to be part of the right -of -way of Minnesota Trunk .a North Main Street). No recorded reference is made as to this parcel as road right -of -way. an easement for walkway and utility purposes over, under 20.00 feet of Vacated North Water Street. This easement was Stillwater when North Water Street was recently vacated. able, specific information on the location of the original ontrols the location of North Water Street. the exact foot walkway and utility easement cannot be fixed on 1 hereby certify that this survey, plan, Of report wa, prepared by me or under my direct supery and that 1 am a July Registered land Surveyor under the laws of the Start ul Minnesota. Date.. .S.t.R.t... ... ..2... ... 1..`)Nf} .Keg.No.... . 1774.. ........ JOHN H. RHEINBERGER FRANCIS J. RHEINBERGER • •ALSO ADMITTED TO WISCONSIN BAR RHEINBERGER & RHEINBERGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 229 ST. CROIX VALLEY BANK BUILDING 5995 OREN AVENUE NORTH SUITE 101 STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 RAND DELIVERED April 16, 1991 Mayor Wallace Abrahamson Stillwater City Council Mary Lou Johnson 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Re: Proposed Tax Assessment on the following Parcel: Parcel No: 10691 -2150 Dear Mayor Abrahamson, City Council Members & Ms. Johnson: (612) 439 -7212 This letter is to notify that on behalf of Arthur & Maureen Palmer, c/o Trustees /Children Trust, c/o Lowell Inn, I wish to object to the proposed assessment for L.I. 257, also known as the "Downtown Plan ", for the following parcel: Parcel No: 10691 -2150 - Proposed Assessment $12,625.00 It is our opinion that there will be no increased value on this parcel by reason of the improvements proposed. FJR /ew • Sincerely yours, • Francis J` heinberger JOHN H. RHEINBERGER FRANCIS J. RHEINBERGER • •ALSO ADMITTED TO WISCONSIN BAR RHEINBERGER & RHEINBERGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 229 ST. CROIX VALLEY BANK BUILDING 5995 OREN AVENUE NORTH SUITE 101 STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 HAND DELIVERED April 16, 1991 Mayor Wallace Abrahamson Stillwater City Council Mary Lou Johnson 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Re: Proposed Tax Assessment on the folloing Parcels: Parcel No: 10691 -3770 Parcel No: 10691 -3740 Parcel No: 10691 -3800 ri (612) 439 -7212 Dear Mayor Abrahamson, City Council Members & Ms. Johnson: This letter is to notify that on behalf of Semper Lowell Limited Partnership I wish to object to the proposed assessment for L.I. 257, also known as the "Downtown Plan ", for the following parcels: Parcel No: 10691 -3770 - Proposed Assessment $ 7,575.00; Parcel No: 10691 -3740 - Proposed Assessment $ 6,666.00; Parcel No: 10691 -3800 - Proposed Assessment $23,468.75. It is our opinion that there will be no increased value in these parcels by reason of the improvements proposed. Sincerely yours, FJR /ew • Francis (J. )Rheinberger • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; • The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel(s) number S-% Respectfully Submitted, • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel(s) number 572-a Respectfully Submitted, • METR' : • FEDERAL BANK ES THE HEARTLANDS FINANCIAL CENTER April 15, 1991 Stillwater Mayor & City Council 216 N. 4th St. Stillwater, MN. 55082 /ice/ The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property owned by Metropolitan Federal Bank, fsb. Therefore, I am contesting the assessment as it stands, on parcel number 10691 -5540. ORespe ully submitted, *'40° L. Severson Assistant Vice President /Office Sales Manager Metropolitan Federal Bank, fsb. 200 East Chestnut P.O. Box 8 Stillwater, MN. 55082 LAS /dep 200 East Chestnut • Box 8 • Stillwater, MN 55082 • Telephone (612) 439 -5454 a federal savinqs bank April 9, 1991 TO: Downtown Business Persons FROM: Concerned Downtown Business Owners Dear Downtown Business Persons, Based on the City Council's determination on April 2nd, only infrastructure improvements will be done in Phase I of the Downtown Plan. It is a reasonable assumption that the value • of your leased property will not increase by as much as your landlords assessment. You as a tenant, can assume that •these assessments will be passed on to you. Many downtown business people however, believe that improved ambiance will cause values to increase commensurate with assessments, as was conveyed in the original plan. We encourage you to send a protest to the City Council and let them know that you cannot support the plan as passed •on April 2nd, stating also, that you could support the plan if it included streetscape work. Sincerely, Concerned Dn:/'town • Business Owners • • To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Lost business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits tr —cmLr businesses. Business Business Owner • • � • • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel(s) number /69i2 /c2'92 Respectfully Submitted, tip, II 07� sez P • • • To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Loa busi'ess at the peak.ofmy business cycle. 2 Increased rent with no visible improvement' 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business � u Business Owner 7:1-7 ' . 21,^�~-, ,) 4/ /y7 - - ---- '—"~- '' ' /^' s-��-,{' April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel(s) number !L4'1( - 3i 70 /C6f/ _ 3) 36 Respectfully Submitted, T • HERMAN WINTHROP ROBERT R. WEINSTINE RICHARD A. NOEL ROGER D. GORDON STEVEN C. TOUREK STEPHEN J. SNYDER HART KULLER DAVID P. PEARSON THOMAS M. HART IV DARRON C. KNUTSON JOHN A. KNAPP MICHELE D. VAILLANCOURT DAVID E. MORAN, JR. • DONALD J. BROWN JON J. HOGANSON SANDRA J. MARTIN GARY W. SCHOKMILLER TODD B. URNESS SCOTT J. DONGOSKE PETER J. GLEEKEL ROBERT S. SOSKIN EDWARD J. DRENTTEL JEFFREY W. COOK JEFFREY R. ANSEL LAURIE A. KNOCKE WILLIAM F. MOHRMAN WINTHROP & WEINSTINE ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 3200 MINNESOTA WORLD TRADE CENTER 30 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 TELEPHONE (612) 290 -8400 FAX (612) 292 -9347 DIRECT DIAL Telephone: (612) 290 -8530 April 15, 1991 City Clerk City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Dear Sir /Madam: ((2z-4'. T LLOYD W. GROOMS JULIE K. WILLIAMSON MARK T. JOHNSON BETSY J. LOUSHIN BROOKS F. POLEY JULIE WIDLEY SCHNELL CHRISTY JO CASPERS THOMAS H. BOYD JOSEPH C. NAUMAN DANIEL C. BECK ERIC J. NYSTROM BRIAN J. KLEIN KRISTIN L. PETERSON JOANNE L. MATZEN TIMOTHY K. MASTERSON EVAN D. COOBS THOMAS A. WALKER GINA M. GROTHE FOLLEN E. JOSEPH NEWTON PATRICK W. WEBER CHARLES A. DURANT CRAIG A. BRANDT DAVID A. KRISTAL KARL A. WEBER ALOK VIDYARTHI DANIEL W. HARDY OF COUNSEL HAND DELIVERED AND CERTIFIED MAIL We represent the Citizens State Bank of Montgomery (the "Bank "). The Bank has an interest in certain property located in downtown Stillwater including 312 -318 North Main Street (the "Subject Property ") and certain adjacent parcels. The Bank has been notified that a special assessment, in the amount of $93,057.75, may be levied against the Subject Property pursuant to Local Improvement No. 257, also known as the "Downtown Plan." On behalf of the Bank, we hereby formally notify you of the Bank's objection to the proposed special assessment and the amount thereof, and the Bank's intent to protest said special assessment. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, WINTHROP & WEINSTINE By - Scott . D ngoske SJD:dd cc: Mr. Leonard J. Ouradnik Mr. David M. Hyduke •SHERMAN WINTHROP ROBERT R. WEINSTINE RICHARD A. HOEL ROGER D. GORDON STEVEN C.TOUREK STEPHEN J. SNYDER HART KULLER DAVID P. PEARSON THOMAS M. HART IV DARRON C. KNUTSON JOHN A. KNAPP MICHELE D. VAILLANCOURT DAVID E. MORAN, JR. • • DONALD J. BROWN JON J. HOGANSON SANDRA J. MARTIN. GARY W. SCHOKMILLER TODD B. URNESS SCOTT J. DONGOSKE PETER J. GLEEKEL ROBERT 5. SOSKIN EDWARD J. DRENTTEL JEFFREY W. COOK JEFFREY R. ANSEL LAURIE A. KNOCKE WILLIAM F. MOHRMAN WINTHROP & W E I N S T I N E ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 3200 MINNESOTA WORLD TRADE CENTER 30 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 TELEPHONE (6121 290 -8400 FAX (6121 292-9347 DIRECT DIAL Telephone: (61 2) 290 -8530 April 15, 1991 City Clerk City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Dear Sir /Madam: /LGc,4', r- ( "- , LLOYD W. GROOMS JULIE K. WILLIAMSON MARK T. JOHNSON BETSY J. LOUSHIN BROOKS F. POLEY JULIE WIDLEY SCHNELL CHRISTY JO CASPERS THOMAS H. BOYD JOSEPH C. NAUMAN DANIEL C. BECK ERIC J. NYSTROM BRIAN J. KLEIN KRISTIN L. PETERSON JOANNE L. MATZEN TIMOTHY K. MASTERSON EVAN D. COOBS THOMAS A. WALKER GINA M. GROTHE FOLLEN E. JOSEPH NEWTON PATRICK W. WEBER CHARLES A. DURANT CRAIG A. BRANDT DAVID A. K R I STA L KARL A. WEBER ALOK VIDYARTHI DANIEL W. HARDY OF COUNSEL HAND DELIVERED AND CERTIFIED MAIL We represent the Citizens State Bank of Montgomery (the "Bank "). The Bank has an interest in certain property located in downtown Stillwater including 312 -318 North Main Street (the "Subject Property ") and certain adjacent parcels. The Bank has been notified that a special assessment, in the amount of $93,057.75, may be levied against the Subject Property pursuant to Local Improvement No. 257, also known as the "Downtown Plan." On behalf of the Bank, we hereby formally notify you of the Bank's objection to the proposed special assessment and the amount thereof, and the Bank's intent to protest said special assessment. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, WINTHROP & WEINSTINE SJD:dd cc: Mr. Leonard J. Ouradnik Mr. David M. Hyduke (( 7'7i April 15, 1991 City Assessor City of Stillwater 216 N. 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 To the Assessor: Cub Foods This letter is in regard to the following parcels: #11999 -2100 #10691 -5980. #10691 -3500 The Cub Foods Division of Super Valu Stores, Inc. hereby protests the property assessment rate for these parcels. Cub Foods respectfully requests the opportunity to meet with the Assessor and the City Staff in order to clarify the following issues: (a) Assessment rates on improved and unimproved portions of these parcels. (b) Boundaries of all parcels, particularly with regard to land which will be leased by the City of Stillwater to Super Valu Stores, Inc. Sincerely, OJVn Thomas Thueson Director of Development Cub Foods 127 Water Street • P.O. Box 9 • Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 -0009 • (612)439-7200 • • DELLAINA OLSON P. 0. BOX 230 STILLWATER, MN. 55082 (612) 439 -5734 April 16, 1991 fctcI. 1i / /6/,Ii Mary Lou Johnson City Clerk City of Stillwater City Hall 216 North Fourth Stillwater, Mn. 55082 Re: Proposed Assessment for Local Improvement No. 257 as regards Parcels Number 10690 -7000 10690 -7050 10690 -7550 I hereby give notice of objection to the proposed assessment amount for these parcels of $15,150.00. I would like to talk with the Council regarding these proposed assessments. Respectfully, Dellaina Olson, Property Owner • • DELLAINA OLSON P. 0. BOX 230 STILLWATER, MN. 55082 (612) 439 -5734 April 16, 1991 Mary Lou Johnson City Clerk City of Stillwater City Hall 216 North Fourth Stillwater, Mn. 55082 Re: Proposed Assessment for Local Improvement No. 257 as regards Parcel Number 10690 -7100 I hereby give notice of objection to the proposed assessment amount for this parcel of $93,057.75. I would like to talk with the Council regarding this proposed assessment. Respectfully, Dellaina Olson, Representative for the Estate of William Olson, Jr. • To Whom It May Concern: .� ��� It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Lo- business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 37 Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business Business Owner • T o Whom May Wh It Ma Concern: -�\ It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Lo- business at the peak of my business cycle. Increased rent with no visible improvement. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business Business Owner _ • • APR �../-0� ittftr ��� To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. LoS1 business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were Part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business AUal\Val\NVII0 S.21j Business Owner • • q2014 • To Whom It May Concern: APA1991 _ ___ - Sautemlza It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Lo - business at the peak of my business cycle. 2 Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business (1)4- =�n�2(em Business Owner • • • To Whom It May Concern: It seems unrair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. •LoSI business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business Business Owner • --��\c�/G��� '���``.— .'//V� `- ��� H�Vy991 '�� iftt ' -- M_' Po WIK To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that •if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Lo- business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business Business Owne • • • To Whom It May Concern: ��� crivoirsrtii It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. LoSI business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business • Business Owner • • To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. LoSI business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business Business Owner • • '' 4 1/4"! c~' 1,991 M" To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Lo- business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business �� Business Owner- ( • • '' • • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel(s) number APR icoi City ,2FaTILLWA7,-,t, witLwAm Respectfully Submitted, • • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel(s) number //- 302d Respectfully Submitted, g.71 . t. 1) /5/7/, 4 J ?j., ApR 1991 AND • • • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel(s) number Respectfully Submitted, 1 AlaNg crrycp • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am on parcel(s) number ntesting.'my assessment as it stands, Respectfully Submitted, 9f crfy, ANstf Pp in( • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am c testing m -- sessment it tands, on parcel (s) number • Respectfully Submitted, • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel (s) number 1 ( (P i d cJ' ,zv Respectfully Submitted, • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel(s) number Respectfully Submitted, • aLf- • • • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel (s) number /C 9I- Respectful Submitted, crt alli/ef2 17(9 4 ;,f, • • To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: LoSI business at the peak of my business cycle. Increased rent with no visible improvement. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business . ^� •7 ��6 1- Business Owner 1 - / • To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: � 3. LoS1 business at the peak of my business cycle. Increased rent with no visible improvement. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business Business Owner • /i/.=)/j7 �t �� • . "7p / / / 7/ • To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is ,affected in the following ways: 1 Loa business at the peak of my business cycle. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business 'Business ~ Owner • /f'Lzte:-)2,a x2e-C.5‘4edZ, • • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel(s) number Respectfully Submitted, '� 6.y /-- “) April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; r.7-7 APR7gg1 J iYiY s ,N' The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, 4 on parcel(s) number 11969-,775----(9 coca-agSO Respectfully Submitted, • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel (s) number /043 9 - a3so Respectfully m ted, ..1011/7 • • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel (s) number /001-52-5-0 ale/ /106,9/- 5 /80. Respectfully Submitted, t;iq ‘Cf e. • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel(s) number ; Z2 ‘. • Respectfully Submitted, • • • To Whom'It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. LoSI business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. 4 Business Business Owner • • z5� 4 '�^�} `�° '^~ To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. LoST business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We 'Jould then realize bencfits to .'~ businesses.� Business April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel(s) number 1,,bor.- Ti,siO Respectfully Submitted, • • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel(s) number iO/ 7��Z6Dd Respectfully Submitted, • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel (s) number 1/069/ .302_0 Respectfully Submitted, • • 0.4c."4---vriiii,/ s .'°``~ ` .'/ uz ,~°� Qg. f'N^ f�. To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Lost business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business Business Owner `~'~ ~/\J �^ ' 4� 60494 � � � �f.__ , ‘ 1 � N( Mu. &�)-«~� ~���'__ � - Z ("Le__ tee ek. • �� � To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Lost business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business Business Owner • • • • • April 9, 1991 TO: Downtown Business Persons FROM Concerned Downtown Business Owners Dear Downtown Business Persons, Based on the City Council's determination on April 2nd, only infrastructure improvements will be done in Phase I of the Downtown Plan. It is a reasonable assumption that the value of your leased property will not increase by as much as your ` landlords assessment. You as a tenant, can assume that these assessments will be passed on to you Many downtown business people however, believe that improved ambiance will cause values to increase commensurate with assessments, as was conveyed in the original plan~ We encourage you to send a protest to the City Council and let them know that you cannot support the plan as passed on April 2nd, stating also, that you could support the plan if it included streetscape work. Sincerely, Concerned Dm:i`town Business Owners 40a, \�� // / � 2A, P ^ To Whom It May Concern: It •seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the foll wing ways: 1. Lost busine=s at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 37 Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you Jlease reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businsses. - �usiness (42 • Business Owner • • To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. LoS1 business at the peak Of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our busines=es. Business Business Owner • • - • To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. LoSI business at the peak Of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize • benefits to our businesses. , Business C� yL-�v�-v��.-�' Business Owner • • • x,\V' / 4/� -/ 4 APx�, ^'r' C. CileGFaiwsiaro ---~ `'- To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. LoSI business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business R r ^/`y/` ��__ Business Owner. ' 411 /Y ,7 • To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. LoSI business at the peak of my business cycle. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our .businesses. r; { � Business Business Owner • • �`` ^ '`Z 6�u�*y To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Lost business •at the peak Of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business • 47t /Y Business Owner • • • To Whom It May Concern: '~ ^ , -'� \ i:1349 • 45 At* It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Los:1 business at the peak Of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business Business Owner • �� ��u. Y\`^n • To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. LoSI business at the peak Of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business /Yi ~c s. /A y4 6tu Business Owner _-~~~ /~~^~j^ • • Office of the Mayor Stillwater City Hall 216 N. Fourth St., Stillwater, MN 55082 April 10, 1991 209 South Main Stillwater, MN 55082 (612) 430 -1240 Dear Mayor & Council Members, I am writing to express my disappointment regarding the rejection of the "amenities" in the downtown plan. Although I am not a property owner the 30% increase in my rent certainly is a direct cost associated with this project. Unfortunately our business will suffer this summer. Promotions and advertising will help but without a doubt our business will suffer. I feel this loss in revenue and increased rent is a contribution to the betterment of downtown. Unfortunately we are getting very little for our contribution. I urge you to reconsider adding the "amenities" that were left out of the plan on April 2nd so we can all benefit. Sincerely, Will Rogers • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contes)ir my assessment as i -sta ds, on parcel (s) number =jG / er>71 • • Respectfully Submitted, 4 • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel (s) number 106? _' D-9 d U • Respectfully Submitted, X:93:33PW%.— \kd • 1iVb A — 7 , —7/ .� 4 '' 0,71- OP ' ~w To Whom It May Concern: It seems unfair that if the current Downtown Plan is implemented as voted upon on April 2, 1991, my business is affected in the following ways: 1. Lost business at the peak of my business cycle. 2. Increased rent with no visible improvement. 3. Increased maintenance expenses due to construction. Therefore, would you please reconsider adding the elements that were part of the original plan. We would then realize benefits to our businesses. Business 7-AML Al/A/414= —. ��� �_ Business Owner ie-4,6��e. • • April 16, 1991 The Honorable Wally Abrahamson 216 N. 4th Street Stillwater City Hall Stillwater, MN 55082 Mayor Abrahamson, City Council Members and City Clerk: In reference to the proposed assessment on described Parcel 9270 -2587, I am giving written notice of my objection. The Minnesota Zephyr Ltd. agreed to buy the 58,370 square feet from the City with the intention of providing our own parking lot to help ease the parking situation for the City. We strongly object to being assessed on the square feet basis of the parking lot. The proposed Stillwater Depot, Logging and Rail Museum located at 601 North Main is a $1,100,000 project. It will encourage future development of the north end of town, as well as serve as a beautiful major attraction to the City. In addition to this investment, we have estimated a property tax of Thirty -five Thousand Dollars ($35,000) per year plus the already Eleven Thousand Dollar ($11,000) rail property tax paid annually. This is a significant contribution to the City tax base. I am also very disappointed that the City Council did not accept the recommendations of a four (4) year half - million dollar study by the Downtown Action Committee on the Ll. 257 Project. Failure to create the impressive image that the recommended light fixtures and pavers would have provided will long be remembered and regretted. The Minnesota Zephyr and the Stillwater Depot will be a great addition to the City. The investment is enormous and the benefits to the Community wide - spread. I hope that a reasonable and affordable solution will be reached. Sincerely, David Paradeau President :ada 601 NORTH MAIN, P.O. BOX 573, STILLWATER. MINNESOTA 55082 / 612 -430 -3000 =4"- UNITED BUILDING CENTERS i 41.1 1'�.'i it "t f . A Division ot Lanoga Corporation TO: City of Stillwater FROM: United Building Centers DATE: April 16, 1991 SUBJECT: Objection to Improvement 1257 We object to the proposed assessment of $78,514.76 to the United Building Centers property as proposed by City of Stillwater under local improvement #257. A retail lumberyard has served the needs of Stillwater residents for approximately' 75 years from the site in question. It has been our privilege to own this facility for the past 22 years. During the past few years the construction industry has been in a state of steady decline to the point where 1990 housing starts sank to 1982 levels. UBC has been particularly hard hit in Stillwater. Our hopes for a revival in 1991 were dashed this week when our largest customer filed for protection under Federal Bankruptcy Laws. With all this in mind we believe it is our obligation to inform you that should this assessment be imposed, we will probably be forced to close our facility and terminate our 8 employees. 9 12' West Fifth Street, Winona, Minnesota 55987.9985 Telephone 507.482.2361 RE: STILL',AIATER CENTRAL BUSINESS ASSESSMENTS L.I. 257 ASSESSMENT ROLL 3/26/91 Parcel Numbers 10692-3000, 10692-3050, 10692-3100. 10692-3290 (Brick Alleu) The total area for these parcels is approximately 45,195 sq.ft., not 52,320 Wt. as shown on the assessment roll. Water service for parcel 10692-3050 is not required. Storm sewer stub for parcel 10592-3000 is not required. Fire service stub and sanitaru sewer stub have been requested for parcel 10692-3100, not parcel 10692-3050 as shown. The improvements adjacent to the Brick Al leg consist of street reconstruction and sanitary sewer cleaning and televising. And yet, because of the assessment based on area, the Brick Alley has a lot area assessment of $52,643.20. it appears to be more than the assessment for all the buildings between Water and Main and Nelson and Chestnut Streets added together., an area that will benefit from more improvements. In a downtown area clear short of parking spaces, the area method of assessment discriminates against those who provide parking. The assessments for the properties listed above are contested because theq exceed the benefits. Michael G. McGuire • General Partner New Stillwater Project., Ltd. RE: S T ILLW'ATER CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS L.I. 257 ASSESSMENT ROLL 3/26/91 Parcel Numbers 10692-4600 and 10592 -4550 (Second Street Store) Fire service stubs are shown for both parcels. Only one fire service stub was requested. The improvements in front of the Second Street Store consist of mill and overlay street and sanitary sewer cleaning and televising. And yet, because of its large side and back yards, it is assessed a larger amount than much larger buildings on Main Street which are receiving more improvements. The assessments for the properties listed above are contested because the cost exceeds the benefits. • Owner • • • • OP- STILLWATER CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS L.I. 257 ASSESSMENT ROLL. 3/26/91 Parcel Number 10699-3900 (Dock Cafe) The tot& area for this parcel is approximately 22,325 sq.ft., not 23,115 stilt. as shown On the assessment rolls. No improvements are being made adjacent to or anywhere near the Dock Cafe. The Dock Cafe spent approximately $30„000 in 1967 to construct water line from Water Street east on (Olson that, a s of 1991, services not only the cafe but the city s well, a clear benefit to the city. The Dock Cafe., a smaller restaurant thin Trumps, has a lot area assessment of $23„225. The River Exchange Building., which houses Trumps, is three times the size of the Dock Cafe and has a lot area assessment of $7,393.20. The River Exchange Building will receive numerous improvements. The Dock Cafe will receive none. This sort of inequitu caused bu the area assessment method seems grossly unfair. The fissessment for the propertu listed above is contested because it exceeds the benefits. Michael G. McGuire General Partner Dock rile Corporation April 16, 1991 Mayor & City Council City of Stillwater 216 N. 4th St. Stillwater, Mn. 55082 Mr. Mayor & City Council: I am writing this letter as the Vice President of the Rygg Condominium Association which consists of Peder and Judy Pedersen who own the Main St. Antique Store at 118 N. Main, and myself and wife Nita who reside at 118 -1/2 N. Main St.. Our parcel numbers are 9345 -2000 and 9345 -2100. We are contesting our special assessment for the following reasons. First, we feel very strongly that our property will not see any increase in value with the construction of the Downtown Plan as was accepted by the City Council in its April 2nd meeting. We feel that we, along with all of the other downtown businesses and residents will bear the brunt of an improvement that will, for the most part, benefit only developers and future residents in the industrial park and areas of western Stillwater that may one day request development or annexation into our city. Secondly, we question the way that the City Council has decided to use the available funds on the project. The engineering firm of Short Elliot & Hendrickson, with years of experience in this type of project, recommended that $500,000 be set aside as a contingency fund. As a contractor with twelve years of experience in the Stillwater area, I know personally what adverse weather and unforeseen problems can do to the costs of a project that is bid on a unit price basis, as the downtown project has been. I personally have had projects that have almost doubled in cost because of these factors. The contingency fund as it was recommended allows for a 10% margin for error. We feel that it is wrong to slash $250,000 from this fund and dedicate it to the paving of parking lots that were not a part of the original bidding process. We assume that the site work, paving, and landscaping of of these lots will be included as a part of the project. Typically on a project like this, extra items, like these parking lots, are installed on a cost plus profit basis, which is exactly what the low bid contractor hopes for in making his bid. In the Stillwater area alone there are dozens of excavation, landscape, and paving companies that will not be given a chance at bidding on these parking lots. The low bidder on the paving sections of the downtown project was Valley Paving. Although Valley Paving is a very well qualified contractor, their offices are located in Shakopee and Maple Grove. We feel that by not putting these lots out for separate bid it is a disservice to the excavation, landscape, and paving contractors who call the St. Croix Valley their home. Therefore, we ask the City Council to reevaluate its position on the esthetic improvements which were a part of the original Downtown Plan, which if approved may well increase the value of our properties. We also ask the council to return the contingency fund to its recommended level and put the parking lots out for bid as would be normal procedure for an expenditure of this size. We are hopeful that a middle ground can be reached, and volunteer our time and energy to achieving this goal. Respectfully Submitted, -„te.) John A. Michels Rygg Condominium Association • CITIZENS STATE BANK P.O. Box 9 OF MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY, MINNESOTA 56069 Phone: 364 -7313 April 15, 1991 City Clerk City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 RE: 312 -318 North Main Street Stillwater, Minnesota (Parcel No. 10690 -7100) Dear Sir /Madam: We are the owners of the above - reference property. As such, we received notice of the City's intent to levy a special assessment against the subject property, in the amount of $93,057.75, pursuant to Local Improvement No. 257, also known as the "Downtown Plan." Your letter indicates that we must formally notify you of our intent to protest the special assessment. This letter shall constitute formal notice to you of our objection to the special assessment and the amount thereof and our intent to protest and challenge the proposed special assessment relating to the above - reference property. Please contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, CITIZENS STATE BANK OF MONTGOMERY By: 'Leonard J. A radnik Its President FULFILLING THE RESPONSIBILTY OF LEADERSHIP FOR OVER 80 YEARS • April 16, 1991 To Whom It May Concern; The proposed assessment exceeds the increase in value that will be realized by the property that I own unless the alternate bid items are included as part of the Downtown Plan. Therefore, I am contesting my assessment as it stands, on parcel (s) number /�� Ya- ' ,26,dC //06/?3 - Respectfully Submitted, RE: NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO ASSESSMENT FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO. 257 City of Stillwater, Minnesota Parcel No. 10690 -2150 9028 -0020 Proposed Assessment $155,832.90 $130,578.10 The undersigned is the duly- authorized representative of and holds an ownership interest pursuant to Contract for Deed in the above - described Parcels. In compliance with Minnesota Statute § 429.061, the owner of the Parcels objects to the method and the amount of special assessment proposed for each of the Parcels. The Parcels are not increased in market value to the extent of the proposed special assessment, contrary to Article XI of the City's Charter and Minnesota 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 statutes, court decisions, and the Constitutional prohibition against the taking or damage of property without just compensation. Utilization of a square foot assessment methodology for Improvement No. 257 is arbitrary, bears no rational relationship to the benefits received by the respective Parcel owners, and denies the Parcel owners equal treatment and due process of law. Parcel No. 10690 -2150: ST. CROIX STILLWATER MARINA COMPANY DBA STILLWATER YACHT CLUB by: Act., t,g K. Doran Grund Parcel No. 9028 -0020: ST. CROIX STILLWATER MARINA COMPANY DBA STILLWATER YACHT CLUB by: - t%7'1 G.- K. Do an Grund • REGARDING YOUR PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO.257 THIS LETTER IS TWO FOLD The first is to state our objections to the special assessment that you have attached to our properties on North Main Street in Stillwater. The second to ask for sound planning and fiscal management. An article from the Wall Street Journal that seems to speak to this is attached. • Ann Eichacker 16788 Second Street South Lakeland, MN 55043 (612) 436-8878 Property nbr 10690-3960 and property nbr 10690-3750 at 520 N Main St. This is residential zoned property • ONE The improvements that you plan to spend an enormous amount of money on is of very little benefit to our property. We had read that it was to benefit the commercial properties in the downtown area which was fine with us, but our property is residential. The rate at which this special assessment has been determined has not even considered the difference between the two uses. Our grass area is being taxed the same as a building that is several stories high and worth thousands. We can't afford that kind of a green area and logic. Your present position is one of callous indifference. The City has already required us to hook up to a different water main. This was suppose to stop the water on the Main Street sidewalk. Most, if not all the water was caused by springs that had been disturbed when the city did street improvements up on top of the bluff area. Result is we spent the money for a new water pipe and the water is still there on the sidewalk. Our Parcel number 10690-3960 is a vacant lot that is encumber by a thrity foot easement and is valued at $800, We had called the City prior to purchase and were told that it was residential and that with the area we had we could put up a 20 x 20 building. This would be about the size of two car garage. The assessment is for $7,438.65. We could never hope to recoup the value of this tax burden you have placed on us. This is unfair and should not be legal. Our Parcel number 100690-3750 which we access by way of Laurel Street, has a house that was built in 1870's and was in disrepair when we bought it in 1983- It had been on the market for a year and a half. A lot of cleaning, painting' continuing matainence and general care has keep the place intact The assessed value is $57'400. We paid $42,000 and inspite of a down turn in the housing market and a slow down of economic growth the assessed value continues to climb. There is no garage and no basement to the home and it lacks many of the amentities of newer homes. Is there no budget for repair and replacement' for street improvements/ and park beautification? Now we have a $9,413.20 tax burden added to this parcel. This "Downtown Plan" encompasses a large area yet from the assessment roll as far as we can see all the homeowners on the streets as far back as Fifth Street are not being taxed for this project. • • • • If the commercial owners are the ones who need' want and will pay all this as you state that is fine. Spend billions!!! Just don't let this whole thing fall back on the individual taxpayer as has so often been the case in these megabuck promotions. But you are wrong when you say they are the ones paying for this. We have talked to others who are also dismayed about the cost of this project. We were at the City Council meeting on April 2, 1991 and from what you propose the only economic and visible benefit for the downtown area was some parking lots. These are of no benefit to us and in fact decrease the value of our property as one will be right out in front of us. Not our idea of beautification or residential property enhancement. We still could live with the need for it if we were not made tO pay for the it as well Also, at that meeting the figure on the board showed that you were to get from special assessment to be $1,700'000. The letter you sent us shows the proposed assessment at $2,452.058, or' DOUBLE the amount. Why? Then we were told that by this objection we are subject to an assessed value at the land's highest potential worth. This power if legal is certainly not fair. The City can assess us at commerical rate while we live under residential requirements. Is this just? Until some concrete evidence of its commerical value is established by a bid' a plan for variances and acceptance by the Council we can not see this type of "pipe dream" assessment as valid. Are you trying to force us out, and if so, why? What about doing the project as you secure the funds from TIF and other general taxes. Wouldn't that be sound fiscal management and then we wouldn't have to be asking for relief. TWO We agree that the downtown area needs improvements. We watched at first with interest the drawings that appears in the Stillwater Gazette, but since things didn't move along we had lost interest in the project until we saw the assessment. ' We think that first the Council must decide what direction the downtown area is to take. Is it going to be like St. Paul with the aesthetic view covered over by block after block of uninteresting office buildings. The Mississippi River holds no allure there. We know Hudson, Wi main street has gone to this more and more so that gas stations and office buildings predominate with a few eating places. Or are you trying to preserve the ambiance that has taken over a hundred years to accomplish? The present new office building that has been just built and the choice of modern cobra lightening leads us to believe the first option to be the one you have chosen. We think a better option would be to keep Stillwater's unique qualities and enhance them with decorative period lightening and walks by the river. Planting trees in the cement along the Main St is not in character with the place and is passe. Again, I refer you Hudson, Wi as they put in trees with decorative grates and flower boxes. It was trashed. The boxes are gone and many of the stunted trees now have brick filling in where the grates once were. Establish something to bring the people to the downtown area in the winter also. If possible cross country ski trails, ice skating' sleigh rides all along the river. Is it possible to route one way traffic for a way on each side of Main Street so that the street area could be a park? What about a parking ramp with trolley car access to downtown? If these things prove beneficial and business thrives then monies would be available for other not so visible improvements. Mall shopping is here to stay and downtown areas must draw on some other strengths. Downtown Stillwater has that strength in its "take us back" to a quieter time. • )'queezed Suburbs ;Boomtown . Budgets Suddenly..ArePin"ched • As Tax Takes Dwindle • 'Loudoun County, Va., Spent Heavily in Roaring ;'80s; Now, a Deficit to Be Faced A Painful List of Service Cuts By PAUL DUKE JR. Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL LEESBURG, Va, —For the board of su- pervisors of once= bucolic Loudoun County, Va., the past 10 years have been a stom- ach- turning roller - coaster ride. Now, it's ending with a crash. Entering the 1980s, Loudoun was known : primarily for, Civil War . battlegrounds, horse farms and the underused Dulles air- -, port. The twin cinema in downtown Lees- burg, the sleepy county seat, .was named Tally Hot &2.. But like many rural areas on the fringe of big cities'- -Leesburg is ` only 40 miles northwest of Washington, D.C.— Loudoun boomed during the 1980s. The county's real- estate values took off like a missile, =.and a frenzy of speculation and develop- ment lifted: its total 'property value from $1.6 billion in 1980 to $12.6 billion in 1990. One confident developer even called his new shopping strip "Prosperity. Center." As the county boomed, its tax revenues soared. The board of supervisors slashed the property tax rate 25 %, and the money still flooded in. Revenue from real - estate levies jumped from $38 million to $100 mil - lion between 1986 and -1990 alone. - Many New Projects ' The 'newly rich county established 6 • a.m. to 6 p.m. day care for the two- career couples moving in, ' built ° its first public swimming pool. for $500,000, offered 'coun- "` seling to crime victims and started a roommate matching service. It poured funds into new group homes for the `men- tally retarded. It bought an advanced IBM mainframe computer that's the envy of nearby counties with two and three times its population. The county . supervisors even treated themselves to a two -day retreat at a moun- tain resort with a $700 -a -day "facilitator who told them how to speed up decision - making and improve relations with county employees. Among his suggestions: think of themselves as "Team Loudoun" and use ®;, soccer as a model of cooperation.. Those palmy days are .over. This year, for the first time in decades, the value of Loudoun property will decline, by $300 mil- lion or more. The value of vacant land, ' which attracted the hottest speculation, is down about 10 %. And just as tax revenues multiplied when real estate boomed, now they are shrinking as the county reas- sesses property values. auucuiti -nines aneaa The result: 'It's going to be just beat- ,: ing our brains out for the next four years," says Steve .Stockman, "a member of the ;.board of supervisors. The county's fiscal problems are so severe that they make Mr. Stockman's woes seem as vexing as those once confronting his brother David, Presi- dent Reagan's budget director. • A similar squeeze is afflicting scores of other counties - across the country, from Gwinnett County, Ga., to Santa Clara ;County, Calif. These exurban areas, which raise the largest portion of their revenues from real - estate taxes, were flush with ' cash in the 1980s as their once -rural land filled up with office buildings, strip malls and housing developments. They became hooked on steadily rising revenue; and ' now, with real estate weak, they are suf- fering sharp pangs of withdrawal. "It's a big problem," says Bonnie Dyga, • budget director of Hillsborough County, Fla.. In the mid- 1980s, the county, which surrounds Tampa, enjoyed 20 % -a- year increases in its real - estate tax base. This year, some projects are plunging in value, and the county is hoping for, at best, a 5% rise in the tax base. Hillsborough cut 300 of its 7,800 jobs last year, and more cutbacks are coming, Ms. Dyga says. Conunercial Real Estate Even if the end of the Persian Gulf war bolsters some sectors of the U.S. economy, no one expects commercial real estate to rebound quickly after the excess of the 1980s. The next year or two will be "tough times for most county governments," says John Thomas, executive director of the Na- tional Association of Counties.., Loudoun's problems are immense. The average family in the county receives about $5,800 in services each year, accord- ing to Albert Van Huyck, a retired interna- tional- development expert now running for chairman of the board of supervisors. But • the average household's tax payment is only $1,280 —less than a quarter of the cost of services. In the 1980s, tax payments from developers covered the gap. But with development ground to a ha44,the shortfall has become a yawning me ace. To maintain services instituted in the 1980s and to carry out its ambitious plans, Loudoun would have to raise taxes neatly 40 %. But supervisors, who fear getting scalded in this fall's elections by an al- ready- simmering taxpayer revolt, aren't willing to do that. And so Loudoun— which, like most local governments but unlike the federal government, must balance its books —is pushing an intense belt- tighten- ing campaign. ' "Now, the bills have come due," County Administrator Philip Bolen remarks. Some blame the county's problems partly on profligacy. While officials argue that purchasing the big computer was wise planning for the future, others say it far Please Turn to Page A22, Column 4 Squeezed Suburbs: Once - Booming Areas Develop Fiscal Woes Continued From First Page exceeds the county's needs. "We could hire monks with quill pens and parchment and come out ahead on that one," Mr. Van Huyck says. Two big projects put on the drawing boards late in the 1980s epitomized for many the idea that the government was following "the yellow brick road," as Ste- phen Wagner, president of Community Bank & Trust in Sterling, puts it. One was a $45 million, 300,000- square- foot administrative building that struck WEST VIRGiNjA MARY.LAND_. • Baltimore ?. •. WASNINGTDN • a nc _. many citizens as extravagant— costing more than $500 for every man, woman and child in the county. Officials maintain nonetheless that, in the long run, the build- ing would actually save money on rent. The other was the plan for a $35 million high school and regional athletic center. Though the originally planned 3,000 -seat ,':football stadium was a sandlot by Texas high- school standards, some county resi- dents wondered whether school officials'' weren't driven by a desire to oversee grand regional events. Frank Raflo, a su- pervisor for 14 years who is now a newspa- per columnist, says he found out that other high schools built recently in Virginia cost i $12,000 per student; Loudoun's would have cost $22,000. Jacking up the bill were such amenities as classrooms big enough to pro- : vide space for personal computers. "It was the height of rosy scenario," Mr. Raflo says. But such excesses alone can't explain the surge in the county's budget from $49.2 million in 1980 to the $271 million plan adopted for the fiscal year ending in June. That growth far outstripped increases in population, which rose during the 1980s from 57,000 to 86,000, and inflation. i Where the Money Went Some of the spending was mandated tin- ; der federal and state law, and most of it went to the myriad costs of turning a rural county into a hotbed of growth: waste dis- posal, for instance, and big staff increases to handle necessities such as planning, zon- ing and building inspections. Some officials insist that the county had to catch up on items once ignored, such as building li- braries and developing parks for future residents who don't have horse farms. More important, some contend, is the way demographic changes increased the number of families needing various forms of assistance. The growth in two- career families has increased demand for day care, after - school programs and mental health care, they say. And they cite more subtle effects as well. "The family situation puts more cars on the road" and thus increases the wear and tear and the county's repair costs, says Charles Bos, vice chairman of the Board of. Supervisors. -"Working parents and di- vorced parents create new social problems for the schools." ' And he worries that the county can't afford new programs . such as one, started last year, that provides day care for Alzheimer's patients. Even Mr. Van Huyck, who criticizes the government's lack of planning for leaner days, says, "The county wasn't into this • huge social- service delivery to relatively well -off people. These are programs de- signed to relieve stress on families who are desperately trying to make ends meet." So, the county is facing difficult choices in deciding where to cut. Dropping the frills —which the county is doing —won't solve the $30 million-plus deficit looming in fiscal 1992 if Loudoun tried to keep up its current spending pace. Already, the $45 million administrative building has been postponed for five years, and the high - school price tag pared to $30.7 million. (The size of the stadium hasn't been de- cided.) County staffing is frozen; layoffs are looming. There isn't enough money for the teacher raises that have kept the county's salaries competitive. A List of Cutbacks Just last month, Mr. Bolen, the county administrator, gave the supervisors a so- bering list of 243 service cutbacks required if the current tax rate is to be main- tained. Though some cuts won't be hard to swallow —the sheriff's department says it can save $20,000 in rental -car costs be- cause it is using more cars confiscated from drug dealers— others will hurt. Sub- stance -abuse counseling at the youth shel- ter would be halved even though drug problems are growing. Twenty mentally retarded people waiting for county- subsi- dized housing wouldn't get it;, that saves $300,000. Libraries would have to cut back their purchases of books, magazines and newspapers by 35 %; -for a saving of $165,- 000. Eliminating day -care subsidies to 40 families with 96 children would save an- other $165,000. "Many of those families are headed by single women who will have a tough' time "hanging onto their jobs, ".says Carmen Na- zario, Loudoun's, director -of social serv- �- ices.- Her department %. is t 'especially squeezed because the number of people -asking for food stamps, income subsidies and other help is double that a year ago. In elementary schools, all art, music and physical - education teachers would be laid off, with homeroom teachers picking up the slack. The pupil- teacher ratio would rise from 21 -to-1 to 24 -to -1. Also possibly targeted is $500,000 that Loudoun pays to a nearby county to enroll about 50 students in a science high school. "These are things that make this a nice place to live," says C. Carroll Laycock, the school board chair- man. "I hate to see that damaged." In smaller ways, too, the cuts would af- fect wide areas of county life. The volun- teer firefighters each would pay $50 for their instruction manuals. Community cen- ters would close, tossing boy and girl scouts out of their meeting places, and the parks and recreation department couldn't replace its 22- year -old tractor: Five -Hour Budget Hearing Making the cuts won't be easy. At a budget hearing held recently in a junior - high- school auditorium, 500 people gath- ered for a meeting that dragged on for five hours. Nearly 60 people spoke against re- ductions in education and mental- health programs. Though a few opposed tax in- creases, some practically begged for one. One man even offered to write a check on the spot for the extra taxes he's willing to pay. "I'll try to get my neighbors to do the same," he said. But the supervisors don't believe that is the sentiment of most county residents, in- cluding many farmers and retirees. They are dead set against a tax increase of more than 10% or so. In mid- March, county voters defeated, 2 to 1, a proposal to raise $5 million to buy and preserve eco- logically sensitive land; many people viewed that as indicating widespread an- ger about the government's spending. - "We have to decide whether a spot in a group home is worth a job in the govern- ment or raising the teacher -pupil ratio," MrrBos says. Even before the spending cuts go into effect, the huge swings in the county gov- ernment's fortunes have stirred distrust among many once - neighborly residents. That's especially true, says Mr. Bolen, °:When'the recession is stirring up anxiety and cynicism, and "local government is the focus of that." Record numbers of an- gry homeowners are challenging their sharply higher real- estate assessments, for instance. "The public's money is a lot like drugs," says James Burton, a retired Air Force colonel. "It's very easy to become addicted to it" His solution: "Send the su- pervisors to a detox center." • David and Vivian Hanson 2660 Fairlawn Drive Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Stillwater City Council Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 April 16, 1991 We object to the proposed assessment for "Downtown Plan" improvements being assessed against us for two parcels of property we own in Lots 4 and 5 of Block 31, Original City of Stillwater. Lots 4 and 5 are on the West side of 3rd Street between Olive and Chestnut. This block of 3rd Street was completely rebuilt in 1982 or 1983. At the recent informational meeting I was told that the only work put out for bid on that block is some sanitary sewer repair which can probably be done without tearing up the street. Parcel 10693 -2475 is an old apartment building with 5 small apartments at 218 South 3rd Street. The property is not zoned commercial, so it will not benefit from any of the Main Street improvements. We feel that the square foot assessment procedure used, and lack • of benefit make the $6,464.00 assessment far too high. Parcel 10693 -2450 is the driveway and part of the yard for our five unit apartment building at 114 West Olive Street. No work is being done on that block of Olive Street. This parcel receives no benefit at all from the "Downtown Plan" improvements. We feel there is no basis for the $4,064.24 assessment against this property. Thank yo for considering our objections. '174:/ any David and Vivian Hanson • NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO PROPOSED ASSESSMENT TO: THE CITY OF STILLWATER, ITS MAYOR, COUNCIL AND OFFICIALS The undersigned, on behalf of the owners of parcel number 10690 -4050 located in the area bounded by Fifth Street on the west, Pine Street on the south extended easterly to the St. Croix River, the St.Croix River on the east and Elm Street on the north extended easterly to the St.Croix River including the former State Prison site in the City of Stillwater (the subject property) hereby notify you of their objection to the proposed assessment for sanitary sewer, storm sewer, street reconstruction, lighting, streetscape, landscaping, beautification, undergrounding of power lines, decorative enhancements and parking lots which are proposed as a part of local improvement number 257 in the amount of $89,839.50. The undersigned's objection to the proposed assessment is based upon the fact that the proposed assessment is arbitrary and unreasonable; that the proposed assessment exceeds, to a substantial amount, the special benefit received; that the formula adopted by the City Council for the assessment is based upon an erroneous theory of law and fact in calculating the assessment; and that the City of Stillwater failed to follow the procedures • required by M.S. §429. Additionally, this objection is based upon the following facts: 1. The Notice of hearing on proposed assessment for local improvement number 257 was not timely served on the affected property owners as required by M.S. §429.061. 2. That the subject property will not be benefitted by the improvement so as to increase the market value of said property by $89,839.50. 3. That the proposed assessment calculations are unfair and not proportionate to the benefit which each property will receive as a result of said improvements. Based upon the above we request that the proposed assessment be reduced to a reasonable amount. Dated this ABS Company AlIvIMPICii _Aare Arlo • Mo ty Brie General General Partner day of April, 1991. Richard L. Schnieder General Partner /S /and inc. 219 NORTH MAIN ST. P.O. BOX 439 STILLWATER, MN. 55082 April 15, 1991 Ms. Mary Lou Johnson, Clerk CITY OF STILLWATER City Courthouse Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: Proposed Assessment - -Maple Island, Inc. Dear Ms. Johnson: PHONE: 612- 439 -2200 FAX: 612- 439 -5917 Maple Island, Inc. ( "Maple Island "), is filing this objection, pursuant to Minn. Stat. $ 429.061, subd. 2, to the Proposed Assessment for Local Improvement No. 257. Maple Island is the fee owner of seven separate parcels of land in the proposed assessment area. It is objecting to the proposed assessment against each of these seven parcels. The parcel numbers in the assessment notice for each parcel, and the proposed assessment amounts, are: Parcel No. Amount 10691 -3350 10691 -3380 10691 -3410 10691 -3440 10691 -3470 9028 -0050 9028 -0150 $ 2,549..24 3,838.00 11,877.60 11,287.76 11,939.21 132,219.10 219,462.90 $393,173.81 Copies of the 1991 Real Estate Tax Statements for the two proper- ties bearing the largest assessments are attached. The assessor's market value for Parcel No. 9028 -0150 is $56,900.00 and the proposed assessment amount is $219,462.90, an amount almost four times the assessor's market value. For Parcel No. 9028 -0050, the assessor's value on the tax statement is $370,000.00 and the proposed assessment is $132,219.10, approxi- mately 36 percent of the assessor's market value. Clearly, the proposed assessments are out of all proportion when compared with the market values of the properties upon which they are proposed to be levied. Maple Island owns property at two separate locations in the assessment area. Five of the parcels are located at the street address of 219 North Main Street, where there is a building that contains an office and processing area, limited warehouse space, and a parking area on the north side of the building. Over 50 Years of Service Ms. Mary Lou Johnson Page 2 April 15, 1991 The two remaining parcels, located further north on the west side of Main Street, are at the northern end of the assessment area. A map showing their location is attached. The highlighted inner area is Parcel No. 9028 -0050 and the outside highlighted area is Parcel No. 9028 -0150. Parcel No. 9028 -0050 is unimproved except for two buildings which are more than 100 years old. A part of one of the buildings is leased to the school district and the remaining part is used by Maple Island for storage space. The second building is used by Maple Island for storage. The parcel is surrounded by a brick wall which is more than 50 feet tall. The parcel contains 130,910 square feet. Parcel No. 9028 -0150 is unimproved. It contains 217,290 square feet. Most of the property is unreachable because of the brick wall on the inside boundary and the steep vertical drop on the outside perimeter. It is difficult to imagine any productive use or value for this parcel of property. LAW Minn. Stat. § 429.051 provides that the cost of an improvement may be assessed upon the property benefited by the improvement "based upon the benefits received." To determine the value of a special benefit, "the taxing authority must consider 'what increase, if any, there has been in the market value of the bene- fited land. "' Continental Sales v. Town of Stuntz, 257 N.W.2d 546, 549 (Minn. 1979), citing City of St. Louis Park v. Engell, 283 Minn. 309, 316, 168 N.W.2d 3, 8 (1969). The Minnesota Supreme Court has established the rule "that a special assessment which exceeds the special benefits to the property, measured by the difference in market value before and after the improvements, is a taking of property without fair compensation in violation of the 14th Amendment." Buettner v. City of St. Cloud, 277 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Minn. 1979). The proposed assessments against the Maple Island properties are invalid because they exceed any increase in value to the parcels that may result from the assessments. As already discussed, Parcel No. 9028 -0150 is virtually unusable and unreachable and yet an assessment of $219,462.90, some four times its market value, is proposed. It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that this property has not been even remotely benefited to the extent of the amount proposed to be assessed against it. Indeed, it is questionable whether the parcel benefits at all from the improve- ments proposed. Similarly, Parcel No. 9028 -0050 receives very little, if any, benefits from the proposed improvements. As already discussed, one of the two buildings on this parcel is leased in part and the Ms. Mary Lou Johnson • Page 3 April 15, 1991 • • remaining building space is used by Maple Island for storage. The other building is used by Maple Island for storage. The properties have been owned by Maple Island for more than 40 years and have during that time either been used by Maple Island in its business or have been rented to the school district. The pro- posed improvements will not help Maple Island in any substantial way in the operation of its business, nor will they add measur- ably to the value of this parcel. The remaining five parcels are used by Maple Island in its manufacturing operation. The proposed assessment provides very little in the way of benefits to Maple Island in its manufactur- ing operations, and clearly does not increase the value of the five parcels in an amount equal to the proposed assessment. From the information available to Maple Island, it appears that the improvements in question are intended to benefit commercial and retail businesses in the city's central business district. A further reason why the proposed assessment against Maple Island is invalid is that Maple Island has been assessed a dispropor- tionately large amount of the total assessment. The total amount of the entire proposed assessment is $2,452,344.98, of which $393,173.81, or 16 percent, is proposed against the properties of Maple Island. Maple Island understands there are approximately 180 parcels in the assessment area, of which Maple Island owns 7, or less than 4 percent. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that taxpayers have a constitutional right to have their property assessed at the same level as others even if their property is not assessed at more than market value. Hamm v. State, 255 Minn. 64, 95 N.W.2d 649 (1959). The proposed assessment against Maple Island violates that rule. To summarize, the proposed assessments do not benefit the properties of Maple Island in an amount equal to the assessments proposed and Maple Island has been assessed a disproportionately large amount of the total assessment. Maple Island objects to the assessment as proposed, and requests that any assessments for Local Improvement No. 257 not exceed the increases in value to the properties of Maple Island that are assessed and that they treat Maple Island equally with other parcel owners. Sincerely, , D. W. O'Brien President DWO /cmw Attachment STATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES PAYABLE IN 1991 RZAL ESTATE TAXES (612) 430 -6175 YAY-1t,LG TO5: R. H. Stafford. Auditorrrellisui . r Washington County - P.O. Box 200 Stillwater. MN 55082 -0200 PROPERTY NUMBER GEO NUMBER Le gal: PART OF GOV LOT 1 BEG AT A PT IN THE WLY LINE OF N MAIN ST 34.55 FT i4LY FROM THE ,E PT OF INTERSECTION 211302,) Taxpayers: MAPLE ISLAND FARM INC 219 N MAIN ST STILLWATER MN 557082 Market Value: New Improvements: Property Class: COMM. Fee Owner: MAPLE ISLAND FARM INC 1. Amount to use in filling out your property tax refund. orm M -IPR, if. eligible...- ...._. - 2. Amount to use in filling out Schedule 1 of form M -1PR• if eligible. If this box is checked, you owe delinquent taxes. • Your Property Tax 3. Your property tax before reduction by state -paid aids and credits. 4. Aid paid by state to reduce your property tax: 5. Homestead and agricultural credit. • 6. Other credits that reduce your tax. 7. Your property tax after reduction by state -paid aids and credits. Where Your Property Tax Dollars Go 8. County 9. City or town 834 10. School district 11. Special taxing district: A. COUNTY WIDE • B. FISCAL DIS ARITY: c. TAX INCR FINANCE`' • D. WATERSHED 12. Total property taxes before special assessments. 13. Special assessments: A. C. D. E. -1dr. Your toial- property: tax• and. special- 15. Pay this amount no later than May 15, 1991 16. Pay this amount no later than October 15, 1991 1990 56,900 5,058,63 2,188.27 2,870.36 i Are you eligible for a refund to reduce your tax? . • .',:. • -.. ; - Read the back of this statement to learn about the Minnesota property tax refund(s) & other tax information. • -v .. :,• •.. �,• :,. .•. _ �1. . I, a. ■ 'fl T. /• •111., rt. �1• ..1. i.i . :� ••._ S '�iw rj,A•► :.: •r.•r••A•: ••e.• :. - f•�1•- ' • .{C. "•'./►'..:o:+ ' ••raA•.•.y.: ..,- .ugA►...Y:+ .4�.sfyF. -? G= • rf•A /..vs;.. ••�.- .,,r.A► ►•. ^:+ -: .ti•.. ' I.a•CT1..r. • I.a�t.`474 .• _ ♦:!1••'•: ♦'• ►.fit- �t....•.� . ►g:�!•. •;,'t.g'Zftl•:`►• : ♦ ^G1•• :wt .: •'N_.►,��- Vii. -•.,_ .►•fit :fit.. '.j�fb ...1iifa.•'SJ. :...•Nifr:•'!►..: ••. ; 61..Z.1� �� ; Mbar:,_... -_ �. itbR:. -.: ,.-. �. i ∎,,,,.•_ ►t._ G. at/ ft%•-•.-- it atbli:._•.. -: e. it ►i•r:••♦ « -. "--',"4 f • • ;:- a -• `w Ai•Zr4.�L +;uiaRi'!1 \._i i�t l �4if� \-t'.,tfI1:••{�t;Ze• :.��,��i \Riz�c.���,•,e,.....1..,, -, ,. .A...•i_.i- ,,+,!Jat.•._'S�'�'° T;II.•4 ii. :7':;r~- -. :1•_ .a ' 1 • :I•• Vt I ;t•. _ ;• / • SIe.. -7.• T+t• 1 a•f.•+ Z •••t :�'•g. UI a• `r / •1..•! :.. .j i • - ..• ;�::' =• -1.� �•••�.Lt - ?.i. I��.w,��7'�''s.�•'u•Ed.� �L t,' �• 11't.w,•� : [.p•• .1•u1� �,:�. �i • ..l• ,,. ••t :� "� u,l<i'. ,►' .'tdl �:,•: �:" �ru1 `1 ,..t�� �:ii.At,�.� _��:•U. ?t,�.� :�:•l..�rtt]'a a �.ilntn2.�!� c�:il,Jt•�.'_ �:iN.�t•�.'_ a,1:il�tln�. � I:i6.�t• ?.� 1.•ln)t.�. -�'1 P -r, +'ate 111 •li - �.i3 at. �m •- :.� •'IA-• ►• :.� -.1 A'• ►• ::'.,: ,irep /•.r•,� •'ai•'•!;•-. -..•T. . „1. , -: .1\f.• ..;: L ..':' .•11 'tea 1.: •l,• .�.. •P• _��•� ► � _;.. L �.. ► ► •'�' i. '•Vti .�•i• �� ,'� •. %IY•1' . cV �•Ah; - • ;itJ •,,i,•.V',r •4:'Gi,•!i�1.rt ',;_�i,; rr..i.44.'1;: !Vf,tt' i7, +..i,.!V4.t!t: ;•b CG b•!t�•.Tt: •,,_t,•!V :,irt.;•,, /,•!Vt,i.t• ;•p•'�4•114; i.-••1.•j..„,:,....,7•7',. •3 . • 'ar . - • t�3 _- i t • t'3: .. • t• •t•3 .. ••• • , • •• , �... i . 1ij. • ra •i 1 1� • .: 1W• • • •1• • 1.t1 ! • •i• 1/f . • 1• • 1ti •1 t t ta'1 /• -,. -/' •:,. +••-- _:= 1•�•::. __•.� -. 1• •:�,•:� •� -• .lA•_= �- +�. IA• :�.�j_.n_��h • :�, 1•t1i =j� ��, ■1•• =•0' • • -•r its : - . 7•.� -Y•�r t.� •y �=♦ •y. t=t:� Zs 'I %�� -... -r- L -♦ ►.= yl >:.. ►1 t : ►.a 1- •►.. t.. t.. . ►2.1.1%:1'...s0:44;0:-...•7 1• ; .•r;,. :.� /� t• a :�_ 1• �� ►.a 1• •..� - •... . I it►i1y .- i•Iifi.•...�� ;. Jt1•llr.._. �..atFi_�;. -y:•. � - ' � .•t►, r•r- t Ai• ..- �. t•',7,.5-‘!""."1. •70.,•••• ''• f'.,. �� -: i a.2 _�'-� . . 1tti•!•�-':� 4� \tip o1 t. .f`� 1t, S'&S•' .�Att .1t1: •��`ta 1e'./ti...ol _i; ∎' . \Rt1 :.'1._• ; .'S �iti�..' '� gtialti :•I j. �q .1611k. ...Wt.,' • .•,r•'•1"ruZt7-.N •t:"'•_:ru�',:'•r •:' :t ��:1•_ ♦t i!�•a• :,r ;.. ..•Id 'I•• :- Zt o, ••r CS.': I•r•r;..,., u•` :• • . �o _ t. . a. '^ 'Ii :i.'. "= •1 ,.. ►• f.''t.. 1•'.3s u/ .:1.. • l...1:4!,14-F ► un/:1 t G ru��I:T.•t::7 • 1.-i- i� ?z•= S .73.:?!. �� - �:.�s;•�q.-^ - �:iiIJt•��'!C - •�:ip.•t,��'c - 1iip.1t• ?.� _ rys�,7-i1!c �• _ '�:y(�:,�2 S _t •�..lt•��'! - �� .'�l:C.r,�--a.� ..a 1 = •`�; ∎ i. Via• !:- -,..%,:-.- .. \ • •�.i: _-' •i. • •i. .••'!•,-,i.•. -..11,14- •f' ► ♦. •.•.. `6.1tf _. ...•..., L.,.- - -- . ".11.. L .ai'�lf -i.� '? \' 1►f'• ►•. F:. � . +. " i. i .3" •tf. .i3► Iif'► 7..'•.. c �d'pt♦ . 1 1 '�i ,+ t ,•;'� t .i.+ t !..41, .r.; t • ,.�.,•.. fait • .•.. • 1 •.+ t •t.- t . n •.�i,.t► .rt /:'�•.•! Xi( 1 :•�i.•! . 1: -.4•! .rt t:'� +..lV .rt�� t. t. 1. .• 1. •r t•; t:'�1.•! .Tt' 1: "�•.•! .rt� •• �.. ;a•1c -1 • t' .. 3 . •. 3 : •t t'3;: �:. is ; • ;,,:. C .t t��• .j ,. _ 1 =1 •• ••1 !1 ,• 1•• �/ ,. , h i..•-_ + ,► �.-� 1~� 1 • .. v►1t1'••.�•.'..• :♦ ►.a�.! 1•-•-` 7,-7 I.��e! 1..•.._ _: f ∎S' ! 11: r.:_ . /,a�.T 1......_ • ►.a�-T 1 a :♦•: : :,..� 1. • Ir .„,...,...4.. t:•_∎.. • . .a.b,f••-• ."-� ". etc; 5•P- •- -��. t4.1,- :•- •7._%. _•blt.•_• „.i I. jtli .- r: f! ._•� ,•..._•. .n. 1110--. a 41 • •.,� t. .• -.•tfi \ti'.•i i1 giJRi���..• :mil 31111P \_.• i� ,lti.•,�_i� .._ 1ti • \.-ice. 4V ¶ *..•►.• 54+ - ati ?•i_r= M�t•_Iti"" i_N/fi,lti'.•i�i -MIr • i'1.11 -•:f•. :b _Ztir :1•• �Vrul a•... -.•z., ru/ a••••' .Tit• I :1•r•r- • Zrld :I••'t- '._'1'IJ ai.•• �r 1 •.•,.!: � i�; �,,� 1� ,,.� � � ,..'^ u!•• t•';� �.�•�S'- • .l,i:•:;.t- '�• 1.l)Ya , �Sr1'�')r;,••'�� ^Zru1��•:1 tea- 'it..•t• IC tC IE' tC n ?.0 �'il..•f•�. �: ti l�.�� .r =r qt. 1:. +• t� •_ � �. �:i4.1n�.� ,1 :il..ttt,�. s �ail'.1t.�. I:tiD.1 � �.:. .��:: � �:iW ►t1G. a ,1;iU.)t,�. • 7.111101...:",•-••_,..., :::; . :. -; of •ti -* ;• so •l �'..'''�,• ;* 00.•���..: Z ii A\• •►' � '' :+i a• • ► ..�.∎j �Z►i•/'•••,: -'ice 1i.�N +b..r:i i'af •►.•.ate;'+ d'• t► •�•i '/A.••.,r.t: •,; i,.! •f.iat: •4, Vii,•! 'f.rt••-!",111••:".; .••! fait: ••:j ! f,r •• i.!V .fit•' .�: -. V •rl' •t•:�•.•! Lt •' 1 •� • 'a.•1••u• . • V 3 t- 1; t' ; °; t. t :1. t•:• t•; ;7•7"b. ; V t:; ,._i,..V ,+I t:; 1•:,i...V . ta.�. .• •••• + ••••t• + •• ∎t• - t + .. :.• .�� ;•• 1•, �i• . -�-- �••••t• , . -•••tom .....0.• t...v�ir 0000.1. :,. i•. 1�.Sj. ,. ••1- n/• . •• 1•• •__• .,7•7'.74....:7;-..,. ..• 1... STATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES PAYABLE IN 1991 REAL ESTATE TAXES (612) 430 -6175 R. 11. Stafford. Auditor /Treasurer Washington County P.O. Box 200 Stillwater. MN 55082 -0200 ERTY NUMBER NUMBER Legal: PT GOV LOT 1 COM AT A PT IN THE WLY LINE OF T4 MAIN ST IN SD CITY 181.45 FT NLY FROM THE NLY 'Arai -tiC:.•'v LU�•VJ��'- rb•- '.r- VVil1. 203020 Taxpayers: MAPLE ISLAND FARM INC 219 N MAIN ST STILLWATER MN ..55082 Market Value: New Improvements: Property Class: COMM. Fee Owner: MAPLE ISLAND FARM INC 1. -- Amount -to use in filling out -your property -tax rcfund.form- M- 1211., .if 2. Amount to use in filling out Schedule 1 of form M -1PR, if eligible. If this box is checked. you owe delinquent taxes: Your Property Tax 3. Your property tax before reduction by state -paid aids and credits. 4: Aid paid by state to reduce your property tax. 5. • Homestead and agricultural credit. 6. Other credits that reduce your tax. 7. Your property tax after reduction by state -paid aids and credits. Where Your Property Tax Dollars Go 8: County OCity or town 334 School district Special taxing district: A. COUNTY WIRE B FISCAL DISPARITY c. TAX INCR FINANCE D. WATERSHED 1990 370,000 29,803.51 12,892,47 16,911,04 1,'291.60 1,528.02 2,485.94 241.64 5,151.36 6,212,48 1991 30, J• 6.22 . 12,137.50 18,48.82 1,244,66 1,.332.26 • 221.40 !12 5,6a2,:� 7,107.56 12. Total property taxes before special assessincu s. , T 13. Special assessments: A. H t B. C. D. E. 18,406.22 26.00 •-- 14.-Your: total- property-tax and.ipeciab•assessmenu 15. Pay this amount no later than May 15, 1991 16. Pay this amount no later than October 15, 1991 18,434,82 9,217.41 9,17.41 • (1 • _Arse I ...ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS I PLANNERS • • April 15, 1991 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 612 490-2000 Mr. Steve Russell, Community Development Director City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Russell: RE: STILLWATER, MINNESOTA PLANNING CASE REVIEW PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW SUB 91 -16 AND SUB 91 -18 OAK GLEN 11TH & 12TH ADDITIONS We have reviewed the final plats for Oak Glen llth Addition and Oak Glen 12th Addition. Lot dimensions along all streets are consistent with the previous submittals used for the construction of utilities. Therefore, existing sewer and water stubs are located within each of the proposed lots. All utility and drainage easements appear adequate to cover their needs and /or utilities already in place. Attached are the copies of the plats submitted. If you have any questions, please contact me. BCP /cih Enclosure SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. ST PAUL, MINNESOTA Sincerely, tPT J C • ? Barry C. Peters, P.E. CHIPPEWA FALLS, WISCONSIN iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVE RUSSELL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 12, 1991 SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR OAK GLEN 11TH ADDITION (SUB /91 -16) The request is for Final Plat Approval for the Oak Glen 11th Addition plat. The lots meet the Single Family Residential Zoning Requirements ranging in size from 12,825 square feet to 37,395 square feet (10,000 required). The streets and utilities are in and the City Engineer is reviewing improvement plans. Any comments from the Engineer will be presented at meeting time. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. ATTACHMENT: Subdivision Plan. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612- 439 -6121 • • • tllwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVE RUSSELL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 12, 1991 SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR OAK GLEN 12TH ADDITION (SUB /91 -18) The request is for Final Plat Approval for the Oak Glen 12th Addition plat. The lots meet the Single Family Residential Zoning Requirements ranging in size from 13,613 square feet to 26,016 square feet (10,000 required). The streets and utilities are in and the City Engineer is reviewing improvement plans. Any comments from the Engineer will be presented at meeting time. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. ATTACHMENT: Subdivision Plan. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612 - 439 -6121 • RESOLUTION NO. (11 (P CORRECTING DELINQUENT UTILITY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Whereas; it is the policy of the City of Stillwater to assess delinquent utility bills to the property serviced and, Whereas; the City of Stillwater assessed delinquent utility bills of $105.10 in 1989 and $190.34 in 1990 to Parcel No. 9895 -4300 and, Whereas; it has come to the attention of the City of Stillwater that the delinquent utility bills were assessed to the wrong parcel. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Stillwater that the delinquent utility bills of $105.10 in 1989 and $190.34 in 1990 shall be assessed for payable 1991 to Parcel No. 9895 -4325 and the 1990 assessment /payable 1991 shall be deleted from Parcel No. 9895 -4300. Adopted this 16th day of April 1991. Attest: City Clerk Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 7/ 6 Reapportionment of Special Assessments for Outlot Q and Outlot S, Oak Glen 10th Addition Whereas; special assessments for Outlot Q and Outlot S, Oak Glen 10th Addition, were originally filed for Local Improvement No. 184 and; Whereas; the balance of special assessments for Local Improvement No. 184 outstanding at December 31, 1991 for Outlot Q is $51,410 and Outlot S is $68,546.68 for a total of $119,956.68 and; Whereas; the City Council of the City of Stillwater has previously approved a subdivision of Outlot Q into three lots and Outlot S into four lots and; Whereas; it is the intent and policy of the City of Stillwater to reapportion outstanding special assessments when a subdivision is approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Stillwater that the outstanding special assessments for Outlot Q and Outlot S, Oak Glen 10th Addition be reapportioned equally amongst the seven lots approved in the subdivision and the special assessments outstanding for each lot at December 31, 1991 shall be $17,136.67 and the total is $119,956.69. Adopted this 16th day of April 1991. Attest: • City Clerk Mayor LIST OF BILLS EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 91 -60 Abrahamson Nurseries Ace Hardware American Linen Supply A T & T A T & T Blevins Concession Supply Brown's Ice Cream Business Machine Sales Capitol Communications Carson Map Company Century Power Equipment Clarey's Safety Equipment Commissioner of Revenue Courier, The Equipment Supply, Inc. Flaherty Equipment Corp. F. M. E. Corporation Fred's Tire Company Frito - Lay, Inc. GAB Business Service Gagnon Printing Company Gopher State One -Call Government Finance Officers Association Greeder Electric Company Grindstone, Inc. G & K Services H & L Mesabi Inc. Hooley Super Markets Independent School District 834 Island Enterprises Johnson, Ronald Junker Recycling Service Junker Sanitation Service R. W. Kirchner & Associates LMC Insurance Trust LMC Insurance Trust Lotus Development Corp. Magnuson, David Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Minnesota Blueprint Mn. Society of CPA's Mn. Correctional Facility Multi -Print Municilite Company Potting Soil $ Faucet - Supplies Linen Service Lease /Rental Leased Equipment Concession Supplies Concession Supplies Service Agreement (6 Type) Battery /Repairs Plat Book Revisions 2 Chains for Saw Gaskets Sales Tax -March Publications 36 Filters Repair Generator Rent - Postage Meter 2 Pro Nets Concession Supplies Ehlenz Claim Business Cards - Russell Locate Requests -March 10 Volumn /Slip Case Repairs Ice Knives Sharpened Uniform Rental Cutting Edges Dog Food /Supplies 1990 TIF Collections Brake Cleaner Reimburse - Okidata Printer Recycling- March Lift Stations /Box- Garage Appraisal Mulberry Point Audit Adjustment Multi -Peril Ins.Premium Lotus 1 -2 -3, Release 3 -1 Legal Services Sewer Service Charge Print Paper 1991 Dues - Deblon Misc. Printing - Police Letter - Recycling Boxes Power Supply /Repairs 35.92 33.09 17.40 146.20 47.42 190.94 91.10 438.00 333.40 124.95 27.10 54.45 405.69 58.08 75.93 157.50 318.00 78.00 213.57 250.00 27.00 35.00 109.00 164.20 15.00 825.18 590.84 9.62 75, 913.46 192.25 254.36 6,594.00 455.80 1,000.00 3,308.00 40,264.75 35.00 4,357.20 71,024.00 37.84 80.00 58.00 175.00 231.50 Northern States Powe Company Northern Medical Sup,•ly North Star Turf One Hour Express Pho o Oxygen Service Compa y Polar Chevrolet Public Safety Equipnn -nt Russell, Stephen Safety Kleen Corpora ion St. Croix Animal Shelter St. Croix Car Wash St. Croix Cleaners St. Croix Drug Compa y Short Elliott Hendri kson Stillwater Book & Stationery Stillwater Ford Stillwater Sunrise R•tary Taystee Baking Thompson Hardware Co pany Tower Asphalt, Inc. Uniforms Unlimited U. S. West Communica ions Valley Auto Supply Watson, Dennis Wybrite, Inc. Yocum Oil Company Zee Medical Service Zepper, Alien ADDENDUM TO BILLS A T & T Bodiovick, Ann Croixland Excavating Croix Oil Company Courier, The Drawing Board, The Ecolab Pest Eliminat►on Labor Relations L. N. Sickels Compan Motorola, Inc. Sensible Land Use Co= lition Stafford, R. H. Washington County Treasurer Volk Water & Sewer, inc. Volunteer Benefit As -n. West Publishing Company Energy Charge 3 Trash Pickers Rubber Fingers Film Processing Rent - 2 Tanks Transmission Repair Re- Certify 5 Units Reimburse- Expenses Service Parts Washer Fees -March Squads Washed Laundry -Fire Dept. Bill Collections Engineering Office Supplies Set Head Bolts Qtrly. Dues - Kriesel Concession Supplies Supplies Asphalt Uniforms Telephone Service Auto Parts Programming Mte. Agreement Fuel Oil First Aid Supplies Reimburse for Jacket Long Distance Calls Reimbursement- Expenses Storm Sewer Gas Newsletter /Publications Sympathy Cards Pest Control Services Crackfiller Service Agreement Lunch /Seminar 30.66 75.70 66.56 5.05 . 9.00 100.00 100.00 55.77 98.00 268.00 56.00 9.75 9.30 3,088.73 123.54 21.00 95.00 24.00 102.69 302.33 347.20 1,707.93 1,160.53 420.00 158.00 313.02 331.90 42.99 64.40 197.91 385.00 17.00 1,092.50 48.76 195.00 373.75 3,564.00 267.00 15.00 License Plates 17.00 Final Payment #270 5,054.21 Firemen's Insurance 778.00 1991 Mn. Session Laws 115.00 Adopted by the Counc.l this 16th day of April, 1991. CONTRACTORS APPLICATIONS April 16, 1991 Dave Bell Masonry Masonry & Brick Work Renewal 1463 Pine Tree Lane Houlton, Wi 54082 Cad -Con, Inc. General Contractor New 6401 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Cedar Concepts Deck Construction New 1530 English St., #2 St. Paul, Mn. 55106 -1125 T. C. Dayton Co. General Contractor New 6306 119th Ave. No. Champlin, Mn 55316 Falcon Fire Protection, Inc. 11596 K -Tel Drive Minnetonka, Mn. 55343 Fire Protection Systems Renewal Graphic House, Inc. Sign Erection New 9204 Packer Dr. Wausau, Wi 54401 • R. Hagstrom, Builder, Inc. General Contractor Renewal 3394 Lake Elmo Ave. No. Lake Elmo, Mn. 55042 Simon Johnson Masonry & Brick Work Renewal 5725 Oakgreen Ave. No. Stillwater, Mn. 55082 Montgomery Homes, Inc. General Contractor New 2082 Welling Ford Dr. Woodbury, Mn. 55125 North Star Services General Contractor Renewal P.O. Box 4099 St. Paul, Mn. 55104 Pacific Pools General Contractor Renewal 6922 No. 55th St. Oakdale, Mn. 55109 Residential Construc. Advisors General Contractor New 202 Robert St. Mahtomedi, Mn. 55115 Sign Art Co. Sign Erection Renewal . 2535 Pilot Knob Rd. Mendota Hgts, Mn. 55120 • • • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council FR: Diane Deblon, Finance Director DA: April 9, 1991 RE: SEWER BILL ADJUSTMENTS The following are requests for and recommendations made for changes to sewer billing charges: Problem Recommendation 1. Leaky toilet Reduce January 1991 billing to prior 3 year average of 23 /gal /qtr. LG220 - (Rev.11 /14190) Minnesota Lawful Gambling Application for Exemption from Lawful Gambling License FOR BOARD USE ONLY FEE CHK INIT DATE Fill in the unshaded portions of this application for exemption and send it in at least 45 days before your gambling activity for processing. Organization Name Street Current/previous license number 7; Current/previous exempt number City State Zip code County Chief executive officer Check the box below which indicates your type of organization ❑ Fraternal CI Religious ❑ Veterans ❑ Other non - profit Attach proof of nonprofit status which shows that your organization is nonprofit ❑ IRS designation ❑ Certification of good standing from the Minnesota Secretary of State's office ❑ Affiliate of parent nonprofit organization (charter) Name of site where activity will take place Street City Township State MN Zip cone County Date(s) of activity ............................... Game Bingo Raffles Paddlewheels Tipboards Pull -tabs 'uiias I declare all information submitted to the Gambling Control Division is true, accurate, and complete. Chief executive officer's signature goo tors license rn Date filed °.e_,. hie f executive 0 signet, I have received a copy of this application. This application will be reviewed by the Gambling Control Division and will become effective 30 days from the date of receipt by the city or county, unless the local government passes a resolution to specifically prohib't the activity. A copy of that resolution must be received by the Gambling Control Division within 30 days of the date filled in below. Cities of the first class have 60 days in which to disallow the . ctivity. , City or County �JbL.� Township City or county name Township name Signature of persrfn receiving appli on Signature of person receiving application Title White - Board Pink - - Organization Yellow - -Board returns to Organization to complete shaded areas ,-,old - - -- City or county Date received Title s 9 Mail with $2 5 permit fee and copy of proof of nonprofit status to: Department of Gaming - Gambling Control Division Rosewood Plaza South, 3rd Floor 1711 W. County Road B Date received • • Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 April 5, 1991 Wallace L. Abrahamson City of Stillwater 216 No. 4th Street Stillwater, Mn 55082 612 222 -8423 Dear Mayor Abrahamson: The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information regarding the 1990 Final Cost Allocation. The following statement is offered to clarify this process: 1990 Final Cost Allocation. This statement shows your community's sewer service charges based on actual wastewater flow and MWCC expenditures in 1990. Actual flow in 1990 was determined by the metered and /or unmetered flow from your community. The allocation also shows any credits for facilities acquired from your community (current value credit) or for debt service paid by your community. It also shows any credit or debit resulting from the 1988 Final Cost Allocation. A debit or credit generally occurs when a community has more or less wastewater volume than estimated, relative to other communities. The 1990 final cost allocation is based on the actual wastewater flow and agency expenditures for the year. This result is then compared to the amount of money your community remitted. Any adjustment, whether a debit or a credit, will be applied to the estimated sewer service charges for 1992. I am forwarding a copy of this statement to your finance officer. If you have any questions, please let me know. Very truly yours, Charles R. Weaver Chair CRW:LIS:mbf Enclosure cc: Finance Officer Commissioner Judith Fletcher Gordon O. Voss, Chief Administrator, MWCC Lois I. Spear, Comptroller, MWCC L0405911.FCA Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer 5190 STILLWATER METR.POLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION FINAL •OST ALLOCATION FOR BUDGET YEAR 1990 MILLION GALLONS CURRENT USE CHARGES: TREATMENT WORK COTS 800 795,616.73 SEWER SERVICE ARE NO. 6 800 0.00 AMOUNT TOTAL CURRENT USE CHARGES 795,616.73 OTHER CREDITS OR CHARGES CURRENT VALUE CRE'IT 10,511.00 DEBT PAYMENT CREDIT 0.00 1988 FINAL COST A LOCATION 9,458.35 TOTAL OTHER C ••GES 19,969.35 TOTAL ANNUAL ACTUAL C •'GES 775,647.38 1990 CASH PAYMENT 839,366.27 NET SURPLUS (OR DEFICIT) 63,718.89 • METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 -1634 612 291 -6359 FAX 612 291 -6550 TTY 612 291 -0904 April 5, 1991 Dear Mayor /City Manager: I am very concerned about some current proposals to modify the fiscal disparities law. The law was meant to implement a program to share tax base in the Metropolitan Area. I do not believe it should be used to fund specific programs. Our needs are growing, particularly in the human services area, but those needs are growing in all communities, and should be funded from other sources. Since it went into effect in 1975, this law has been doing just what it was intended to do: allowing the resources of the region to be shared more equally. It recognizes that our Metro Area functions as a single economic unit. It also recognizes that economic development is spurred by regional facilities and services, such as highways, sewers and airports, and that many of these services resulted from decisions made by the Metro Council many years ago. Cities should not be punished again today for not receiving some of those facilities back in the '60s. The fact is that the law has worked well over the years. The disparity in commercial- industrial tax base among metro communities has been reduced (among cities with more than 9,000 residents) to four to one. Without fiscal disparities, that ratio today would be 22 to one. But I think the major reason I support fiscal disparities as strongly as I do is when I look at the cities that are benefitting from the tax - base - sharing. Even after the redistribution of tax base, they have a lower taxing capacity than the "contributor" cities. So if that pool were diminished, it would adversely affect their ability to deal with those same needs felt in all our cities. Fiscal disparities is unique, and it's one of those very rare government initiatives that work exceedingly well. Let's not allow it to be weakened in this session of the legislature. Sincerely, Mary E. Affderson Chair • COUNCIL REQUEST ITEM 4I/DEPARTMENT Parks Dept. MEETING DATE April 16 1991 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST (Briefly outline what the request is) Reguest hiring of summer gmpagQ, Scott Edward Schmidt - 4832 Os„ggs.�3 dye. StjJJ,w _a a .9_EU- Larry Joe pauffenbacil ..913 1L, IUlliam .a.L, S.U:i11watPr_55Q11L2L Scott for April 22nd 1991 . t ti nr dates Larry for May 2151_1221 Starting date • FINANCIAL IMPACT (Briefly outline the costs, if any, that are associated with this request and the proposed source of the funds needed to fund the request) • BudcLeted under mart -time salaries for 1991 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ATTACHED YES ___ NO ALL COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK A MINIMUM OF FIVE WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED CCUNCIL ME =TING IN ORDER TO BE PLACED IN THE COUNCIL MATERIAL PACKET. SUBMITTED BY DATE Aril 10th 1991 • RESOLUTION NO. 91 -51 RESOLUTION SETTING PARKING TICKET FINES, PARKING ZONES AND PARKING PERMIT FEES WHEREAS, Stillwater City Code Section 51.02, Subd. 1, Subsection 5 authorizes the Stillwater Council to set fines for parking violations by resolution, and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that repeat violations by the same offenders should be addressed in the fine structure, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL, that parking ticket fines shall be as follows: 1. That the zones and districts described on the attached Exhibit "A" are hereby adopted. 2. That $25.00 shall be added to the amount of any fine not paid within five (5) days of a ticket's issuance. 3. That fees for permit parking in designated zones are established at $5.00 per month per vehicle, with the fee reduced to $2.50 per month if permit is purchased after the fifteenth day of the month. 4. That Resolutions number 82 -62 adopted on March 30, 1990 and 83 -25 adopted on July 24, 1990 are hereby rescinded. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be effective on the first day of March, 1990. Adopted by the City Council this l,-L day of i/�� r c��✓ , 199 / . Wally Ab /ahamson, Mayor /AVID MAWHORTER PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR POLICE CHIEF THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF POLICE M E r i 43 R A IN 1 ID Li Tvl "T" C3 = MAYOR ABRAHAMSON, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND NILE KRIESEL, CITY COORDINATOR F=FRC3r4 = D. P. MAWHORTER, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR GORDON SEIM FIRE CHIEF I►IATE: = APRIL 11, 1991 ICE = YEARLY SUMMARY OF THE DOWNTOWN PARKING PLAN The purpose of this merno is to advise the Council of the activities of the downtown parking program for the last year and to inform and seek guidance from the Council regarding some areas that greatly concern me about the program and the direction it seem to be going. • MISSION OF THE DOWNTOWN'PARKING PROGRAM • The mission of the Downtown Parking Program is to enforce established parking regulations in the downtown area of Stillwater in a manner, and with available resources, that will insure regular turn over of downtown parking spaces and in a manner that will aid in promoting a healthy business climate for the downtown businesses. HISTORY The department began the downtown parking program in raid April of 1990 after the removal of the parking meters in the downtown area. During the first 3 weeks of the program only warning summons were issued. Also during this time period, we personally and in writing informed all downtown businesses of the new parking program and how it would work. This approach was taken so that persons in the downtown would have adequate time and notice so that they could adapt to the new program. On May 5th, we began to issue summons to violators in accordance with the program guidelines. ($5.00 for the first ticket, $10.00 for the next ticket within 90 days, and $30.00 for every ticket after that within 90 days of the first $5.00 ticket.) The necessary tracking prograrn was designed and implemented during this time also. Also during this time period, the Parking Control Officer and I met on a frequent basis with the downtown parking control task force that was organized by Mayor Abrahamson. The purpose of these meetings 212 North Fourth Street, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Police Phone: 612 -439 -1314 or 612 -439 -1336 ■•_ _ __ non •nA c nA were to seek advise fror there regarding the make up of the program and to keep there advised of the program's progress so that they could advise other business p -rsons in the area. Early on in the program, it was discovered that one part of the mission of the program as not being achieved very well. That part was the promotion of a healthy business climate. The reason for this conclusion was that the department was receiving many complaints from visitors in the downtowr that they carne to Stillwater to shop and were thanked by getting a $5.00 parking ticket. This upset there and many said that they would not return because of it. Because of this fact, I advised there of this in program in a manner tha would be issued a warnir occurred, it would be i strip the issuance of $5. would eliminate the pos due to the parking fine the objection, of a few Beginning in early July warning t ickets tct any our list of vehicles th stopped and the program In raid September we, ag them with a detailed re program worked, the non necessary for proper adr enforcement activities prompted because of corn there was a lack of eno control officer. As par were shown that outline different ticket values lack of revenue being e force and they urged th summons. I requested t downtown, to make sure t their customers getting was advised by a task f there was no objection. aren't currently doing again and have been com In the latter part of 1 discovered that the ena parking zone was locate time police officers th parking sign and area i completion of this proj adopted by the Council. met with the downtown parking task force and ormation. I suggested that we amend the the first time a vehicle is encountered, it g ticket. The next time, whenever it sued a $5.00 ticket and so on. This would 00 tickets to visitors to the community and ibility of loosing business for the downtown being imposed. The task force agreed over f the members. and lasting until mid September, we issued ehicle in violation ion that did not appear on t had summons issued to them. The complaints seemed to be working well. in, met with the task force and presented ort on the program. We discussed how the visable parts of the program that were inistration of the program and the picture of ince the program began. This meeting was laints by certain task force members that gh enforcement on the part of the parking t of this presentation, charts and graphs a history of frequency of issuance of the (warning, $5.00, $10.00 and $30.00). The rned alarmed certain members of the task department to cease the issuance of warning at they contact all the businesses in the at other business persons did not object to $5.00 parking tickets. A few days later, I irce member that this had been done and that We then stopped issuing warning tickets and o. The complaints instantly began coming in ng ever since. 90, around October I believe, it was ling resolution and map outlining where each was never completed. I assigned two part task of location and documenting each the affected downtown area. After the ct, the appropriate resolution and map was 1. • • • I met with the task farce in February regarding complaints from several of the task farce members regarding a perceived lack of visibility and enforcement by the Parking Control Officer. They wanted her in the downtown more than she currently was. They were advised that if this was their wish, the prograrn would have to be substantially changed. The changes that would have to be made were a straight set dollar amount ticket and no warning letters sent to these who did not pay their tickets on time. I advised them that I had some concerns about the fact that if we doubled the enforcement activity in downtown, we would be doubling the miles the Parking Enforcement Officer walks each day. I advised them that she now walks around 6 to 10 miles a day and that 12 to 20 miles a day was not good for her health. During February and March of 1991, without the knowledge of the police department or the City Council as I am aware, parking regulation signs began to be taken down and parkirio zones began to be moved around. As a result of this action, the department is being inundated with complaints about the lack of adequate and clear signage in the downtown area. To my knowledge, none of these changes have been formally adopted by the council and there is no resolution empowering the changes. Thus, we are issuing summons in some areas of the downtown without proper enforcement authority. EVALUATION OF PARKING CONTROL OFFICER CAPUZZI When the prograrn was started, Cara Capuzzi was hired as the Parking Control Officer. Since that time she has been enthusistic and faithfully discharged her duties. She has had no complaints filed against her regarding .the issuance of tickets or her interaction with those to whom she has issued tickets. There has been several complaints from certain members of the task force about lack of visibility and lack of enforcement. These complaints have been without merit. Overall, she is an excellent employee that is concerned about doing the best job she can for the city. She has, however, had a excessive record of sick time while with the city. She has takers 137 hours of sick time and 20 hours of injured on duty t irne. This t irne off is due to the fact that she is out in the bad weather all day, every day, and due to the fact that the physical demands (walking so many miles each day) has her resistance down. The City refused to purchase a vehicle for her use that was appropriate for her job. If this was done, I am sure that her sick time would have been much less and her efficiency would have been much better. EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM The prograrn, as currently outlined, is working very well, with the exception of giving the downtown customers $5.00 tickets and the fact that parking signs in the downtown are frequently being changed without the department's knowledge. It is clear to me that we have a majority of the persons who work in the downtown in compliance with the program and that the prime parking spats in the downtown are available for shoppers and visitors, as is the intent of the prograrn. I do, however, have some concerns and recommendations about the program. They are as fo 1) I don't think that g Stillwater to shop i with a sour taste in about their treatrnen the business climate responsibility to pr for the downtown it RECOMMENDATION I would recommend th we make it a practic that does not show u ticket in the downto a friendly business inform visitors of t practice of issuing limited zones and pe handicapped zones et summons. 2) As I stated This is due unnecessary conditions. above, t to the f amount o Because and cold, rain and s in and poses a coati greatly hampered bec job. She is wasting RECOMMENDATION lows; ving $5.00 tickets to the people who come to a good idea. I think it sends people away their mouths. They will tell other people and this could have an adverse impact on in the downtown. I think the city has a vide the best business climate that they can in budgeted limits. t we stay with the current program and that to issue warning tickets to any vehicle on our records as having been issued a n before. This practice would help provide l irnate to the downtown area and would still e fact that they are parked improperly. The arising tickets would only apply in time rnit parking zones. Posted no parking zones, . would be enforced with the use of a e Parking Control Officer is sick allot. ct that she is currently required to walk an miles each day in all possible weather of this she is subjected to extremes of hot low. This is not a good environment to work fual health threat to her. Her efficiency is use she has to walk everywhere to do her a great deal of time by doing this. I have learned that he City can purchase a used right drive mail truck from the post -tffice for around $1,000.00. For an investment of around $500.00 we could equip and mark the vehicle in a manner that would be acceptable for use in the parking program. If the Par ing Control Officer had this vehicle to use, her efficiency would greatly increase as would her visibility on the street. She could mark and ticket at least 3/4 of the parking areas while in the vehicle and would not have to hike all over the downtown all day long. This would greatly decrease the miles she walks, pro ect her from the weather extremes and cut down on her sick and injured time. It would be senseless not to purchase and equip such a vehicle for her use right away. 3) It is very clear, from the complaints that I get, that most people who come into the downtown don't have any idea where they can park. They complain that there aren't enough signs and that the signs aren't clear as to what they mean. When this is compounded by the f ct that the signs are moved around and taken down without the de•artrnent that is charged with enforcing the parking even being advised, it makes for an intolerable situation. Further, when the signs are moved without Council approval, the new signs are unenforceable. RECOMMENDATION It is clear that the signage in the downtown must be increased to a level that a reasonable person who does not know the parking program can figure out where he/she is allowed to park.. In order to do this properly, I recommend that the sign placement in the new downtown be turned over to our traffic engineer. They are the experts in traffic control and know the uniform standards adapted by the state. We should allow citizen input and the play, should be reviewed by the police department for any special enforcement cornrner,ts. The bottom line though is that the design; size, number and placement of parking regulatory signs shoould be at the exclusive discretion of the traffic engineers, they are the experts. I will be available at the council meeting for any questions you may have. I will also have all the complaints we have received so far and a graph explaining some of the enforcement activities at the meeting. 1 • DATE: March 2, 1991 TO: City Council Members FROM: Down Town Parking Task Force RE: Down Town Parking On February 27, 1991 we had a meeting at the request of Dave Mawhorter and Steve Russell. A recommendation was made by Dave to increase visibility of parking enforcement to eliminate increase ticketing of first, second and third offenses and have straight ticketing. This should eliminate much time spent for officers checking on computers as to how many tickets a person has received. The recommendation was voted on and passed by 100%. We would like the council to consider the same. Our task force is in agreement that more visibility of enforcement is greatly needed. Hopefully, a part time enforcement officer could be hired in the future to off set days when the present officer is on vacation , ill or days when not working. We also approved signage for loading zones, handicap and 30 minute parking areas which was presented by Steve Russell. Respectfully, Pa i Sri net .vr » 223 North Fourth Street tillwater, Minnesota 55802 ='s j61,2),439-1675 To: Diane From: Lynne Re: Special Accounts 12 April 1991 At its meeting on April 2; 1991, the Board of Trustees directed me to request that two special funds be set up to handle receipts and disbursements of a special nature. The first is the fund of which you and I spoke some months ago - -- a donations fund. We would clearly earmark these receipts for city hall staff. They would include donations from foundations such as the Margaret Rivers Foundation and the Tozer Foundation, memorials, and gift funds. We would be responsible here at the library for tracking the use of the various funds in this account at any one time In addition, the Board has accepted some funds from the trustees of a memorial fund for the late librarian Marvel Old. Our Board has agreed to set up this fund as the Marvel Old Fund for Staff Development. Although this check is for only $909.13, there will be an active annual campaign throughout the library workers in the county to solicit funds for this purpose. We know that one of the former trustees will name this fund in her will and others may do likewise. Monies will be expended from this fund on an annual basis for library staff development for staff at all levels. None of the funds in either of these accounts will be sitting still long enough for them to be invested. We are envisioning accounts like the present Tozer Fund which could probably be replaced by one of these new accounts. RESOLUTION NO. (- 6 s APPROVAL OF RESIDUAL EQUITY TRANSFERS FOR END OF YEAR 1990 WHEREAS, there are debt services and special assessment funds which have no obligations or interest outstanding, and WHEREAS, there are existing special assessment funds that are in need of funds for payment of obligations and interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Stillwater that the following Residual Equity Funds Transfers be approved as of December 31, 1990: From Fund No. Amount To Fund No. Amount 330 $ 2,104.60 510 $ 2,104.60 380 $ 7,000.00 506 $ 7,000.00 380 $62,840.68 505 $62,840.68 507 $75,219.53 100 $75,219.53 100 $75,219.53 506 $15,000.00 510 $60,219.53 • Adopted this 16th day of April 1991. Attest: • City Clerk Mayor • i11water THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA APPLICATION TO CONSUME Applicant Information Name of oroani zat ior, French Canadian Society of Minnesota Applicant Name(Full) Ralph Germain April 2 1991 Street Addre=ss 6C3 Hillside Lane Birth rate City Stillwater Home Phone 439 -7087 State_211_am, ZiD _55.aaz Work Phone 733 -2346 Facility Information Park or facility to be used Pioneer Park Date to be used June 23rd Time to be used 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM • Number of persons expected 60 to 70 Purpose(sc'ftball Dame, weddinc, etc.) Picnic Type of activity(fund raiser, dancinc, music, etc.) Music Check Appropriate Information _XXL ___Beer to Consume Beer to Sell & Consume Wine t o Consume Liquor to Consume Liquor t o Sell & Consume Wine to Sell & Consume Security Information (Internal Use Only) Police Officer Required by City? Yes. XXX No. Officer Rate of Pay $ Mail License To:(If different than applicant) • CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612 - 439 -6121 THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Permit to use Pioneer Park April 2 1991 Permission is hereby granted to the party(s) named below: French Canadian Society of Minnesota - -- Ralph Germain During the hours of: 11:00 AM to 5:OOPM on the day of: June 23rd 1991 to use Pioneer Park, including exclusive use of the picnic shelter for the purpose of: picnic This permit does not include the consumption of alchoholic beverages, for which a separate permit from the City Council is required. This permit does not grant the permitee excusive use of the entire park. Picnickers may use tables outside the shelters. Tim Thomsen Park Supervisor (612) 439 -4561 CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612 -439 -6121 ENGINEERS I ARCHITECTS ■ PLANNERS 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 612 490 -2000 April 15, 1991 RE: STILLWATER, MINNESOTA CITY ENGINEER MSA FILE SEH FILE NO: 89114 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Council Members: The City received a letter from Ken Straus, Municipal State -Aid Needs Manager, regarding the balance available for construction in the City's municipal state -aid account. This letter was dated February 21, 1991. The letter addresses a regulation for municipal state -aid funding which states basically that the City cannot retain more than $300,000 or two times their annual construction allotment, whichever is greater, after September 1 of the current year, not including the current years allotment. The City's construction fund allotment for 1991 was $349,705. According to the regulations, the City can retain $699,410 in their construction fund account. The account balance as of February 1 was $1,076,138. The account balance is still the same, leaving an excess of $376,728. According to the state -aid regulations, the City would loose approximately $2,152,276 in money needs which translates to approximately $69,110 in allotment for the 1991 construction fund. We discussed this ruling by the MSA Screening Board with the Council in March. As we discussed, if we overcome the district state -aid ruling on 2nd Street and on Myrtle Street; and obtain a variance for classification and right -of -way, there will not be an excess fund balance for the City with the planned construction of approximately 650 feet of Curve Crest Boulevard. • SHORT EWOTT HENDRICKSON INC. ST PAUL, MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA FALLS, WISCONSIN • City of Stillwater April 15, 1991 Page 2 The excess 1991 fund balance and planned expenditures are as follows: Excess balance from state -aid on 2/1/91 $376,728 Possible Expenditures: Curve Crest Storm Sewer Construction Eng. (Est.) $ 1,279 Mulberry St. Construction Eng. (Est.) 18,320 (Estimated) Curve Crest Street Const., Prel. Eng. & Const. Eng. 207,135 (Estimated) Myrtle St., Sidewalk, C & G, Storm Sewer, Prel. & Const. Eng. 97,736 (Estimated) 2nd St., Sidewalk, C & G, Prel. Eng. & Const. Eng. 171,890 Subtotal Estimated Expenditures Overall (Reduction in Net Balance of $699,410) MSA Fund Balance 1991 - $496,360 - $119,632 $579,778 We offer the following options for Council consideration to reduce the state -aid fund balance in the event 2nd Street and Myrtle Street cannot be constructed under state -aid funding: 1. Construct remaining three blocks of Mulberry Street. Estimated Construction Cost = $185,591.62 2. Construct Pine Street from Seeley to South Grove. _ $155,289.00 (5 Year Plan for 1993) • These would replace 2nd Street and Myrtle Street in the above recommended program if needed. • • • City of Stillwater April 15, 1991 Page 3 We would be pleased to discuss these options with the Council at any time, however, we recommend delaying a decision until we receive a judgment from district state -aid on the streets downtown. Sincerely, Richard E. Moore, P.E. City Engineer REM /cih cc: Nile Kriesel, City Coordinator Diane Debion, City Finance Director M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council FR: Diane Deblon, Finance Director DA: April 12, 1991 RE: FIRE CONTRACTS The fire contracts are due to expire on April 30, 1991. Attached as Exhibit A is a cost allocation with the 1991 - 1992 proposed contract amounts for each of the townships. Exhibit B is a detailed five -year averaging schedule for each township that was used in the calculation of the contract amounts. 1991 - 1992 contract amounts are as follows: Grant Township May Township Stillwater Township $69,059 $39,717 $58,620 % Increase 7.2% 11.95% 7.16% Inasmuch as all the contract amounts are significant increases, the Council may want to revise the policy and /or limit the increases. Other factors to be considered may include the possible reduction in service area for May Township (2.5 miles = 4 %) and a possible contract with Oak Park Heights. Request Council direction in proceeding with fire contracts. EXHIBIT A - COST ALLOCATION COMBINED AVERAGES Stillwater Grant Township May Township Stillwater Township Total COST OF FIRE PROTECTION AVERAGE TOTAL 68,83% 275.34% 12.86% 51.43% 7.39% 29.58% 10.91% 43.66% 100.00% 400.00% ACTUAL 1990 BUDGET 1991 --.***.**-********t.****.****.****** t********** t ** * * * * ** * *t* * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * ** Operating Costs Depreciation - Administration -(-05 % -of Operations) Total COST ALLOCATION (1) Stillwater Grant Township May Township Stillwater Township Total TOWNSHIP CONTRACT AMOUNTS ---Grant-Township May Township Stillwater Township Total $467,995 $484,508 $50,183 $50,183 $2,340 $2,423 $520,518 $531,114 $358,293 $369,716 $66,926 $69,059 $38,490 $39,717 $56,809 $58,620 $520,518 $537,114 % Inc. $64, 422:._...._$69,059.._.., - 7.20% $35,477 $39,711 11.95% $54,702 $58,620 1.16% $154,601 $167,397 ASSESSED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED FIRE RUNS VALUATION POPULAITON HOUSEHOLDS 66.97% 65.71% 69.98% 72.67% 12,00% 15.42% 12.75% 11.26 %% 8.90% 1.31% 6.19% 6.59% 12,14% - 11.56% 10.48% 9.48% (1) The - cost allocation is derived by multiplying the total fire protection ,cost by each service area's combined -five year average. • a M EXHIBIT - -B- - -- FIVE - YEAR -- AVERAGES - SCHEDULE A. FIRE RUNS Stillwater City Grant Township May. - Township_... .... Stillwater Township Total- SCHEDULE B. ASSESSED VALUATION (IN THOUSANDS) - _and - -TAX -- CAPACITY (1988 -& -1989) Stillwater City Grant Township Nay -- Township ** Stillwater Township Total SCHEDULE C. ESTIMATED POPULATION -Stillwater-City Grant Township May Township - - -- Stillwater - Township Total ** S___ YEAR_ 1 AVERAGE 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 66.97% 12.00% 8.90% 12.14% 194.20 34.80 25.80_ 35.20 100.00 % - -- - 290.00 193 36 32.. 46 185 30 38 19 275 195 123 47 43 18 29 23 7 49 47 15 Net Tax Net Tax Gross Tax Assessed Valuation 2 /YR AVE 2 /YR % 1988 % 1989 Capacity .Capacity __Capacity 65.71% N/A $9,479 $9,967 $11,977 $85,806 $80,795 $83,301 65.80% 66.75% 66 15.42% N/A $2,312, $2,236 $2,748 $20,484 $18,641 $19,563 15.45% 15.32% 14 7.31% N /A -- :$1,148 $1,137 $1,235 _ $9,174 - $8,990 $9,082 1.17% 6.88% 7 11.56% N/A $1,821 $1,699 $1,984 $14,682 $14,629 $14,656 11.58% 11.06% 11 100,001 N/A $14,820 _$15,039 $17,944 $126,601 100.00% 100.001 100 69.98% 12.75% 6.19% 10.48% 13,404 13882 13,282 2,443 2531 2,627 1,300 1521 1,459 2,007 ___- __1066- -- 2124 100.00% 19,154 13,485 - 13,256 2,466 2,335 1,215 1,167 2,015 1,958 13,116 2,254 1,138 1,872- SCHEDULE D. ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLDS Stillwater 72.67% 4,139 5105 4775 4,711 4,605 4,497 Grant- Township * 11.26% 734 ,- 801 775 746 690 659 May Township ** 6.59% 430 574 473 385 365 352 Stillwater Township 9.48% 618 651 655 625 598 562 Total * 67% OF ACTUAL - -- ** 60% OF ACTUAL 100.00% 6,520 • • • • STILLWATER ST. CROIX BARGE TERMINAL CO. 133 SOUTH WATER STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 439 -6060 Terminal Founded 1928 City of Stillwater Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 To Whom It May Concern: April 15, 1991 As per my conversation with Ann Bodlovik, a member of the Stillwater City Council, on Saturday, April 13th, 1991 an agreement was entered into regarding the 15 ton Loraine Crane No. 4200 that was part of the original River Terminal Lease entered into by the Stillwater St. Croix Barge Terminal Co. and the City of Stillwater. It has been agreed that the Loraine Crane be removed from the Barge Terminal premises because of its poor condition at the expense of the City of Stillwater. It is also agreed that we will not be held responsible for any damage and /or liabilities that may be incurred during the removal of the crane from the Barge Terminal property. Any damages will be at the cost of the City of Stillwater. Also this agreement entered into on this day, April 15th, 1991, will release the Stillwater St. Croix Barge Terminal Co. from the portion of the lease which states that the 15 ton Loraine Crane No. 4200 will remain on the premises or be returned to the City of Stillwater at the end of the lease. We will not be supplying the City of Stillwater with a crane at the confusion of our lease. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, STILLWATER ST. CROIX BARGE TERMINAL CO. Elayne J. Aiple EJA /lcl Agreed upon this 15th day of April, 1991. STILLWATER ST. CROIX BARGE TERMINAL CO. By 67-4- CITY OF STILLWATER By APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT (UNIT PRICE CONTRACT) • NO. 2 (Final) OWNER: STILLWATER, MINNESOTA OWNER'S PROJECT NO. L.Z. 270 ENGINEER'S PROJECT NO. 89114 LOCATION: STILLWATER, MINNESOTA CONTRACTOR VOLK SEWER & WATER, INC. CONTRACT DATE 8909 BASS CREEK COURT CONTRACT AMOUNT S48,575.75 BROOKLYN PARK, MN 55428 CONTR. FOR FORCEMAIN EXTENSION ON FAIRMEADOWS ROAD - STILLWATER, MINNESOTA APPLIC.DATE March 13, 1991 PERIOD END. March 13, 1991 APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT CONTRACT QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY TO DATE PRICE TOTAL 1. MOBILIZATION L.S. 1 1 2000.00 2,000.00 2. TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S. 1 1 600.00 600.00 3. CONNECT TO EXISTING FORCEMAIN EACH 1 1 500.00 500.00 4. 6" PVC FORCEMAIN L.F. 1400 1401 11.00 15,411.00 5. FITTINGS 12" & SMALLER LB. 80 214 1.50 321.00 6. STANDARD MANHOLE EACH 1 1 1000.00 1,000.00 7. BREAK INTO EXISTING MANHOLE EACH 1 1 500.00 500.00 8. AIR RELEASE VALVE INCL. MANHOLE EACH 1 1 2500.00 2,500.00 9. REPLACEMENT BACKFILL TON 50 0 6.00 .00 "GE 1 OF 3 SHORT - ELLIOTT - HENDRICKSON, INC. 10. AGGREGATE BASE, (CL. 5) TON 11. BITUMINOUS MATERIAL TON 1Z. 2331 BASE COURSE MIXTURE TON 13. 2341 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE TON • 970 755.59 8.15 6,158.06 27 25.34 178.50 4,523.19 235 253.05 26.25 6,642.56 230 208.22 29.40 6,121.67 OGE 2 OF 3 SHORT - ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. rirr1-1A,m(ivn rum rminc. I - vvm.lnucv Total Contract Amount $ 48,575.75 Total Amount Earned $ 46,277.48 Material Suitably Stored on Site, Not Incoporated into Work $ • ontract Change Order No. 89114 eercent.Complete 100% $ 1,260.00 Contract Change Order No. Percent Complete $ Contract Change Order No. Percent Complete $ GROSS AMOUNT DUE $ 47.5'17.4R LESS % RETAINAGE $ .00 AMOUNT DUE TO DATE $ 47,537.48 LESS PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS $ 42,483.27 rr AMOUNT DUE THIS APPLICATION$ 5,054.21 CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT The undersigned Contractor hereby swears under penalty of perjury that (1) all previous progress. payments received from the Owner on account of work performed under the contract referred to above have been applied by the undersigned to discharge in full all obligations of the under- signed incurred in connection with work covered by prior Applications for Payment under said contract, and (2) all material and equipment incorporated in said Project or otherwise listed in or covered by this Application for Payment are free and clear of all liens, claims, security interests and encumbrances. dated March 13 , 19 91 . COUNTY OF /IC n r, t. :, : ) S5 STATE OF i> I , <.::., t • . ) Volk Sewer & Water, Inc. By (Contractor) ± /_ President (Name and Title) Before me on this i + day of Pi {h , 19 I personally appeared known to me, who being du Ty sworn, did depose of the Contractor above mentioned; and say that he is the 1) 1,- (Office) that he executed the above Application for Payment and Affidavit on behalf of said Contractor; and that all of the statements contained therein are tru orrect a d,complete. My Commission Ex 'zires: RAt'D P. VOLK ,,'� — MI; dESOTA .-1a; \�;;�i�rd` ?Rd COUNTY ` `'', The undersi ned h �f' jCO �rt 'slur, expires 10.18.96 gYi s Application for Payment shown above. A part of this Application is the Contractor's Affidavit stating that all previous payments to him under this Contract have been applied by him to discharge in full all of his obligations in connection with the work covered by all prior Applications for Payment. In accordance with the Contract, the undersigned approves payment to the Contractor of the Amount Due. . otairy Public) Date I '71 Page 3 of 3 LLIOTT /H'�"� I ON, INC. TOTAL P.04 Form Minnesota Department of Revenue Ray.> ,:.Ai- CY -,:t Withholding Affidavit for Contractors MAR 2 ? This affidavit must be approved by the Minnesota Department of Revenue before the 1991 State of Minnesota or any of its subdivisions can make final payment to contractors. -- c5 1iu51 IaX MAR 27 WM Corridor,/ MOW Volk Sewer & Water, Inc. Adam. 8909 Bass Creek Court sun Brooklyn Park, MN zip cod. 55428 M m 04a ID nun*W 3560177 Mendvyear wadi began 11/90 MptWyear work ended 12/90 Tl.p m number )537 -2921 Did you have employees work on this project? yes If none. explain who did the work: Taal convect amount: $47,537.48 Ambtetl OM duo: 5 054.21 Project number: Project location: Project owner: Address 270 Fairmeadows Road City of Stillwater lib North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Check the box that describes your involvement in the project and fill in all information requested in that category: ❑ Sole contractor ❑ Subcontractor If you are a subcontractor, fill in the name and address of the contractor that hired you: El Prime Contractor If you subcontracted out any work on this project, all of your subcontractors must file their own IC -134 affidavits and have them certified by the Department of Revenue before you can file your affidavit. For each subcontractor you had, fill in the business information below, and attach a copy of each subcontractor's certified IC -134. (If you need more space, attach a separate sheet.) Business name Address Owner /Officer 8050 E. Highway 101 Valley Paving Shakopee, MN 55379 Douglas Vetter 1 declare that all tntormatton 1 have tilled in on this form is true and complete tO the best of my knowledge and belief. 1 authonze the Department of Revenue to disclose pertinent Information relating to this project. Including sending copes of this Corm. to the prime contractor if 1 am a subcontractor, and to any subcontractors if 1 am a prime contractor, and to the contracting agency. Corbat tor. agn.atre 11. Date President 3/13/91 For certification, mail to: Minnesota Department of Revenue, Business Trust Tax Section Mail Station 6610, St. Paul, MN 55146 -6610 Certificate of Compliance with Minnesota Income Tax Withholding Law Based on records of the Minnesota Department of Revenue, I certify that the contractor who has signed this certificate has fulfilled all the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 290.92 and 290.97 concerning the withholding of Minnesota income tax from wages paid to employees relating to contract services with the state of Minnesota and/or its subdivisions. stQnlam• W aUegfed gePannOnt onitevenupplboal � 0 fr ="4 A Date t'►AR28 tion • • r�irSl�t,•, �'^ Form IC-134 MAR 2 Minnesota Department of Revenue Cs, Rev.lira9 �,:: irisgu Mholding Affidavit for Contractors �' NI This affidavit must be approved by the Minnesota Department of Revenue before the 'T 79 State of Minnesota or any of its subdivisions can make final payment to contractors. 199,, Valley Paving momm 8050 E. Highway 101 ca mm Shakopee MN Zip coda 55379 Minnesota ID number 5565541 Month/ea wont began 11/90 Monuvyear work ended 12/90 Tom convara ammm $21,924.43 Tow:mons number ( 612) 445 -8615 Did you have employees work on this project? If none, explain who did the work: YES Amount sty due: $3,212.89 Project number: 2 7 0 Project location: Project owner: Address Fairmeadows Road City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Check the box that describes your involvement in the project and fill in all information requested in that category: ❑ Sole contractor Q Subcontractor If you are a subcontractor, fill in the name and address of the contractor that hired you: Volk Sewer & Water, Inc., 8909 Bass Creek Ct., Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 ❑ Prime Contractor If you subcontracted out any work on this project, all of your subcontractors must file their own IC -134 affidavits and have them certified by the Department of Revenue before you can file your affidavit. For each subcontractor you had, fill in the business information below, and attach a copy of each subcontractors certified IC -134. (If you need more space, attach a separate sheet) Business name Address Owner /Officer 1 declare that all information I have filled in on this form is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I authorize the Department of Revenue to disclose pertinent information relating to this project, including sending copies of this torm, to the prime contractor if 1 am a subcontractor, and to any subcontractors if 1 am a . rime contractor and to the contr Tale BILLINGS CLERK en Onto 3/15/91 For certification, mail to: Minnesota Department of Revenue, Business Trust Tax Section Mail Station 6610, St. Paul, MN 55146 -6610 Certificate of Compliance with Minnesota Income Tax Withholding Law Based on records of the Minnesota Department of Revenue, I certify that the contractor who has signed this certificate has fulfilled all the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 290.92 and 290.97 concerning the withholding of Minnesota income tax from • wages paid to employees relating to contract services with the state of Minnesota and/or its subdivisions. sryraara Surimeg a l.wnw. akldat MAR 1 r 19. 91 MAR a9 1991 .. l I THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA April 5, 1991 Mr. Robert Marios Popeye's 222 East Mulberry Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Marios: This letter is written to inform you that the zoning issues listed in the letters of September 21, 1991 and December 12, 1990 must be corrected by May 15, 1991 or your Planning Permit will be scheduled for review and possible revocation before the City Council. You indicated at the September 19, 1990 meeting that these items would be cleared up. . Sincerey, • Steve Russell Community Development Director Attachments: Letters of September 21, 1990 and December 12, 1990 c.c. Eric W. Ingvoldson David Magnuson CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612 - 439-6121 illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA September 21, 1990 Mr. Robert Marois Popeye's on the River 422 East Mulberry Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Marois: This letter is written as a follow up to our meeting of September 9th with Mr. Robert Bennett and City Staff. As was mentioned at the meeting by Mr. Bennett, Eric Ingvaldson from his firm has reviewed the City of Stillwater Yacht Club files, September 19, 1990, and other City zoning requirements. There are four zoning issues that need to be resolved for the Popeye's use as listed below. 1. Change of Use. The approved use for Popeye's building is a restaurant with seating for 142 customers. Since the restaurant was approved, the use has changed to a bar nightclub. The change of use has not been approved by the City. 2. Outside Activity. There has been sale of beer and seating outside in front of the Popeye's building. This has not been approved. 3. Signage. A large portable sign has been placed in front of Popeye's. This sign is illegal (temporary signs are not allowed). A Popeye's sign appears on the riverfront of the restaurant roof. Again, this has not received a City permit and is not allowed according to the City Riverway Regulations. 4. Trash Can. The trash area in front of Popeye's remains open to public view. As a condition of project approval, this trash area was to be enclosed. If you would like to discuss these items further, feel free to call me at 439 -6121. This item should be corrected by January 1, 1991 so you will be properly approved for the '91 season. Sin•erely, S-ieve Russell Community Development Director c.c. Robert Bennett David Magnuson SR /sm CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612 - 439-6121 • Famil y Health Farr 11 Saturday, April 20th 8:OOa.m. - 4:OOp.m. St. Croix Mall Stillwater, MN • SPECIAL EVENTS 8:00 a.m. : Family Health Walk 9 :15 a.m. : Step Aerobics Demonstrations River Valley Athletic Club 799 9:30 a.m. : Finger Printing Oak Park Heights Police 9:45 a.m. : Baby Crawl Sponsored by Mall Merchants 10:00 a.m. : Kids and Pets Presentation "Be good to your pets/Beware of strange animals" St. Croix Animal Shelter; Inc. 10:30 a.m. : Water Safety Presentation Washington County Deputy Sheriff 11:00 a.m. : Heart Smart "Eating for the 90's and Beyond" Lakeview Memorial Hospital 12 :00 noon : Karate Demonstration National Karate 1:00 p.m. : Family Health Walk SCREENINGS LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL .mall • Total 'Cholesterol • Blood Pressure • Vision • Height and Weight • Health Check • Pulmonary Function • Blood Glucose • Body Fat Analysis • Colon Screen Kits Health One KARE 11 COURAGE ST. CROIX Put On Your Sneakers And Join Us At The FAMILY HEALTH 8:OOa.m. & 1:OOp.m. A Special Event of the Annual Family Health Fair Saturday, April 20th St. Crux Mall • MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: CITY COORDINATOR RE: TEAM BUILDING & GOAL SETTING WORKSHOPS DA: APRIL 12, 1991 I HAVE MET WITH DON SALVERDA AND pETER COTTON TO DI5CUSS FORMATS AND AGENDAS FOR POSSIBLE TEAM BUILDING AND GOAL SETTING WORKSHOP 5 FOR THE STAFF AND COUNCIL. IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO CONDUCT TEAM BUILD- ING AND GOAL SETTING SESSIONS WITH STAFF AND COUNCIL TOGETHER AND A SEP- ARATE SESSION JUST WITH THE COUNCIL. THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY SAL- VERDA AND MR. COTTON REFLECT MY RECOMMENDATION AND ,IN SUMMAR,, WOULD 1. A TEAM BUILDING/GOAL SETTING SESSION WITH STAFF AND COUNCIL ( A HALF DAY SESSION INCLUDING LUNCH AND/OR DINNER; AND 2. A TEAM BUILDING/OVERALL GOAL SETTING SESSION FOR COUNCIL 'ONLY ( A 3/4 TO FULL DAY SESSION INCLUDING BREAFAST, LUN[H AND DINNER IF DESIRED). THE COST OF THE SESSIONS WOULD VARY FROM COTTON} TO $zEoN (MR. • SALVERDA). AL6O THE COUNCIL COULD MODIFY EITHER THE FORMAT OR THE AGENDAS FOR THE SESSIONS. THE COUNCIL, EXCEPT PERHAPS MR. FU^KE` IS FAMILIAR WITH EUTH INDIVIDUALS THRU PRIOR WORKSHOPS AND I WILL LEAVE THE SELECTION ENTIRELY UP TO YOU. HOWEVER. l WILL 8E PREPARED TO ANSWER ANY OUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE REG- ARDING THE SESSIONS OR THE ENCLOSED MATERIAL AT THE MEETING TUESDAY. • '27 Lb' Professional Consultant Management Training •.Goal Setting Organizational Development • Team Buildin April 5, 1991 Mr. Nile Kriese 216 N. 4th St. Stillwater Mn. `` City Coordinator 55082 Dear Mr. Kriesel: On Monday April 1, we mes. to discuss the- possible format o a City Council / Staff workshop. I am suggesting that we have 'a three part workshop. The first part will concentrate on team building , activities with both the City Council and the staff ... participating. Then the second part the staff will have the opportunity to present to the council the goals of the individual departments. The third section of the workshop would consist of'the City Council discussing the - staffs goals and then setting overall goals for the City... Each of these three sessions would take approximately four hours. Therefore the workshop could be held on a Friday afternoon and a Saturday or two consecutive Saturdays. The staff would attend the first two sessions with the City Council. The final session would be'the Council and the Coordinator determining the goals for the City of Stillwater. My function is to facilitate the group process, in other words I keep the group moving towards its goal of establishing goals for-the- City.; ,.. My, fee will be $650 a day plus any expenses that I: ma occur. I am looking forward to hearing more form you and establishing dates that fit the City's schedule.` Sincerely, eter Cotton 3952 Aldrich Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409 • (612)822 -8346 eter .:.Cotton Professional Consultant Management Training • Goal Setting Organizational Development • Team Building April 10, 1991 City Council /Staff conference Proposal submitted by Peter Cotton, Municipal Consultant 3952 Aldrich Ave. So. Minneapolis Mn. 55409 (612) 822 8346 To The City of Stillwater, Minnesota 3952 Aldrich Avenue South Professional Consultant Management Training • Goal Setting Organizational Development • Team Building OBJECTIVES The prime objectives of the City Council /Staff seminar is to establish a set of common goals for the City of Stillwater and to work on ways of establishing more effective working relatioships.,We will also take a look at the major issues facing the City and some ways of addressing those issues. We will accomplish the above objectives -using methods that will help the Council and staff be more effective both as individuals and as a team and to look at the various roles the players (council and.staff) will play in working towards the .established goals.. This seminar will emphasize the following:. 1. .Team Building, 2. Goal Creation, 3. Goal Setting, and 4. Role Expectations. 1. Team Building; this session will consist of one or more exercises that will allow the.City Council and the staff to work together to demonstrate` the effect of team work. We will also discuss the role each_ participant played in the exercise and how that role fits into the role 'the participants have in their day to day activities. These exercises 'allow the participants to see the advantages of working together and the part each plays in joint decision making. 2. Goal Creation; a brain storming session where every one brings to the attention of the group projects or issues they belive will be helpful in guiding -the City towards the image of the City they see in the future. These goals are put on easel paper so every one gets a chance _to review them. -, 3. Goal Setting; in this session the participants set priorities for the goals they have created. Alternative ways of establishing these priorities are considered. 4. Role Expectations; a discussion by the participants concerning what their perceptions are of the roles and tasks of the Mayor, the Council (both as a body & individual members) the City Coordinator and the City staff. 3952 Aldrich Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409 • (612) 822 -8346 Page -. 2 Pc Peter Cotton Professional Consultant Management Training • Goal Setting Organizational Development • Team Building The following is a proposed agenda for the City Council/Staff workshop. . . .• ' • " • • • • • Day one • Lunch optional 1:00 P. M. An overview of the workshop activities and discussion on the participants expectations for the workshop After the overview will be the Council/Staff team building exercises. The afternoon will conclude with a discussion on the roles that the Council and Staff have in carrying out the functions of the City. 5:30 P.M. Dinner Day two Breakfast optional 8:30 Team Building exercises for the Council and Coordinator Presentation of the staffs goals and work programs by the Coordinator 12:00 Lunch 1:30 Goal Creation by the City Council 3:00 Goal Setting by the City Council 4:30 Wrap up and conclusion My function is to facilitate the group process,in words I keep the group moving towards its goal of establishing goals for the City. My fee will be $650 a day plus any expenses that I may occur. I am looking forward to hearing more form you and. establishing dates that fit the City's schedule.-:,_ • •, 3952 Aldrich Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409 • (612) 822-8346 Paae - 3 71- fessidid COriS.jkin Management Training ■ Goal Setting Organizational Development • Team Buildin , . Mr.COttonhas had his own consulting firm i i f since 1987,-,- . specializing in the areas of Organizational Development, Goal Setting, Team Building, and Management Training for management training seminars minars for Cities 111.311)1Zi::din.-: Governments. He has conducted waloircik Municipal Governm manag several mid western states. , -1 • 1., - • • • Peter Cotton brings over twenty years of experience in the areas of city management and decision-making to his consulting business. He has ten years experience in the City Management profession including being the City Manager of both an outstate and suburban community ( Iowa Falls Iowa -& Hopkins Minn). He also served one four year term as a Councilman at large in a large suburban community (Minnetonka Minn). This mix of being able to experience how a city functions from these two different sides of the table gives him a unique perspective on how a City operates. In addition he worked in sales and marketing in the private sector for ten years. Peter Cotton has a Master Degree in Public Administration from Kansas University, a Bachelor Degree in Business Administration from Mankato State University, and training as a Gestalt Therapist from the Gestalt Institute of the Twin Cities. In addition he has taken courses in Organization Development and Team Building from both the NTL Institute in Washington D C and the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland. Mr. Cotton has been active in civic affairs over the years. He has been a member of Rotary International, Toastmasters.. - serving as the Educational Vice President .in 1989 and the President in 1990. He likes to read,' sail, play tennis :grid bridge in his nor' working hours. He also enjoys wa foot.ball and hockey. 3952 Aldrich Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409 • (612) 822-8346 Pacre - 4 ATTITUDE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. C Roseville Professional Center • 2233 N. Hamline Avenue • Roseville, Minnesota 55113 • (612) 484 -1335 March 14, 1991 Mr Nile Kriesel City Coordinator City of Stillwater 216 North 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Nile, Thank you for your interest in scheduling a Mayor /Council /Department Head leadership and team building retreat in the near future. You are to be commended for holding a meeting that brings council members and department heads together in a relaxed and positive environment to share concerns, to enhance communication, and to plan for the future. I enjoyed working with the Council last year and look forward to this year's retreat. Enclosed is a preliminary outline of a suggested plan that you might react to. I hope the content and format are in line with your thinking. If not, we can alter accordingly. My fee to plan and lead the retreat will be $1,500 ($900 full day and $600 half day), plus the cost of materials. It is understood that you will provide a large standing metal- backed easel (not an artist's easel) and an easel pad to use on site. I want very much for you to have a high quality retreat that is educational, enjoyable, and meets your overall objectives. I pledge you my best efforts to accomplish all three. Please call on any questions or concerns. Thanks again for the interest. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, ATTITUDE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC Donald E Salverda CITY OF STILLWATER 1991 CITY COUNCIL /PROFESSIONAL STAFF LEADERSHIP AND TEAM BUILDING RETREAT "IMPROVING OUR EFFECTIVENESS" I PRIMARY OBJECTIVES 1) To develop concensus on major issues facing the city 2) To draft long range and one -year goals program 3) To draft action plans to address major issues 4) To enhance communication and develop renewed esprit de corps among participants 5) To re- examine roles of council and professional staff 6) To fine tune participant leadership skills 7) To identify and discuss problem areas 8) To be an enjoyable experience 9) Other II FORMAT OF THE RETREAT The sessions will include a mixture of lecturette, group participation and discussion, and individual activities. Seating Arrangement - tables (preferably round) seating five people per table Audio - visual Needs -- Two large standing metal- backed easels and easel pads III TIMING AND LOCATION OF THE RETREAT Timing - -- To be determined Location - To be determined IV PARTICIPANT MATERIALS Each participant will receive an outline and related supplemental material. • CITY OF STILLWATER 1991 CITY COUNCIL /PROFESSIONAL STAFF LEADERSHIP AND TEAM BUILDING RETREAT Suggested Tentative Agenda DAY ONE 12:00 - 1:00 Lunch (Optional) 1:00 - 3:00 SESSION 1 "INTRODUCTION - THE CHALLENGE BEFORE US" 3:00 - 3:15 Refreshment Break 3:15 - 5:00 SESSION 2 ... "WORKING TOGETHER AS A TEAM" 5:30 - 7:00 Dinner DAY TWO 7:30 - 8:30 Breakfast 8:30 - 10:00 SESSION 3 ... "IDENTIFYING MAJOR ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES FACING THE CITY" 10:00 - 10:15 Coffee Break 10:15 - 12:00 SESSION 4 ... "GOALS & ACTION PLANS FOR THE CITY (LONG RANGE) 12:00 - 1:00 Lunch 1:00 - 2:30 SESSION 5 .. "GOALS & ACTION PLANS FOR THE CITY (ONE YEAR) 2:30 - 2:45 Refreshment Break 2:45 - 3:45 SESSION 6 ... "RE- EXAMINING AND CLARIFYING ROLES" 3:45 - 4:00 SESSION 7 ... "WRAP UP" CITY OF STILLWATER 1991 CITY COUNCIL /PROFESSIONAL STAFF LEADERSHIP AND TEAM BUILDING RETREAT Proposed Session Structure SESSION 1 ... "INTRODUCTION - THE CHALLENGE BEFORE US" A presentation that sets the tone for the retreat. Objectives will be discussed and prioritized. The session includes structured group activities that have the participants sharing backgrounds, thoughts and perspectives on a number of concerns pertaining to leadership, past successes, and major issues facing the city. SESSION 2 ... "WORKING TOGETHER AS A TEAM" A light participative presentation and discussion experience designed to increase harmony and productivity by reviewing the behavioral patterns of participants and to further discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the Stillwater city team. SESSION 3 ... "IDENTIFYING MAJOR ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES FACING THE CITY" Structured group participation that provides an update and fresh perspective to those priority issues and opportunities that should be addressed by the city. SESSION 4 ... "GOALS AND ACTION PLANS FOR THE CITY (LONG RANGE)" Structured group participation that converts the major issues facing the city into a realistic five -year goals program. This exercise separates realistic goals and unrealistic goals and identifies action plans that will lead to achievement of the goals. SESSION 5 ... "GOALS AND ACTION PLANS FOR THE CITY (ONE YEAR)" Structured group participation that further converts the five -year goals program and action plans into a realistic goals program for one year. SESSION 6 ... "RE- EXAMINING AND CLARIFYING ROLES" Structured group participation that re- examines and clarifies the roles of the Council members, the Mayor, and the professional staff. SESSION 7 ... "WRAP UP" A summary of the retreat ATTITUDE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. ► Roseville Professional Center • 2233 N. Hamline Avenue • Roseville, Minnesota 55113 • (612) 484 -1335 DONALD SALVERDA Don Salverda is President of Attitude Development Consultants, a management development consulting firm that provides services and materials to business and industry, professional organizations, education, and government in the areas of team building, leadership, and management development. Combining an academic background in engineering with over twenty -five years of practical experience in the private, public, and volunteer sectors in a variety of responsibilities, roles, and settings, Don has gained a unique and broad perspective of the problems facing organizations and individuals. He is highly respected for his leadership ability, his commitment of service to people, and as an "expert" in the field of human resource development, where he has been professionally involved for the last eighteen years. Don is Past President of the Sales and Marketing Executives of Minneapolis, the Roseville - Falcon Heights Chamber of Commerce, the North Suburban Gavel Associa- tion, the Association of Minnesota Counties, and the Ramsey County League of Local Governments. He has served on a number of Boards and Commissions, includ- ing Volunteers For Minnesota and for twelve years on the St Paul Ramsey Medical Center Commission. He continues to remain active, currently serving on the Boards of Directors of the Indianhead Council of Boy Scouts, the Northwest Branch of the YMCA, and the North Suburban Community Foundation. He is a member of the American Society For Training and Development and Rotary International. Don is currently in his fourth four -year term of service on the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, a position he has been elected to since 1974. Professionally, Don has served as an adjunct instructor for the College of St Scholastica for several years, regularly teaching a number of personal and professional development classes. He has conducted numerous team building, leadership and management seminars and retreats for both the private and public sectors, ranging from half -day to three days in length. Clients have included companies, organizations, City Councils and County Boards. Based on both structured evaluations and verbal feedback, his positive, enthusiastic, and non - threatening approach, coupled with being extremely well - prepared and achieving session objectives, have established his (i> reputation as a highly effective seminar, workshop, and retreat leader. h "The City Council and myself have been very pleased with the retreats you have conducted for the City. You were able to be very sensi- tive to where the Council was coming from and how to trans- late that to City Staff and to provide a useful bridge between Council thinking and staff thinking." City Manager "I wanted to write on behalf of the City Council to congratulate you and to tell you how successful we feel the workshop was. Not only did we learn a lot on communication, but we learned a lot about ourselves. Our hope is to continue to draw on the knowledge you have provided us." Mayor "The 'Team Building Workshops' you have conducted for our County were very successful. Not only have the policymakers and top managers of the County received a wealth of new information about themselves and their leadership styles, they have also learned how to transfer that knowledge into more positive perceptions and work relations with one another." County Administrator "Don's organizational skills, humor and enthusiasm were of invaluable assistance to us as we developed a coherent set of goals for the County. This, of itself, was a major and significant accomplishment for our diverse, 27- member Board. Don's work is much ap- preciated by our Board and its staff." Board Chair "The 'Issues and Opportunities Workshop' that you conducted for our City has turned out to be a milestone event. It has given a positive direction for the City, Chamber, Council and staff to follow. Your unique leadership skills helped create a cohesive and positive work- ing relationship among 82 people in a very short time frame. I'm sure your input helped us produce the maximum impact on our City." Chamber of Commerce President FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL OR WRITE Attitude Development Consultants Roseville Professional Center 2233 N. Hamline, Suite 511 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 (612) 484 -1335 How to build a more effective Board or Council. Don Salverda Don Salverda, president of Attitude Develop- ment Consultants, brings more than 25 years of practical experience to his role as a facilitator of retreats, seminars, and workshops. Professionally, Don has been in management development since 1969. He specializes in retreats for organizations in the public sector -- city coun- cils, county commissions, school boards, and other groups. In the public sector, Don is serving his fourth elected term on the Ramsey County (St. Paul, MN) Board of Commissioners. In addition, he has held leadership positions in a number of organiza- tions, including the locarChamber of Commerce, the Sales & Marketing Executives of Minneapolis, the Association of Minnesota Counties, and the Ramsey County League of Local Governments. To all his involvements, Don has brought growth, greater member involvement, creativity, innovation, and enthusiam. "By mutual confidence and mutual aid Great deeds are done, and great discoveries made." — Homer's ILIAD, trans. Alexander Pope Any group works effectively when the members feel a sense of rapport. Mutual confidence, understanding of individual strengths and weaknesses, and clearly stated goals are elements that help build this esprit de corps. A cohesive team creates synergy, in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Why is Don Salverda a wise choice to help your organization reach this level of effectiveness? • He knows how to cut through to the basic, underlying needs and issues. • He's not intimidating. He guides participants without becoming the cental figure in the discussion. • He keeps things simple. You won't be wading through a lot of jargon — you'll be achieving results. • His enthusiasm is almost impossible to resist. • Through personal experience, he understands the unique challenges facing the public sector. • He remains on the cutting edge of leadership and management change. The company's mission is to provide materials, seminars and workshops to help executives provide direction and energy to their organizations. Attitude Development Consultants has been pro- viding facilitors and speakers for companies, organizations, educational districts, governmen- tal units, and associations since 1976. In additions to team building programs, leaderships and management programs are offered. These help managers adjust to today's management style, which is people - oriente rather than authoritarian. Seminars and retreats range from 1/2 day to three days in length. The firm has access to talent and expertise to suit a variety of needs; a list of clients is available on request. Call Attitude Development Consultants, and help your organization progress toward greater effectiveness and results. • • Mr. Donald Salverda Attitude Development Consultants Roseville Professional Center 2233 North Hamline Avenue Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Dear Don: CITY CLERK - TREASURER City Office Building Box 755 Willmor, Minnesota 56201 612 - 235 -4913 March 13, 1989 On behalf of the Mayor, Council and staff, please accept my sincere thanks for conducting the Willmar • Leadership Retreat at Arrowwood last weekend. I have heard nothing but positive comments from all participants and it seems likely that we can expect future similar retreats. For your information, I have included copies of the newspaper articles regarding the retreat both prior to and after. As soon as I receive a final statement from you, I will immediately process payment. Again, many thanks and I will look forward to working with you again sometime soon. MCS:aep Enclosure Sincerely, CITY I7F 9ILLMAR Michael C. Schmit City Clerk - Treasurer police department PATRICK J. GEAGAN Chief of PoNce city of ccigcin KENNETH D. O N 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Phone: (612) 454 -3900 April 26, 1989 Don Salverda Attitude Development Consultants, Inc. Roseville Professional Building 2233 North Hairline Avenue Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Don, VIC EUISON mayor THOMAS EGAN DAVID K. GUSTAFSON PAMELA McCREA THEODORE WACHTER Counci Members THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator. EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE aetic I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the leadership and goal setting session you facilitated for us. Everyone who attended the session commented on your excellent presentation and how beneficial it was to the department, as well as themselves. It is unusual for us to put 17 people together from the different divisions and have the feeling of unity that was experienced during the meeting. The session helped us to identify and focus our efforts, as a department, toward some specific goals. I would expect this effort will make my job easier as a manager. Thank you for your interest in the Eagan Police Department and for your helpfulness. Sincerely, Patrick J. Geagan Chief of Police City of Eagan PJG:lb THE LONE OAK TREE...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer • • November 12, 1986 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Mr. Don Salverda Attitude Development Consultants 2233 North Hamline Avenue Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mr. Salverda: Congratulations on your election victory! The people of Ramsey County are fortunate to have such a dedicated public servant to represent them. I wanted to write on behalf of the City Council to congratulate you and to tell you how successful we feel the workshop was. Not only did we learn a lot on communication, but we learned a lot about ourselves. The Council meeting went well Monday night and our hope is to continue to draw on the knowledge you have provided us. Thank you, again. Yours truly, ;41' Lydia Andren Mayor City of Prior Lake LA:11 cc: City Councilmembers Mike McGuire Dave Unmacht (612) 447-4230 4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E. P.O. BOX 359 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 EVALUATION FORM .19 Participants 18 evaluations 1) The objectives of the session were 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.6 Clearl 2) The organiz Excell 3) The ideas p Very I The ability Excell 5) My attendan Gl I Y UI- HH51 1NbS 1989 LEADERSHIP RETREAT 5 Evident tion o 4 3 the session was o / / 2 1 Vagt / / lit .esente / 4 3 were / / 2 1 Pool / 5 4 3 2 1 Iterest'ng Poo of th presenter to stimulate discussion was / / / / / 5 4 3 m t ;e at t is session should prove to be / 0 / / 2 1 Poo / / 4 3 I 2 1 tJe +e Very Beneficial 6) Overall, I consid r this session to have been 5 Excellent e r f Time / / / 3 2 1 Poor 7) Other comments: * Very good retreat * Very good. Learned a lot * Good job, Don * It brought us together and got to know the staff. * A lot of information to digest, but will be helpful. Good Session! * Amazing openness. * Thanks, Don! Good job! EVALUATION FORM City of Crystal - Community Development Department Team Building Retreat - June 11, 1990 The objectives of the session were 4.5 / / / / / 5 4 3 2 1 Clearly Evid nt Vague 2) The organization of the session was 4.7 / / / / / 5 4 3 2 1 Excellent Poor 3) The ideas presented -re 4.1 / 1 5 / / 2 1 Very Interesting Poor The ability of the • resenter to stimulate discussion was 4.6 5 4 4.1 Excellent 3 5) My attendance at this session should prove to be / / 2 1 door 5 4 3 2 1 Very Beneficial Waste of Time 6) Overall, I consider t is session to have been 4.3 5 Excellent 7 1 Poor Other comments: * Great presenter and presentation ... gave me a new outlook * Great job. Well planned. Visual aids excellent * Worthwhile session EVALUATION FORM CITY OF EAGAN FINANCE DEPARTMENT /CITY CLERK 1990 RETREAT 1) The objectives of the session were 4.6 / / / / / 5 4 3 2 1 Clearly Evid:nt Vague 2) The organization •f the session was 4.5 5 4 3 2 1 Excellent Poor 3) The ideas presented were 4.4 5 4 Very Interesti • 4.5 2 4) The ability of the presenter to stimulate discussion was 5 Excellent Poor / / 1- / 4 3 2 1 Poor 5) My attendance at th's session should prove to be 4.4 / / / / / 5 4 3 2 1 Very Beneficial Waste of Time 4.2 6) Overall, I consider t is session to have been 7 / 5 Excellent Other comments: * Great! * Very enjoyable and much needed / / / 3 2 1 Poor • `Where do you want to be County • By DEBORAH GOEKEN of the Joumal Star'? It's a standard job interview. question: "Where do you want:, to be in five years ?" Peoria County Board mem- bers addressed that issue Friday and Saturday, coming up with specific goals and a • general direction for county government in the late 1 :Os. If the objectives become, reality, in 1989 Peoria County will no longer have an over- crowded court system, a courthouse with a security problem, or an abandoned, de- teriorating building on Gift Avenue. And the question of where to place downtown prisoner. holding cells and a booking facility will have been answered. . The county will be fiscally sound, 'preferably without higher taxes, but county resi- dents will receive, the same level of services. A comprehensive personnel program will be in effect for county employees, including training and advancement op- portunities. In addition, high technology will be used throughout the courthouse; centralized pur- chasing will be a reality; and, the public image of county ,. government will ,-,have im- proved.. Those goals emerged from the county's first two -day lead- ership retreat . for Peoria County Board members. It • {, ^. JOURNAL STAR, Peoria, Sunday, January 8,1984 A15 �trdmenibersrnakep1ansfor:198Os Photo by Art Land DON -SALVERDA, a Minnesota consultant, leads" a planning session Saturday for Peoria County, Board members on the Bradley Uni- versity campus. egos, determination and doini nation, impatience and a de- sire for authority. • Salverda, who has been con= ducting similar workshops for years, said elected officials often fall into that profile. • "Normally, they have fairly big egos, are change agents, and want to see things done and done better," he said, add- ing that it is important for board members to know them- selves and their colleagues so• they can develop a better un- derstanding of how to best .deal with each other. When • each member's strengths and weaknesses are apparent, a team effort can be more successful, he said. Goal- setting wasn't limited to long -range planning. The board members also decided what they want accomplished in 1984. That list includes a revised zoning ordinance; completion of an affirmative action hiring .' plan; a decision on what to do with the old Gift Avenue Home, now an unused juvenile detention house; a centralized purchasing ordinance; and a balanced budget. County Board Chairman 'was held at Bradley Universi- ty. "Just the fact that we got to- gether and started thinking be- yond the next meeting is sig- nificant," County Administra- tor David Krings said. "We are a large, profession- ally-managed business, and the board this weekend per- , 'formed like a top quality board of directors," he said. About 17 of the Board's 27 members attended the work - .shop conducted by Don Salver - da, a consultant with Attitude Development Consultants and a county board member in Minnesota. He was paid 3 a day for the program. The first session included a collective hop onto the ana- 'lyst's couch, as board mem- bers took tests to reveal their personalities. Most of the local legislators emerged in a cate- 4 gory distinguished by strong Gary Stella was challenged to improve the public perception of county government, offer direction to the county admin- istrator, arbitrate disputes, and concentrate on better communication between com- mittee chairpersons. Salverda told the board members that a constant evaluation of their perform- ance and improvement of their leadership skills is a necessity. "The public is getting more and more sophisticated," he said. "You are constantly being challenged to be more aecrnmtnble." • alarm 4111111 91 50 CENTRAL AVENUE N.E., BLAINE, MINNESOTA 55434, (61 2) 7B4 -6700 March 6, 1985 Mr. Don Salverda President Attitude Development Consultants, Inc. Roseville Professional Center Suite 511 2233 North Hamline Avenue Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Don: The City Council and myself have been very pleased with the retreats that you have conducted for the City of Blaine. For the last two years you have assisted the City Council in a leadership setting as well as a review and setting of long -term goals. Your experience as a public official has greatly assisted and facilitated their willingness to dis- cuss issues and to make long -term commitments. This past January you assisted the Council in doing a re- view of its -Comprehensive Plan, including goals and issues, so as to set a framework for further study for the remainder of the year. Your attention to detail and preparation for this important review was very much evident. For myself, I have found you very easy to work with and willing to listen to ideas. The retreat that we established for department heads was a natural offshoot of the City Council Retreat plus your own leadership retreat material that you present. Again, as a public official you were able to be very sensitive to where the Council was coming from and how to translate that to City staff and to provide a useful bridge between Council thinking and staff thinking. The City staff was very receptive to the retreat and felt that you were one of the better facilitators that we have used in recent years. I wish you continued success in your work and hope that we can again in the future plan another retreat which will be mutually beneficial. Thank you for all of your past assis- tance. Sincere Y • r d - - Richard P. Johnson City Manager RPJ:gh Ougininu • • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: S1 50 CENTRAL AVENUE N.E.. BLAINE. MINNESOTA 55434, (61 2) 784 -6700 April 9, 1984 December, 1983 the Blaine City Council held their first ever Annual Leadership Retreat, a goals setting session for the City of Blaine, facilitated by Don Salverda of Attitude Development Consultants, Inc. Attitude Development Consul- tants, Inc. in the person of Mr. Salverda was "the" fortunate choice to be facilitator. Don, a Ramsey County Commissioner for several years, had a solid feel for the City Council's needs and structured and presented his program with sufficient rationale, experience and flexibility to consolidate the Council's commitment to goals planning. As a result, the Retreat was a complete success as affirmed by the individual Councilmembers. As Blaine City Manager and one who had spent five years lead- ing the Council toward goals planning, I was appreciative and recommend-Attitude Development Consultants, Inc. and Don Salverda. LMJ:gh 1 • County Board 0 - T s--'"� +:..a qua fl Room 101 • Peoria County Courthouse • Peoria, Illinois 61602 Phone (309) 672-6056 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: In January of 1984, Donald Salverda conducted the first professionally managed planning session ever held for members of the Peoria County Board. Don's organiza- tional skills, humor, and enthusiasm were of invaluable assistance to us as we developed a coherent set of goals for the County. This, of itself, was a major and significant accomplishment for our diverse, 27- member Board. Don's work is much appreciated by our Board and by its staff. Sincerely, '1 Gary F. Stella David . K ngs Chairman County Administrator Peoria County Board Peoria County BLUE EARTH COUNTY Offices in Mankato, Minnesota 56001 • • March 4, 1983 ao Mr. Don Salverda Attitude Development Consultants, Inc. -,,, Roseville Professional Center 2233 North Hamlin Avenue Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Don: Blue Earth County would like to extend our appreciation to you for the job that you did in our one -day workshop. The overwhelming opinion of all the members was excellent. When I hear that the only complaint was that we did not have enough time with you, it sure gives us the indication that the time that we did spend was well worth it. It gave us an opportunity to have discussion on various areas of management, and the communication that came from that workshop will help us overcome some of our future problems and considerations. Thanks again and my best personal wishes to you, and I hope we can put on more of these workshops in the future. Sincerely yo's , :4 d Pat McDonnell Central Services Coordinator Blue Earth County PM /jat FC1 COURTHOUSE 204 South Fifth Street P.O. Box 8608 Ph. (507) 625-3031 Assessor Auditor Board of Commissioners Central Services Clerk of Court County 8 District Courts Recorder Treasurer COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 410 South Fifth Street P.O. Box 8608 Ph. 1507) 625-3031 Ph. (507) 625 -9034 Community Corrections Human Services Administration Health 8 Social Development Income Maintenance Probation 8 Parole Extension Office License Bureau Veterans Service Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) HIGHWAY BUILDING 35 Map Drive P.O. Box 8608 Ph. (507) 625 -3281 LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER 710 South Front Street P.O. Box 8608 Highway 8 Public Works Sheriff Ph. (507) 625 -5551 Emergency Services Ph. (507) 387 -6407 ECLIPSE (Civil Defense) 524 South Fifth Street Ph. (507 388 -9321 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER • 1111 N1=101 league of minnesota cities July 13, 1982 Don Salverda Attitude Development Consultants, Inc. Roseville Professional Center, Suite 511 2233 North Hamline Ave. Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Don: An outstanding success! That is the overwhelming assessment of the 1982 LMC Annual Conference. Your participation and contribution to that success are certainly appreciated and recognized. On behalf of the Conference Planning Committee and the LMC Board of Directors, I want to personally take this opportunity to thank you individually for contributing to a superb program. It is clear that city officials took away with them a wealth of information and new understandings regarding the challenges that face cities in the '80's. In every respect, this year's conference met expectations that were set during the months of planning. But it was not known until the conference was underway whether we could meet those objectives. Now, by all accounts, we have surpassed them! Attached you will find a statement of the results of the self - reported evaluation of the session in which you presided or took part as a presenter, faculty, or moderator. We hope this information will assist you in reviewing the material and presentation employed at this year's conference and in your - planning for future appearances. Again, on behalf of the League of Minnesota Cities, I extend to you my appreciation and commendation for a job well done. Snierely, d A. Slater Executive Director DAS : rmm Enc. 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01 [61 2) 227 -5600 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA February 23, 1981 Continuing Education and Extension Department of Conferences 131 Nolte Center 315 Pillsbury Drive S.E. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Don Salverda Attitude Development Consultants 2233 Hamline Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55113 Dear Mr. Salverda: Thank you so much for your presentation of "Build- ing the Management Team." The time and effort you spent preparing for the workshop was certainly ap- preciated by the participants and University staff. Please mail the evaluations to us when you are fin- ished looking at them. We will tabulate and average the results and mail you a copy as soon as it is pre- pared. Again, thank you for your fine contribution. I hope we can work together again in the future. Sincerely, q)s Regin'Hoffman Program Assistant RH /lmj • • • April 1, 1991 j 1 water THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA RE: STILLWATER, MINNESOTA DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT S.P. 8214 -106 S.P. 8210 -88 SAP 169 - 106 -04 SAP 169- 104 -06 CITY PROJECT NO. LI 257 Mr. Bruce P. Henningsgaard, Staff Engineer - Municipal Section Water Quality Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 Dear Mr. Henningsgaard: Please consider this letter an answer to your letter dated March 26, 1991 addressing the plans and specifications for the above referenced project. Your letter of March 26, 1991 addressed the plans and specifica- tions in three basic categories; specifications, plan sheets, and general comments. We will answer your March 26 letter under the three same categories. We will further answer each question which is numbered with Arabic numbers under each segment. We will not repeat your questions, but rather will include a copy of your letter for reference. Our answers are as follows: SPECIFICATIONS 1. The City of Stillwater has always followed state law with their public works contracting. All public works project manuals, plans and specifications, and contracts are approved by the City Attorney before approval by the City Council. The City Attorney has reviewed the specifications for the above referenced project and deems them to be within the requirements of the law and also meets all the needs and requirements of the City of Stillwater. Under Instructions to Bidders, Section 15, AWARD OF CONTRACT, Subsections 15.1 through 15.10 adequately covers the award of the contract to the contractor. 2. Since there are 88 stages of construction, in some cases the same intersection may have :three or more CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612 - 439 -6121 • • • Mr. Bruce P. Henningsgaard April 1, 1991 Page 2 different stages within it, it is difficult to depict all of the different scenarios on one map sheet. Besides, the staging is a concept for the Contractor to follow providing he meets all the traffic restrictions and requirements associated with the construction stage. He may modify the stages provided he meets the traffic requirements. Showing a specific stage on a plan sheet may lead to further misunderstanding of the flexibility the Contractor has to provide the most efficient method of construction within the specified traffic restrictions. We do not feel it is the place of the City to tell the Contractor how to construct the project, but rather, to address the restrictions that he must follow to provide the required end result for the City. We also feel it is desirable for the Contractor to review the actual plan sheets that determine the construction implications of each stage when preparing his bid rather than accepting some guidance from the Engineer when the Contractor is better qualified to provide the most efficient means of construction within the traffic restrictions and guidelines. 3. Clarification for traffic restriction maps for Stages R -3 through SS -1 are covered in the specifications beginning in the last paragraph of Division 1, Page 6. Again, the maps are to supplement the text and are merely to assist the Contractor. There are several other maps not included in the construction staging, such as B -1 and B -2. The traffic control special provisions were discussed at the pre -bid meeting with the Contractors. At that time, we specifically asked several times if there were any questions regarding the staging. The general consensus was that the special provisions were clear to all Contractors. In addition, the special provisions were reviewed by the Minnesota Department of Transpor- tation district staff including the District Traffic Operations Supervisor, the Project Technician for construction area traffic controls, the District Traffic Engineer, District State -Aid Engineer, and his technician and the Consultant Agreements Engineer. They were complimentary on the thoroughness of the traffic control plan. Washington County also reviewed the special provisions with no questions or comments. We feel that the specifications as completed reasonably convey the restrictions and requirements to the Contractor and we feel that there is no further clarification needed at this time. • • Mr. Bruce P. Henningsgaard April 1, 1991 Page 3 4. Division 2, Page 59 under Section 2503.6, Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation, second paragraph from the top. The Contractor shall be responsible for all required transfers of bypass of flow around the section of pipe to be lined. The proposed bypassing procedure shall be reviewed in advance with the Engineer. This requires review by the Engineer before accomplishment and the Engineer will insure that bypassing discharge is discharged in the sanitary sewer downstream from the area being bypassed. 5. The City of Stillwater requests manhole steps in their manholes. All their maintenance people use the proper safety harness, gas meters, tripod, etc. before entering manholes. However, they do use manhole steps to align with the downstream opening to act as a guide in unclogging partially flooded manholes. 6. At this point it has not been determined how much dewatering will be necessary. This cannot be determined until the actual groundwater conditions are determined at time of construction. The Engineer has contacted the Department of Natural Resources and we do require all necessary permits be obtained by the Contractor. This is also covered in the first paragraph, Section D, under Division 2, Page 52. 7. The City has obtained approval from the Minnesota Department of Health regarding the construction disin- fection and operation of the proposed watermain extensions, etc., on this project. All disinfection water will be handled in the normal procedure. 8. Where "or equal" statements have not been included on specific items in the specifications, the City of Stillwater does not desire an equal. Where "or equal" statements have been allowed on certain items in the specifications, the City will accept an equal product. PLAN SHEETS 9. Refer to answer to Item 5. 10. Specification Division 2, Page 84, Section 2511, Hand Placed Riprap, refers to Mn /DOT Specification 2511. Mn /DOT Specification 2511 contains material Spec. 3601 which indicates the size of Class IV riprap. The thickness of the riprap will depend upon the condition of the bottom at time of excavation and the size of the riprap furnished by the Contractor. • • Mr. Bruce P. Henningsgaard April 1, 1991 Page 4 11. The outlet for storm sewer will be submerged under normal pool conditions. Special Structure No. 502 provides a flap gate on the storm sewer in Manhole No. 502 which is approximately 166 feet back from the outlet itself. Special Structure No. 502 is a large manhole with a solid cover. Sheet No. 2 is a location map in the set of plans. This location map has the sheet number for utilities, streets, landscaping, lighting, signing, etc. The Contractor can obtain the location by cross reference between the location map and the sheet with the specific structure on it. GENERAL COMMENTS 13. The City of Stillwater has coordinated with the Depart- ment of Natural Resources for dewatering. There will be constant soil monitoring and laboratory monitoring of soil and water on the site during construction. The City of Stillwater has already contacted and is in the process of providing information for the MPCA Tanks and Spills Section. I do not feel that it would be possible for the City of Stillwater to receive permission from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to discharge groundwater into the sanitary sewer system in light of the problems that they presently have with the Stillwater wastewater treatment plant. The water situation will be monitored during construction and if there is any contaminated water, etc., the MPCA will be informed and meanwhile we will work with the MWCC if it is at all necessary to discharge to the sanitary sewer. 14. The consultant will be conducting full time inspection on the project. I am not aware of any of the regulations that require the City to provide full time inspection on the site. 15. In order for the City to require the consulting firm to provide all of the reports, etc., requested in Item No. 15, it will be an extra cost to the City of Stillwater. There does not appear to be any requirement for all these reports in the state statutes or the Ten State Standards or any other regulations I am aware of required by state law. Since the MPCA is not funding this project and the City of Stillwater has taken it upon themselves to meet the stated requirements of the MPCA with their own funding, it does not appear that submission of all these reports to the MPCA would be necessary. • • Mr. Bruce P. Henningsgaard April 1, 1991 Page 5 16. The City of Stillwater has already contacted Jane Boerboom of the Tanks and Spills section of the MPCA. 17. The City of Stillwater does not feel it is necessary to provide an estimate of this project to the MPCA since they are not participating in the funding whatsoever. 18. Since this project consists of the replacement and /or rehabilitation of existing sanitary sewers in the same location and basically the same size, it has always been our understanding that the City does not need to submit plans and specifications to the MPCA for approval. It has always been our understanding that the approval permit process covers sanitary sewer extensions and new sanitary sewer construction. We have submitted plans and specifications to the MPCA as a matter of courtesy because of the agencies vital interest in the Stillwater I/I problem. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Wallace L. Abrahamson, Mayor City of Stillwater REM /cih cc: Mike Kraemer, P.E., SEH, Inc. Nile Kriesel, City Coordinator, City of Stillwater Mr. David Magnuson, City Attorney, City of Stillwater Mr. David Junker, Public Works Director, City of Stillwater Mr. Russell Felt, MPCA illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA April 9, 1991 TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL DEPARTMENT HEADS AND EMPLOYEES FROM: MARY LOU JOHNSON, CTIY CLERK SUBJECT: FOOD SHELF DRIVE The Food Shelf Drive is now over. During the week of March 25, Press -On collected the food donated by businesses and then turned it over to the St. Croix Valley Food Shelf. On the afternoon of April 4, representatives from the various businesses gathered at Press -On for the award of the traveling trophy and drawing for the balloon ride or overnight at one of the designated Inns. The trophy was awarded to Lake Elmo State Bank who contributed 51.96 lbs. of food per employee. Stillwater contributed 13.28 lbs. per employee, quite an increase over the 4.00 lbs per employee contributed last year. A special thank you goes to our Fire Department, who donated the "lion's share" of that amount. The winner in the drawing is from Firstar Stillwater Bank.* Thanks to all for your participation. We all benefit when we can help others! CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612 - 439 -6121