Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-02-19 CC Packet AGENDA • STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL February 19, 1991 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION ROLL CALL /APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Special Meeting - January 29, 1991. Regular & Recessed Meetings - February 5, 1991. r INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS STAFF REPORTS /UNFINISHED BUSINESS f. Presentation of Feasibility Report for Improvement of Hudson St. , L.I. 272. 2. Quit Claim Deed - Cottages Phase III. ✓3. Approval of Issuance of Multi-Family Housing Revenue Bonds (Cottages of Stillwater, Phase 3 Project) . /4. Approval of contract with Braun Environmental Services for Soils Testing in Downtown Area. V. Possible second reading of Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment designating 88.5 acre site (Benson Farm) Single Family Residential R-A, Steve Fiterman, / applicant. v/6. Possible second reading of Ordinance Annexing approximate 88.5 acres of land to City of Stillwater boundary, Benson Farm, Steve Fiterman, applicant. /7. Designation of Delegate to EMS Council . /NEW BUSINESS PETITIONS, INDIVIDUALS &DELEGATIONS (Continued) ONSENT AGENDA 1. Resolution Directing Payment of Bills (Resolution No. 91-22) 2. Applications (List to be supplied at meeting) . 3. Send claim to Insurance Agent for injuries received at Lily Lake Ice Arena. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS S v STAFF REPORTS (Continued) 1 COMMUNICATIONS/REQUESTS 1. Jane Boerboom, Minn. Pollution Control Agency - City Sewer Improvement Project. 2. Dick Moore, Consulting Engineer - Fairmeadows Road Forcemain Extension. 3. Frank E. Aiple - Stillwater St. Croix Barge Terminal Co. 4. Glen Van Wormer - Highway 95, north of Stillwater Construction Project. 5. Scott Renne, County Assessor - 1991 Local Boards of Review. 6. Dave Swanson - Lumberjack Days Parade Information. 7. Jennifer Tschumper - Thank you to City. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM NEWS MEDIA ADJOURNMENT S 2 STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING January 29, 1991 5:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Abrahamson. Present: Councilmembers Bodlovick, Farrell, Opheim (arrived at 5:45) , and Mayor Abrahamson Absent: Councilmember Funke Also Present: City Coordinator Kriesel City Attorney Magnuson Community Dev. Dir. Russell Recording Secretary Schaubach Press: Julie Kink, The Courier Mike Marsnik, Stillwater Gazette RIVERWAY COMMUNITY EVALUATION WITH THE DNR, Council met with Molly Shodeen, Area Hydrologist, and Sandy Fecht, Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinator for the DNR to discuss St. Croix River rules revisions. Community Development Director Russell explained that the DNR is requesting input from affected communities regarding the • existing regulations. Council suggested that the term "visually inconspicuous" be removed from the regulations and more objective criteria be used. Council also discussed how the regulations will affect development of the City's property south of downtown when the current lease on that land expires. Council directed Mr. Russell and City Attorney Magnuson to work with the DNR representatives to produce mutually acceptable amendments to the river regulations. RECOGNITION OF LOCAL BOY SCOUT TROUP Mayor Abrahamson acknowledged three local Boy Scouts and presented each with a Stillwater button. (Council took a five-minute recess and reconvened at 6:35 p.m. ) WORKSHOP WITH SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Council met with members of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee for a workshop session regarding a volume-based fee program. City Coordinator Kriesel summarized the meeting of January 9, 1991, with the City's hauler, Jim Junker. Mr. Junker has proposed an automated system using 30-, 60-, and 90-gallon containers with citizens charged according to the size of the container used. There would be an additional $2 • charge for extra items such as white goods, furniture, etc. The Committee chairman, Tim Schmolke informed Council of the status of the City's recycling program and presented a list 1 Stillwater City Council Minutes Special Meeting January 29, 1991 of the Committee's goals. He also requested that the Committee be given an opportunity to review Mr. Junker's proposal and make a recommendation to the City Council before Council takes action on any volume-based fee program. Motion by Councilmember Opheim, seconded by Councilmember Bodlovick to direct the City's waste hauler to bring his written proposal to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee for review and recommendation to the City Council, to work with the Committee in reaching their goals, and also that the Council approve the goals of the Committee. (All in favor) MEMBERSHIP IN STILLWATER AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Motion by Councilmember Farrell, seconded by Councilmember Opheim that the City Council officially join the Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce at $420 per year. (All in favor) OTHER BUSINESS Antique Boat Show Request - Motion by Councilmember Opheim, seconded by Councilmember Bodlovick to begin the permitting process with the Corp of Engineers for an antique boat show to be held at the Lowell Park levee from July 11-14, 1991. (All in favor) Library Special Revenue Fund - Motion by Councilmember Farrell, seconded by Councilmember Opheim to adopt the appropriate Resolution establishing a Special Reve- nue Fund for the Library by the Family Sexuality Coalition Project. (Resolution No. 91-17) Ayes - Councilmembers Bodlovick, Farrell, Opheim, and Mayor Abrahamson Nays - None ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Farrell to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 p.m. (All in favor) MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Re, olutions: No. 91-17 - Establishing a Library Special Revenue Fund 2 • STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING February 5, 1991 4:30 P.M. The Meeting was called to order by Mayor Abrahamson. 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 Consulting Engineer Moore Comm. Dev. Director Russell Parks Supervisor Thomsen Public Works Director Junker Public Safety Director Mawhorter Building Official Zepper City Clerk Johnson Press: Julie Kink, The Courier Mike Marsnik, Stillwater Gazette Others: None • STAFF REPORTS 1. Public Safety Director - Teen Center Patrol Mr. Mawhorter briefly discussed the budget for police services performed at the Teen Center and that there will be a minus in this budget this year. 2. Public Works Director - SOCM Mr. Junker stated he has received a request from SOCM (Support Our Country's Military) to place yellow ribbons near both entrances to the City, City Hall and possibly the gazebo downtown. Mayor Abrahamson said he will address this item at the evening meeting. 3. Community Development Director Special Meeting on February 26, 1991 Mr. Russell requested that a workshop meeting be scheduled for February 26, 1991, at 4:30 P.M. to discuss the purchase of the Glacier Park land near downtown and also a request from Bruce Olson, Pierce Industries for City assistance. Council concurred with the request for this meeting. 4. Parks Supervisor - Warming Houses closed during Warm Weather • 1 Stillwater City Council Minutes Regular Meeting February 5, 1991 Parks Supervisor Thomsen reported that the Warming Houses will be closed for a short time until the colder weather returns. A short discussion followed regarding snowmobiles running through the parks. No action taken. 5. Consulting Engineer - Benson Farm Mr. Moore updated Council on the discussion held with the developer of this property regarding the Brick Street Lift Station. It was stated that fifteen homes could come into this station since the capacity of the Lift Station has been increased and the Croixwood Development has been diverted to the Myrtle Street Station. Mr. Moore further elaborated on this item. It will be discussed further at the evening meeting with the developer. (Councilmember Opheim arrived). 6. Fire Chief - No report. 7. City Attorney - Charitable Gambling Mr. Magnuson presented a letter to Council outlining two methods of dealing with groups requesting gambling licenses for City establishments. The Council will make a decision on this at the evening meeting. 8. City Clerk - Optiscan Voting Equipment Survey Ms. Johnson presented a survey to ascertain Council 's wishes regarding the purchase of Optiscan voting equipment. Council is not interested at this time. Legislative Town Meeting - March 19, 1991 City Clerk Johnson announced that State Senator Laidig, and Representatives McPherson and Swenson will hold a Town Meeting in the City Hall starting at 6:00 P.M., March 19, 1991 and will also be at the 7:00 Meeting of the City Council . Food Shelf - Ms. Johnson reported that Press On is again initiating competition, March 11 - 22, 1991 among various businesses, of which the City is included, to generate donations to the St. Croix Valley Food shelf. Request for Garbage Waiver This will possibly be discussed at the evening meeting after some income guidelines can be reviewed. 2 Stillwater City Council Minutes • Regular Meeting February 5, 1991 Reappointment of Mary Kreimer-Adrian to Joint Cable Commission. Motion by Councilmember Opheim, seconded by Councilmember Bodlovick, to reappoint Mary Kreimer-Adrian as Alternate, to a term ending January 31, 1993, on the Joint Cable Commission. (All in favor) 9. City Coordinator - Attendance of Civil Defense Director a Conference Motion by Councilmember Opheim, seconded by Councilmember Funke to authorize the attendance of Civil Defense Director Murphy at the Governor's Natural Disaster Conference. (All in favor) . Building Department Staffing/Professional Development Discussion followed regarding Building Department Staffing including a mutual aid agreement with Oak Park Heights and Lake Elmo. Mr. Magnuson will draft an agreement to cover this item. Consulting Engineer (Continued) Benson Farm Development Mr. Moore stated he has discussed the connection of the watermain with Dennis McKean of the Water Dept. Also, meetings will be held with the neighborhood on this issue. • Comm. Dev. Director Russell initiated discussion of the improvements for Pine Tree Trail and the "hammerhead turn-around" which the Developer does not want to include. Sewer Bill Adjustments Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Funke to approve two requests for sewer bill adjustments, faulty water softener and leaky toilet, and deny one request, "1989" sewer charges which were certified to County in "1989", as recommended by'the Finance Director. (All in favor). RECESS Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Funke to recess the meeting at 5:20 P.M. (All in favor). MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 3 STILLWATER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES RECESSED MEETING February 5, 1991 7:00 P.M. The Meeting was called to order by Mayor Abrahamson. Present: Councilmembers Bodlovick, Farrell , Funke, Opheim and Mayor Abrahamson. Absent: None Also Present: City Coordinator Kriesel City Attorney Magnuson Consulting Engineer Moore Comm. Dev. Director Russell Plan. Comm. Chair Fontaine Public Works Director Junker Public Safety Director Mawhorter City Clerk Johnson Press: Julie Kink, The Courier Mike Marsnik, Stillwater Gazette Others: Dennis McKean, Carmen Craig, Don Broman, John Hughes, Terri Gallas, Steve Fiterman, James Lund, Katherine Francis, Jay • Michels, James Lund, Neal Skinner, Richard Kilty, Wayne Brady, Ralph Bates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Councilmember Farrell , seconded by Councilmember Opheim to approve the minutes of the following meetings: Special Meeting of Jan. 3, 1991, Regular Meeting of Jan. 8, 1991, Special Meeting of Jan. 9, 1991, Regular Meeting of Jan. 15, 1991, and Special Meeting of Jan. 22, 1991. (All in favor). INDIVIDUALS DELEGATIONS AND COMMENDATIONS 1. SOCM - Request to Display Yellow Ribbons Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Funke to approve the request of SOCM (Support Our Country's Military) for the placement of yellow ribbons at the entrances to the City and outside City Hall . (All in favor). 2. Request from Lake Elmo Jaycees to conduct a Gambling operation at the Harbour Bar, 517 No. Owens St. John Hughes, 43 Bertha Ct. , Mahtomedi , representing the Lake Elmo Jaycees, was present to explain the request to operate at the Harbour Bar. He further stated they have conferred with the Stillwater Jaycees who do not wish to run a charitable gambling operation. Also, they will agree to pay • 1 Stillwater City Council Minutes Recessed Meeting February 5, 1991 ten per cent of their profits to a special fund that is administered by the City for lawful purposes within the City. Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Funke to adopt the appropriate resolution approving the request of the Lake Elmo Jaycees for a pull-tab operation at the Harbor Bar on North Owens St., with a City requirement that ten per cent of the profits be paid to a special fund to be used for lawful purposes within the City. (Resolution No. 91-18) Ayes - Councilmembers Bodlovick, Farrell , Funke, Opheim and Mayor Abrahamson. Nays - None 3. Request from Washington Co. HRA for approval of Agreement regarding payment in lieu of taxes for Stillwater Senior Apartments & Senior Center. Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Farrell to adopt the appropriate resolution approving an Agreement between the City of Stillwater and Washington County HRA for payment in lieu of taxes with respect to multi-family rental housing owned by Washington Co. HRA near County Road 5 and Orleans St., and authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to sign. (Resolution No. 91-19) Ayes - Councilmembers Bodlovick, Farrell , Funke, Opheim and Mayor Abrahamson. Nays - None A man who owns rental property in the City and whose taxes are $1,200 a unit for a duplex, inquired what the property taxes would be for these units. The response was $500. City Attorney Magnuson stated this type of housing is exempt from real estate taxes, but the City imposes a service charge. Richard Kilty, 118 West Oak St. , stated this is the second piece of property the Council has taken off the tax rolls in the past six months. He further inquired about the Linden Nursing Home taxes. Mr. Magnuson stated their share is approximately $7,500. 4. Request to conduct Antique Boat Show. Carmen Craig was present to explain his plan for a boat show on the riverfront July 11 - 14, 1991. He expressed some concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of the downtown area. Consulting Engineer Moore explained the plans for redevelopment, stating the entire downtown area would not be closed off, but there may be some obstacles. Mr. Craig stated the DNR has approved his request and he will be talking to the Army Corps of Engineers also. Councilmember Opheim stated the Park and Recreation Commission would also like to review Mr. Craig's plan. 2 • Stillwater City Council Minutes . Recessed Meeting February 5, 1991 Motion by Councilmember Opheim, seconded by Councilmember Funke to give conceptual approval of the request of Carmen Craig for an Antique Boat Show in Lowell Park in July; recommending that Mr. Craig appear before the Park and Recreation Commission to address their concerns. (All in favor). PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. This is the day and time for the Public Hearing to consider a Variance to the setback requirements for the placement of a 40 sq. ft. sign, two ft. from the property line (15 ft. required), located at 1825 Curve Crest Blvd. in the BP-0, Business Pk. Office Dist. , Curve Crest Partners, applicant. Case No. V/91-1. Notice of the hearing was published in The Courier on January 17, 1991 and mailed to affected property owners. Mr. Russell explained that the applicant is requesting to place a 40 sq. ft. sign two ft. from the property line and approximately 12 ft. from Curve Crest Blvd. The building at 1825 Curve Crest Blvd. presently does not have signage for its tenants and this sign will be the only one. Mr. Fontaine stated the Planning Commission approved the request with one concern -- that the light from the sign should not hinder drivers coming down the street. Mayor Abrahamson closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Farrell to approve a Variance to the setback requirements for the placement of a 40 sq. ft. sign, two ft. from the property line (15 ft. required) , located at 1825 Curve Crest Blvd. in the BP-0, Business Pk. Office Dist. , as conditioned, Curve Crest Partners, applicant. Case No. V/91-1. (All in favor). 2. This is the day and time for the Public Hearing to consider a Special Use Permit to conduct a coffee & tea room on the second floor of an existing building at 120 No. Main St. , in the CBO, Central Business Dist. , Katherine B. Francis, applicant. Case No. SUP/91-2. Notice of the hearing was published in The Courier on January 17, 1991 and mailed to affected property owners. Mr. Russell explained that Ms. Francis wishes to conduct a coffee and tea room on the second floor of an existing building in the downtown area. A sign plan is required for the whole building which will also have office space and no amplified loud music. Mr. Fontaine stated the request was approved by the Planning Commission. Jay Michels, 118-1/2 North Main St., expressed concerns regarding control of noise in the building and limiting hours of operation. Ms. Francis responded that the hours of operation will be approximately 10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Mr. Russell stated that one of the conditions is that there be no amplified music. Mr. Michels also stated he was not notified of the 3 Stillwater City Council Minutes Recessed Meeting February 5, 1991 hearing. It was explained that he is not listed at this time as a property owner on the tax rolls. He will be notified in the future. Mayor Abrahamson closed the public hearing. Council discussed adding another condition that this case be reviewed upon complaint. Motion by Councilmember Opheim, seconded by Councilmember Funke to approve a Special Use Permit to conduct a coffee & tea room on the second floor of an existing building at 120 No. Main St. , in the CBD, Central Business Dist. , as conditioned and adding another condition that the permit shall be reviewed upon complaint, Katherine B. Francis, applicant. Case No. SUP/91-2. (All in favor) . 3. This is the day and time for the Public Hearing to consider a Variance and Special Use Permit for the construction of a garage addition on an existing substandard structure (one foot seven inches from the property line, thirty foot setback required) for a residential use in an accessory structure at 115 North Harriet St. in the RB Two-Family Residential Dist. , James Lund, applicant. Case No. SUP/V/90-73. Notice of the hearing was published in The Courier on January 17, 1991 and mailed to affected property owners. Mr. Russell explained the applicant is requesting to add a second story to an existing three stall garage in order to construct a family room. Also, the lot is substandard regarding setback and the ordinance does not allow living space over garages. This case was scheduled twice before the Planning Commission but the applicant never appeared and after the second time, the Planning Commission denied the request. Mr. Lund was present at this meeting and apologized for not attending the meetings. He stated there will be no plumbing placed in the building and it will be used strictly for storage and playroom for his children. Council discussion included that Mr. Lund should present his case to the Planning Commission so they can make a recommendation to Council . Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Funke to continue the hearing for a Variance and Special Use Permit for the construction of a garage addition on an existing substandard structure (one foot seven inches from the property line, thirty foot setback required) for a residential use in an accessory structure at 115 North Harriet St. in the RB Two-Family Residential Dist. , until the March 19, 1991 Council Meeting after the applicant has appeared before the Planning Commission on March 11, 1991, James Lund, applicant. Case No. SUP/V/90-73. (All in favor) . UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4 i Stillwater City Council Minutes • Recessed Meeting February 5, 1991 1. Clarification of conditions for a Major Subdivision of an 88.5 acre site (Benson Farm) ; and Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat Approval , for a 212 unit single-family residential subdivision (Benson Farm), Ground Development, applicant. Case No. SUB/90-83 & PUD/90-84. Mr. Russell summarized the request. City Staff and the Consulting Engineer have met with the Developer and his Engineer. The Brick St. Lift Station and well site, method of payment for Pine Tree Trail , sideyard setbacks for residential units, park dedication and the Lily Lake pathway were discussed. Also included was buffering for the Industrial Park area. Mr. Russell stated the Developer would like to see some moderation of some of the conditions of approval . Consulting Engineer Moore updated Council on the sewer problems, i .e. the Brick St. Lift Station could accept 15 homes into its system and other undeveloped properties could also be added for a total of 25 homes. Richard Kilty, 118 W. Oak St., stated the size of the lots is substandard and the Council has never approved a substandard lot. If this is approved the Council will be breaking form with the Zoning Ordinance. Neal Skinner, owner of Industrial Park property, restated concerns in nis letter of January 28, 1991 by saying he doesn't think the screening is conducive to industrial development. Wayne Brady, Attorney and Real Estate Broker representing the Benson family, spoke regarding the size of the lots. The plan calls for a mixed use and is 100% single family. They could have chosen to put in a multi-family development. Mayor Abrahamson closed the public hearing. Council and Staff discussion followed regarding substandard lots and requests for variances at a future date, buffering between the development and industrial park land and choice for housing opportunities in the area. Mr. Fiterman addressed three conditions -- the Brick St. Lift Station, well site and setbacks. He would like to bring 15 homes into the Brick St. Lift Station, he would transfer title for well site land within 90 days of commencement of building instead of now, and they need the flexibility of setbacks for their building plan. Mr. Fiterman stated he would like to work with the City Attorney on wordage for conditions regulating the park dedication requirements. Neal Skinner asked whether the park location could be changed. Also the Park and Recreation Commission could give insight on this. Council discussion of conditions included that no more than 15 homes be added to the Brick St. Lift Station and that the Developer be required to notify neighbors that Industrial Parkland lies to the south of the project. 411 5 Stillwater City Council Minutes Recessed Meeting February 5, 1991 Council would also like to secure title to the parkland at the beginning to secure the project. Discussion followed regarding the turn-around on Pine Tree Trail . After a lack of consensus between the City and the Developer, Mr. Fiterman stated he would pull off the two lots on Pine Tree Trail . Motion by Councilmember Opheim, seconded by Councilmember Bodlovick to approve the Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat and Major Subdivision of an 88.5 acre site (Benson Farm), with the removal of two lots on Pine Tree Trail from the plat; including the fifteen conditions and the understanding that the Developer will work with City Attorney Magnuson regarding the parkland. Ayes - 4; Nays - 1, Councilmember Farrell . Council recessed for ten minutes and reconvened at 9:30 P.M. 2. Possible Appointments to the Heritage Preservation Commission. Motion by Councilmember Opheim, seconded by Councilmember Funke to approve the appointment of Katherine Francis and Tim Stefan to the Heritage Preservation Commission with terms ending on December 31, 1993. (All in favor) . 3. EMS Delegate Appointment. Council referred this item to the Fire Department for a recommendation by the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS 1. Establishment of "No Wake" Zone. Mr. Kriesel explained the-request for a "No Wake" policy by Mr. Craig. Ralph Bates, representing the Board of Directors for the Dock Ass'n. , stated they would also support this policy since the river has heavy use. Enforcement of the policy was also discussed. Motion by Councilmember Opheim, seconded by Councilmember Funke to refer the "No Wake Zone" issue to the Port Authority with instruction that they make a recommendation to the Council before April 15, 1991. (All in favor) . 2. Proposed Interim Waterfront Usage Policy. Mr. Kriesel explained this interim policy is proposed in order to alleviate the burden on space and parking areas due to the construction in the downtown area this coming summer. It would not allow any docks to be constructed on either public or private property, no Wharfage Permits shall be issued, the public waterfront shall be used for short term docking only of transient boats. The fees charged for existing wharfage and docking permits shall be reviewed annually. A man representing the Lady Chateau charter boat stated they have had a Wharfage Permit before and would like to continue this practice. They 6 • Stillwater City Council Minutes Recessed Meeting February 5, 1991 have no permanent dockage, but need a place to pick up and unload passengers. Other alternatives were suggested and the gentleman will make other contacts. Motion by Councilmember Funke, seconded by Councilmember Bodlovick to approve the Interim Waterfront Usage Policy, including the five conditions, as recommended by the City Coordinator. (All in favor). 3. Dock Permit Transfer. Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Funke to approve the transfer of the DNR Dock Permit to the St. Croix Boat & Packet Co. (All in favor). 4. Approval of 1991 City Dock Permit for St. Croix Boat and Packet Co. Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Funke to approve the 1991 Dock Permit for the St. Croix Boat & Packet Co. with a fee of $2,500. (All in favor). CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Opheim to approve the Consent Agenda of February 5, 1991, including the following: (All in • favor). 1. Resolution Directing Payment of Bills (Resolution No. 91-16) Ayes - Councilmembers Bodlovick, Farrell , Funke, Opheim and Mayor Abrahamson. Nays - None 2. The following Contractors Licenses: Brick ' n Stone Creations Masonry & Brick Work New 5829 Russell Ave. So. Minneapolis, Mn. 55410 General Sprinkler Corp. Fire Protection Systems Renewal 433 E. Little Canada Road St. Paul , Mn. 55117 D. M. Hawkinson o Home Imp. General Contractor Renewal 4891 Olson Lk. Trail Lake Elmo, Mn. 55042 L. A. Construction General Contractor Renewal 215 W. Myrtle St. Stillwater, Mn. 55082 Thompson Plumbing Corp. General Contractor Renewal 15001 Minnetonka Indus. Rd. Minnetonka, Mn. 55345 7 Stillwater City Council Minutes Recessed Meeting February 5, 1991 COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS Removal of excess signage in Downtown Area. Motion by Councilmember Funke, seconded by Councilmember Opheim to take down the excess signage in the Downtown Area by the Public Works Dept. as time permits. (All in favor) . COMMUNICATIONS/FYI 1. F. R. Weiser - Resignation from Downtown Action Committee. Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Opheim to accept Mr. F. R. Weiser's resignation from the Downtown Action Committee and send a thank you letter to him for his contribution to the Downtown Planning and Action Committees. (All in favor). 2. David Wettergren, Supt. of Schools - possible City participation in Preservation Consultation Team study of Stillwater Jr. H.S. facilities. Council discussed this item and directed Staff to tell the School District the City does not have the funds to invest in this item, but will give guidance for this issue and also ask the Heritage Preservation Commission to work with them. 3. Robert Lockyear, Pres. of SAEDC regarding funding for next three years. Council will discuss this further after the budget workshop on February 12, 1991. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS (Continued) Presentation of Plaque for Excellence in Financial Reporting. Mayor Abrahamson presented the plaque received for excellence in Financial reporting and will present this to Finance Director Diane Deblon for placement in her office. STAFF REPORTS (continued) Community Development Director - Vacancy on Downtown Plan Action Committee Mr. Russell stated that since the resignation of Bob Weiser was accepted, a replacement should be made. Council asked for a recommendation from the Committee. City Coordinator - Employment of Zamboni Operator Motion by Councilmember Bodlovick, seconded by Councilmember Farrell to adopt the appropriate resolution approving the employment of Pat Arney as part-time Zamboni Operator at Lily Lake Ice Arena. (Resolution No. 91-20) Ayes - Councilmembers Bodlovick, Farrell , Funke, Opheim and Mayor Abrahamson. Nays - None 8 Stillwater City Council Minutes Recessed Meeting February 5, 1991 Request for Garbage Waiver This item will be discussed at the meeting on February 12, 1991. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Farrell , seconded by Councilmember Funke to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 P.M. (All in favor) . MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Resolutions: No. 91-16 - Directing Payment of Bills. No. 91-18 - Approval of Pull-Tabs for Lake Elmo Jaycees for Harbour Bar. No. 91-19 - Approval of Agreement with Wash. Co. HRA for "Payment in Lieu of Taxes". No. 91-20 - Employment of Pat Arney as Zamboni Operator. 9 PS-09079-01(8/85) MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY •ONE612-296-6159 LIQUOR CONTROL DIVISION 333 SIBLEY • ST. PAUL, MN 55101 '7'111t1.$ APPLICATION AND PERMIT „;/: FOR FOR A 1 to 3 DAY TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE TYPE OR PRINT INFORMATION NAME OF ORGANIZATION DATE ORGANIZED NO.OF MEMBERS TAX EXEMPT NUMBER Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce 12/2/1981 440 Non-Profit STREET ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 423 South Main Street Stillwater MN 55082 - NAME OF PERSON MAKING APPLICATION BUSINESS PHONE HOME PHONE Sheryl E-Marshall ( 61P 439-7700 ( 612) 430-1687 DATES LIQUOR WILL BE SOLD?(1 TO 3 DAYS) DOES ORGANIZATION HAVE A CHARTER GENERAL PURPOSE OF ORGANIZATION March 22 , 23 , 24 , 1991 ,Yes El No Support & Promote Business ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAME ADDRESS Jack Junker, President 423 S. Main Street Stillwater ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAME ADDRESS Tom O 'Brien , President -Elect 423 S.Main Street , Stillwater ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAME ADDRESS Mike Morrison, Vice President 423 S. Main Street, Stillwater Location where license will be used.If an outdoor area,describe. State Army National Guard ( Armory ) 107 East Chestnut, Stillwater, MN 55082 Will the applicant contract for intoxicating liquor services?If so,give the name and address of the Liquor licensee providing the services. Brine ' s , 219 South Main Street, Stillwater, MN 55082 Will the applicant carry liquor liability insurance?If so,the carrier's name and amount of coverage. (Note:Insurance is not mandatory) • bmp ine fine and Martine CL(5/ (//-85) APPROVAL CITY OF DATE APPROVED CITY FEE AMOUNT LICENSE DATES DATE FEE PAID • APPROVED LIQUOR CONTROL DIRECTOR SIGNATURE CITY CLERK NOTE: Do not separate these two parts,send both parts to the address above and the original signed by this division will be returned as the license.Submit to the City Clerk at least 30 days before the event. t • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council AFR: Diane Deblon, Finance Director DA: February 14, 1991 RE: 1991 BUDGET The original 1991 Budget adopted at the public hearing in December was $4,599,163. At the City Council meeting on February 12, 1991, the City Council requested staff to make the cuts to the 1991 Budget as presented and discussed at the meeting. The effect of these cuts is to decrease total expenditures for the General Fund in 1991 to $4,447,577 (a decrease of $151,586). Revenues have also been decreased to reflect the estimated LGA loss for 1991. General Fund revenues now 1 total $4,492,319 ($44,742 more than expenditures). Capital Outlay expenditures for 1991 were also cut and a revised schedule is attached which reflects the balance of 1991 Capital Outlay items. The 1991 Capital Outlay cuts do not have a direct effect on the 1991 Budget expenditures, • but would affect the 1992 tax levy and are part of the City Council's action to begin planning for state aid losses expected in 1992. i RESOLUTION NO. q /- AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET Whereas, the City of Stillwater is expected to lose an estimated $89,141 in LGA; and Whereas, the City Council of the City of Stillwater is required to reduce expenditures according to the amount of lost revenue; and Whereas, the City Council of the City of Stillwater is anticipating the possibility of additional cuts in state aid for 1992. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, that the 1991 General Fund Budget be amended and adopted to 1991 revenues of $4,492,319 and expenditures of $4,447,577. Adopted this 19th day of February 1991. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 1991 CAPITAL OUTLAY Administration/Finance P.C. and Printer 3,000 Microfiche reader/printer 2,500 Two Typewriters 1,600 Total $ 7,100 Plant/City Hall Roof Fire Hall 37,000 Snowblower 1,650 Total $38,650 Fire Adjustable stands for exhaust fans 500 Electric Motor for hurst rescue tool 2,500 Motor driven exhaust fan 1,200 New computer printer 500 Total $4,700 Civil Defense Siren $18,000 Public Works - General Tape Binder for Plans $500 Streets Grader or Sweeper $90,000 Shop Gas Tank Removal $50,000 , Testing Equipment and Tools 6,000 Total $56,000 General Fund Total $214,950 1 1991 CAPITAL OUTLAY Library Fund Photocopier 3,500 Central site equipment/years lease purchase 23,333 Telecommunications equipment 10,000 Terminals 9 @ $500/each 4,500 Light pen for reference 750 Other building capital expenses 2,883 Total $44,966 Parks Cushioning material under playground apparatus $18,000 Drinking fountains (6) 5,000 Total $23,000 Sewer Lift Station $ 75,000 Solid Waste Fund Recycling Bins $22,195 Lily Lake Fund Relight outside of Arena 2,500 Capital Project Fund Armory Land Purchase $300,000 GRAND TOTAL $682,611 S 2 • Stillwater Public Library 1990 Capital Requests Interior Lighting $2390 Large Print Shelving $ 650 Microfilm Reader / Printer $5010 Display Racks for CDs and Video $1100 lm ntati.o,n $°°_.60.0-- 10 Chairs $ 950 i • ' ato r THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA • MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY COORDINATOR DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 1991 RE: TIM THOMSEN'S 1991 SALARY. When Tim Thomsen was appointed to the Assistant Public Works Director/Parks Supervisor position , the Council ( per the recommendation of the Selection Committee) set his salary at $33,500. The Committee based their salary recommendation on the salary that would be made by other Parkkeepers and then added $2,000 to this amount as follows: 1991 Parkkeepers Salary $29,494.00 . Longevity (15 year step) 2,040.00 Sub Total $31,534.00 Salary Differential 2,000.00 Parks Supervisor Salary $33,534.00 ($33,500.00) (rounded) Tim has now informed me he thought the salary was to be adjusted further along with other supervisory salaries. I have told him my understanding is that the salary shown above and in the enclosed resolution was to be his salary for 1991. Perhaps the Council can clarify what their intent was in this matter Tuesday night. S CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 RESOLUTION NO. 91-3 APPROVING TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT OF TIM THOMSEN AS ASS'T. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/ PARKS MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota that the temporary employment of Tim Thomsen as Assistant Public Works Director/Parks Maintenance Supervisor, from and after January 16, 1991, for a probationary period of one year, is hereby approved; and that as compensation for services the said Tim Thomsen shall receive the sum of $33,500 per year together with all other benefits for Exempt Employees as described in the City Employee Personnel Manual dated November 1, 1988. Adopted by the Council this 8th day of January, 1991. MAYOR ATTEST: _/,_ - ITY C All"/4a. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD LAKES DIVISION 4105 North Lexington Ave. Arden Hills, Minnesota 55126 February 12, 1991 Richard E. Moore, City Engineer City of Stillwater 216 North 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Moore: Enclosed in duplicate is Pipeline Permit to cover a 48-inch storm water pipeline at Survey Station 665 + 50, Mile Post 12.60, Line Segment 65, in Stillwater, MN. Both copies should be signed in the presence of witnesses and returned to this office for signature on behalf of the Burlington Northern. One copy will be returned to you for your records. With the return of the signed permits, please attach your check made • payable to Burlington Northern Railroad Company in the amount of • $450.00, as specified in the agreement. Prior to entry upon railroad right-of-way, proof of proper insurance coverage as outlined in attached copy of BN Insurance Requirements must be furnished to this office. If any workers, machinery, or materials are to be within 25 feet of the centerline of a track (except in cases where the track can be taken out of service), a Burlington Northern flagman will be necessary, at your expense. Please contact this office at(612) 490-6031 at least 48 hours in advance of work commencement. Sincerely, R. C. Ellis Terminal Superintendent By: A. 1. Solem AJ S/rj h Attachment IP File: Stillwater- 34 ,594 ENGINEERS II ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE ST PAUL,MINNESOTA 55110 612 490-2000 December 26, 1990 RE: STILLWATER, MINNESOTA CITY ENGINEER HUDSON STREET SEH FILE NO: 89114 Honorable Mayor and City Council • City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Council Members: The City Council asked the City Engineer to review a request for paving Hudson Street east of South Sixth Avenue, with the Public Works Director. The City Engineer was to report back to the Council. This review was requested after the Council received a letter from Mr. Peter Furseth at 809 Sixth Avenue South. Since the property at 809 Sixth Avenue South is lower than the street, any drainage on the north side of Hudson Street will wash down the driveway and across the yard area. There is an existing catch basin on the south side of Hudson Street which drains to the storm sewer system in Sixth Avenue South. This catch basin has been partially blocked with wood apparently by residents on the street. We would recommend that a catch basin and short length of pipe be constructed on the north side of Hudson Street west of the driveway entrance to house number 809. This work could be accomplished by City public works personnel. The catch basin on the south side of Hudson Street also serves as the bottom step for a set of stairs that comes down the bank from a house on parcel 8480. The property on the south side of Hudson Street is above the street surfacing. At one time there was a rail on the north edge of the existing catch basin serving as a stoop for the stairway allowing people to step off the concrete structure to the west. We would recommend that this ornate rail be replaced by public works personnel. The railing supports can be fastened into the concrete cover of the catch basin for sturdiness so the boards that were placed in the catch basin opening on Hudson Street could be removed and the full opening of the catch basin utilized for drainage. SHORT ELLIOTT ST.PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS, HENDRICKSON INC. MINNESOTA WISCONSIN S • City of Stillwater December 26, 1990 Page #2 It is proposed that public works personnel also regrade Hudson Street to direct runoff into the new catch basin constructed west of the driveway to house number 809 and into the existing catch basin on the south side of Hudson Street. Public works personnel would also place the aggregate base required on the street prior to paving. We estimate the cost of the additional storm sewer and revisions to the existing catch basin to be approximately $600 for materials. There may be some additional costs such as backhoe rental. The Public Works Director obtained an estimate from Tower Asphalt to do the paving in 1990 of $1,800. This did not include the installation of a bituminous berm on the north side 1 of the street to keep water from running onto lower property. If the total cost quoted by Tower Asphalt remains the same in 1991, we estimate it would cost approximately another $200 for the berm, or a total of $2,000. The public works personnel can salvage the existing gravel before doing any grading. We estimate there may be some additional Class 5 required to provide • the proper foundation for paving. We estimate the cost of the additional Class 5 to be approximately $295. The total estimate would be $2, 895. According to past City policy, all the residents on the street have agreed to pay for the project cost and would then be assessed accordingly. However, in the case of Hudson Street, not all the property owners have signed the request, or have agreed to the need for paving the street. However, it is a drainage problem for the owners at house number 809 Sixth Avenue South because of their elevation below the road. This property has been developed for a number of years and the grades were established many years ago by previous city engineers and/or public works personnel. Because of the terrain and the proximity of the bluff line, etc. , it was probably difficult at the time to change the adjacent property grades. At this time, however, with an improved concrete driveway, it appears that drainage and washing of gravel, etc. , onto the lower property is a problem. By improving the street and constructing a bituminous berm on the north side, the water can be channeled so less runoff is directed onto developed property. Also the installation of an additional catch basin on the north side would enhance the drainage considerably. We have included a map indicating the project location and Drawing No. 2 indicating the proposed improvements. • City of Stillwater December 26, 1990 Page #3 We would be pleased to review this report with the Council at your discretion. Sincerely, SHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON, INC. 474 t Richard E. Moore, P.E. REM/cih Enclosure I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the s of the State of. Minnesota. 16,44/ ( DATE: ZVAZ/Z7 REG. NO. 14691 S , _ ,.,..,-. ‘...,_\_,L,,,. ir:i,...i.i,... nt,- ..-. ,,...c.-- \ •• etc ,.. 22 -'''' , ..roftiliit \ \ \ nocorort• ,3 ./''' i; . ,.. lo ipt \\ \ (, \ • roil --''''::-- 'X' N 00 1111 ' VA \- .... 0;l1.09, ''''. \ \ )f '.. 0 \�c w $ *'<a,, ° �,v' C ' . j ell le ,V.,,,,\.- 39 :-')' 400011111A frof \ s" _ '1- \WO Wiik -- I IlL r--- _ A j *? °,,� ,3 ' 1 0111111 R.IHsI u. _ _ _ \.'\.-* PROJ T LOCATION om.w e Ill\M M -- -- — -- -- _— \ ' _�_ 4. nr o p. M 11= R= .,.,- ©..y_ •nom 3 \_— - -- —_ _ _ •T � -II -- ........ ..... MIN NMI .. \ . dL. i� ism ._:.r.•.7r f,2,_TJ ��TV 1 .�. !LO l:>•t. ..La -ti . 1570 t1.L1O • I� 7 _ �_'3'- a /P _ Bin MFR t®o MI.► \ srF' rte "tC1tt0• a• g . M _ .... 7 - ' imime =suss mm x'71! rrri t C" '�' .r_ -}9- -per r / SCHOOL .. e._ +._ --d , - - i:LANE EP. 4 -- PARR a '� L7.-' Y 1 t_ : rQ IORLEAIA r EL s • / \ kii L,—r- • [CORPORATE L/M/TSB- —s 1 1\-\-- - UPPER�( - - li \ ill P.- CEMETERY L�� 0' ! 1 \ HE d a .(gyp \ i \\.\\ . i .:-..4-L-L-1 i...CORPORATE LIMITS• -*T �-j �-T $ ,I. 1\A COUNTY I / \ I--- COURT / t 1\\ ,� \t, \ \ V ^.J� rJ 1t, • -L---- -- ._ J FILE NO. __sap HUDSON ST. 89114 Amur ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS IN PLANNERS S T I L LWAT E R, M N. DRG1 N0. • • FIFTH AVE. SO. . PARCEL 9850 -/ 4 / 0". '- .1(/ END PAVEMENT DRIVE • '� I I,8� REVISE EXIST. E.B. BY CITY DRIVE PUBLIC WORK S • CONSTRUCT NEW C.B. aa PIPE BY CITY PUBLIC WORKS 1 20 • PARCEL PARCEL I DRIVE 8 4 8 0 9520 � H.O. NO. 809 • I l SIXTH AVE. SO. FILE NO. sal HUDSON ST. 89114 AMirr STILLWATER, MN. ORG 2N0. ENGINEERS■ARCHITECTS■PLANNERS • DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1990, between the CITY OF STILLWATER, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, (hereinafter called the "City" ) , and COTTAGES PHASE III LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership (hereinafter called the "Developers" ) ; WITNESSETH THAT, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Introduction. 1 .01 . The Property. The Developers now own the Property described as Lot 1 , Block 2, The Cottages of Stillwater, 1st Addition, (the "Property") , located in the City of Stillwater, Minnesota. 1 .02. Zoning. The Developers have made application to • the City under the City zoning ordinance for approval to develop the property as a Planned Unit Development. The Planning Commission and the City Council have reviewed the application in accordance with Minnesota law, the City Charter, and ordinances, and have given final PUD approval to the development, subject to the conditions of approval contained in City Planning Case No. PUD/89-2 which are made a part of this Agreement by reference. 1 .03. The Project. The Developers, in accordance with City approval, plan to construct or cause to be constructed on the Property a 56 unit elderly residential facility (the "Project") . 1 .04. Public Improvements; Hearing. The Developers have filed with the City a Petition requesting that the City construct a sanitary sewer, lift station, force main and appurtenances necessary to serve the Project. The City Council by its Resolution accepted the Petition, designated the proposed improvements as Local Improvement No. 256 and authorized the City's Consulting Engineer, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, Inc. (the "Consulting Engineer") , to prepare a Feasibility Report concerning Improvement No. 256, subject to this agreement being executed and subject to the terms and conditions contained in this agreement. 1 .05. Public Improvements; Plans, Specifications;p ications; Bids. Upon request by the Developers, the City Council has authorized the Consulting Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for Improvement No. 256. • The sanitary sewer and lift station, force main and appurtenances described in the plans and specifications and any modifications or additions duly made by change order, add-on, or add-alternate, are hereinafter referred to as the "Improvements. " 1 .06. Order of Improvements; Award of Contracts. The Developers have requested the City Council to order the construction of Improvement No. 256 , to enter into contract for the construction of the Improvements, and to pay and finance the cost thereof as hereinafter provided. The City is willing to take this action because of the promises of the Developers in this Agreement. Section 2. Developers' Representations. The Developers represent to the City that the statements set forth in this section are true. 2.01 . No Disability. The Developers know of no legal disability that would prevent them from carrying out this agreement. 2.02. Ownership. The Developers are well seized in fee simple and have marketable title to the Property. 2.03. Execution No Violation. The execution and performance of this Agreement does not result in any breach of, or constitute a default under, any indenture, mortgage, contract, agreement or instrument to which the Developers or their property is bound. 2.04. Litigation. There are no pending or, to the knowledge of the Developers, threatened actions or proceedings before any court or administrative agency which will materially adversely affect the financial condition, business or operation of the Developers or the ability of the Developers to perform their obligations under this Agreement. 2.05. Compliance. The Developers will comply with and duly and promptly perform all of their obligations under this Agreement and all related documents and instruments. 2.06. Waiver. The Developers waive the right to an Improvement Hearing under Minnesota Chapter 429 and request that the City waive the Improvement Hearing. S 2.07. Easements. The Developers shall furnish to the City upon request and without charge all permanent and construction easements as designated in said plans and specifications and deeds to property deemed necessary by the City for the location, construction, installation and operation of the Improvements in form and content 2 satisfactory to the City. 2.08. Fees and Charges. The Developers will pay to the City when due, all consultant fees incurred by the City in behalf of or at the request of the Developers, all special assessments, interest and other amounts due with respect to the Project as hereinafter provided and will pay to the City when due, all permit fees, connection charges, user charges or other charges lawfully imposed by the City, with respect to all portions of the Property. Unless such fees or charges are made part of the Project costs pursuant to Section 4 of this Agreement, all sums due under this Section shall be due within 30 days of written notice given to the Developers by the City. Any sums remaining unpaid 30 days thereafter may be spread by the City as a service charge against the property and certified to the County Auditor for collection with the real estate taxes. 2.09. Transfer of Project. Until all bonds issued by the City to finance the Improvements are paid in full or discharged in accordance with the resolutions authorizing their issuance, the Developers shall not voluntarily sell, assign or transfer substantially all of their interest in the Project or any part thereof • without the written consent of the City which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Nothing herein shall prevent or apply to the sale, in the ordinary course of business, but such sale shall in no way affect or diminish the obligations of the Developers under this Agreement. 2.10. Sidewalks. If constructed as part of this project or a future project, the Developers agree to pay one half of the cost of the installation of a sidewalk that is across the street from the Property on the North and East sides of Cottage Drive. The City agrees to spread the Developers' share of this cost as a special assessment against the Developers' property according to the terms and pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. Section 3. City's Action. 3.01. Improvement No. 256. The City will order the construction of Local Improvement No. 256 in accordance with law, and shall award and enter into a contract for the construction of the Improvements and shall cause the Improvements to be constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications. The City shall have the right • to order such modifications in the work and the construction contract therefor as are recommended by the Consulting Engineer and/or are deemed necessary or desirable by the City. Copies of all proposed modifications in the construction contract or the work 3 • shall be furnished to the Developers prior to their consideration and approval by the City Council. 3.02. Financing. The City shall sell and issue its General Obligation Improvement Bonds, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, in an amount sufficient with all moneys available and appropriated for the purpose, to finance its obligations for the Improvements. Section 4. Cost Recovery. 4.01. Cost of Improvements. Upon completion of the work and payment of all costs of the Improvements or upon estimates of the costs or upon abandonment of the project by the City, the City shall compute the actual cost of the Improvements and the amount thereof allocable to the Property, and shall furnish this information to the Developers. The City Coordinator shall thereafter provide to the Developers all such further information and documents as are requested by it in order to verify such costs and computations. 4.02. Special Assessments; Amount and Allocation. The • amount of the special assessments levied on the Property as a whole shall be based upon the actual cost of the Improvements insofar as available and on reasonable estimates of the cost insofar as actual costs are not available, as reasonably determined by the City. The amount of such cost to be allocated to and specially assessed against the Property as a whole shall be determined in accordance with the Feasibility Report, which may be revised from time to time to reflect any add-on, add-alternates or change orders that are duly made in the construction contracts for construction of the Improvements. The assessments shall be allocated among the various parcels benefiting from the Improvement according to the relationship that the square footage of the Developers ' property bears to the total square footage of property being assessed in the Improvement Project. Property encumbered by streets, storm water retention areas and sewer and water easements will not be included in this ratio and will not be assessed. An adjustment may be made, if recommended by the City Engineer, based on proposed uses that carry a more intense contribution to any public facility within the Project, provided that the adjustment, if any, be made on a rational basis. The sidewalk to be constructed from Orleans Street to County Road Five on the North and East sides of Cottage Drive, even though constructed on one side of the street, will be spread against property owners on both 4 sides of the street on an equal front-foot basis. The Developers agree that this allocation is fair and reasonable and will result in the allocation of costs and the levy of special assessments on the Property as a whole, which are equal to or less than the special benefit accruing to the Property from the Improvements. The Developers waive any objection to any irregularity with regard to the Improvement assessments and any claim that the amount levied is excessive. The Developers also waive the right to an Improvement Hearing. This waiver is freely given in consideration for the benefits that the Developers expect to receive from the Development of the Property. Section 5. Additional Security. 5.01. Payment of Estimated Assessments. Upon the sale or transfer of any lot or parcel of the Property other than an approved sale or transfer under Section 2.09 prior to the actual levy and filing of the special assessments to be levied thereon as herein provided, the Developers shall pay to the City Treasurer an amount equal to 110% of the amount of the special assessments which would be levied on such lot or parcel based upon the Estimated Cost of the Improvements and the estimated assessments as determined by the City. Section 6. General Provision. 6.01 . Release from Prior Contract. Upon the execution of this agreement, the City releases the Developers and the Property from any terms, convenants, conditions, burdens or restrictions contained in the Contract for Private Redevelopment dated March 17, 1987, between the City and Orleans Homes Number Two, a Minnesota Limited Partnership, and Orleans Homes Number Three, a Minnesota Limited Partnership. 6.02. Release from Prior Development Agreement. Upon the execution of this agreement, the City releases the Developers and the Property from any terms, covenants, conditions, burdens or restrictions in that Development Agreement dated March 3, 1983 , filed December 3, 1989, as Document No. 67958. 6.03. Subordination. This agreement is hereby subordinated to that certain FHA Mortgage dated , 1990 , and filed , 1990, as Document No. , executed by Cottages Phase III Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, in favor of Nichols/Conlan Financial Company, a Minnesota corporation, which FHA Mortgage was assigned to First 5 • Trust National Association, as trustee, under that certain Indenture of Trust dated as of February 1 , 1991 , executed by and between Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority as Issuer and First Trust National Association as Trustee. This Section shall not operate to subordinate the lien for assessments for local improvements created or to be created by the City pursuant to Section 4 of this agreement, which lien shall retain the priority to which it is entitled by operation of law. 6.04. Enforcement by City; Damages. The Developers acknowledge the right of the City to enforce the terms of this Agreement against the Developers, by action for specific performance or damages, or both, or by any other legally authorized means. The Developers also acknowledge that their failure to perform any or all of their obligations under this Agreement may result in substantial damages to the City; that in the event of default by the Developers, the City may commence legal action to recover all damages, losses and expenses sustained by the City; and that such expenses may include but are not limited to the reasonable fees of • legal counsel employed with respect to the enforcement of this Agreement. 6.05. Termination. Provided that all of the Developers ' obligations required by Section 6.03 are executed, this Agreement shall terminate when all of the bonds issued to finance the cost of the Improvements pursuant to this Agreement, and the interest thereon, have been paid in full or the City' s obligation with respect thereto has been discharged in accordance with law and the resolutions authorizing their issuance; provided that all of the Developers ' obligations in this Agreement are satisfied. Any fees or charges due under Section 2.08 shall survive the termination and continue to be enforceable by the City. Section 7. Administrative Provisions. 7.01 . Notices. All Notices, certificates or other communications required to be given to the City and the Developers hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when delivered, or when deposited in the United States mail in registered form with postage fully prepaid and addressed, as follows: 411 If to the City: City of Stillwater City Hall 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 6 !II If to Developers: Harold Teasdale Cottages Phase III Limited Partnership 4530 Excelsior Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 The City and the Developers, by notice given hereunder, may designate different addresses to which subsequent notices, certificates or other communications shall be sent. 7. 02. Severability. In the event any provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City has caused this Agreement to be executed in its corporate name by its duly authorized officers and sealed with its corporate seal; and the Developers have executed this Agreement at Stillwater, Minnesota, the day and year first above written. CITY OF STILLWATER: By: Wally Abrahamson, Mayor And: Mary Lou Johnson, City Clerk DEVELOPERS: COTTAGES PHASE III LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership By: Cottages Phase III Partnership, a Minnesota partnership Its: General Partner By: Harold W. Teasdale, Partner By: Robert M. Iversen, Partner -7- ` •+ i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) On this day of , 1991, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, appeared Wally Abrahamson and Mary Lou Johnson, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Stillwater, and that this instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the City by authority of its City Council, and they acknowledge that said instrument was the free act and deed of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1991, by Harold W. Teasdale and Robert M. Iversen, Partners of Cottages Phase III Partnership, a Minnesota partnership, the General Partner of Cottages Phase III Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, Developers named in the foregoing instrument, on behalf of said partnership. Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: David T. Magnuson Magnuson & Moberg 324 South Main Street Stillwater, MN 55082 -8- LICENSE The City of Stillwater hereby grants to Cottages Phase III Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Licensee") , its successors and assigns, a License to construct and maintain a retaining wall on Cottage Drive, a public street in the City of Stillwater, in accordance with and subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. PUBLIC PROPERTY. The public property is the improved portion of Cottage Drive between Orleans Street and Stillwater Boulevard (the "Public Property") as described in Exhibit "A". 2. RETAINING WALL. The Public Property will be used for constructing and maintaining a retaining wall (the "Wall") for the purpose of providing lateral support for residential dwelling units proposed to be constructed on an adjacent parcel (the "Property") described as Lot 1, Block 2, The Cottages of Stillwater 1st Addition, according to the Plat thereof on file with the Register of Titles, Washington County, Minnesota. 3 . PERPETUAL RIGHTS. The rights to the Public Property granted hereunder are perpetual and shall be appurtenant to and shall run with and bind the Public Property. 4. VESTED RIGHTS. The Licensee acquires no vested rights in any Public Property beyond what is expressly granted by this License. 5. STANDARDS AND DESIGN. The design, location on the ground, and the grading and the building of the Wall shall be the sole responsibility of the Licensee, subject to the limitations set forth in this License. 6. EROSION CONTROL. The Licensee shall establish turf as soon as possible on any areas exposed by construction of the Wall, and shall provide erosion control devices to prevent erosion during construction and after completion. 7. MAINTENANCE. The Licensee shall be responsible for the construction and reconstruction of the Wall and shall be responsible for maintaining the Wall in a safe condition so that it will not cause damage or risk of harm to the City or risk of harm to the public. 8. ASSESSMENT. In the event the City deems it necessary or is compelled to improve the Wall, the Licensee agrees to pay an assessment equal to the costs associated with the improvements. 9. HOLD HARMLESS. In consideration of the issuance of this License, Licensee agrees to release and forever discharge the City of Stillwater, its officers, agents and employees from • any and all claims or causes of action based upon the condition or design of the Wall, and Licensee agrees that they- are proceeding at their own risk with the construction of dwelling units on adjacent property based upon conditions that are now in place and without any assurances from the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has hereunto set its hand and seal this day of February, 1991. Wally Abrahamson, Mayor Attest: Mary Lou Johnson, City Clerk ACCEPTANCE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Licensee has hereunto set its hand in acceptance of the conditions set forth in this License this day of February, 1991. LICENSEE: Cottages Phase III Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership By: Cottages Phase III Partnership, a Minnesota partnership Its: General Partner By: Harold W. Teasdale, Partner By: Robert M. Iversen, Partner r ' STATE OF MINNESOTA) • COUNTY OF ) ss. ) On this day of February, 1991, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, appeared Wally Abrahamson, and Mary Lou Johnson, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the Mayor and the City Clerk of the City of Stillwater, and that this instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the City by authority of its City Council, and they acknowledge that said instrument was the free act and deed of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of February, 1991, by Harold W. Teasdale and Robert M. Iversen, Partners of Cottages Phase III Partnership, a Minnesota partnership, the General Partner of Cottages Phase III Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, Licensee named in the foregoing instrument, on behalf of said limited partnership. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN, LTD. 3989 Central Avenue N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55421 (612) 788-1644 EXHIBIT A A 10. 00 foot strip of land being part of Cottage Avenue, the northerly line of said strip is described as follows: Beginning at the most westerly corner of Lot 1, Block 2, THE COTTAGES OF STILLWATER 1ST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence South 57 degrees 10 minutes 37 seconds East along the northerly line of Cottage Avenue a distance of 190.91 feet; thence 56.23 feet along the northerly line of Cottage Avenue and along a tangential curve concave to the north having a radius of 100. 00 feet and a central angle of 32 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds and said line there terminating. QUIT CLAIM DEED Corporation or Partnership to Corporation or Partnership IIP No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) not required Certificate of Real Estate Value No. , 19 County Auditor by Deputy (reserved for recording data) STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON $ Date: , 19 FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, The City of Stillwater, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota Grantor(s) , hereby convey(s) and quitclaim(s) to Cottages Phase III Limited Partnership, Grantee, a Minnesota limited partnership under the laws of the State of Minnesota, real property in Washington . County, Minnesota, described as follows: Lot 1, Block 2, The Cottages of Stillwater 1st Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Titles, in the County of Washington, State of Minnesota. By this instrument the City of Stillwater hereby releases and forever discharges the real estate described herein from any charge, obligation or requirement contained in that certain Development Agreement dated March 3, 1983 , filed December 3 , 1984, as document number 67958, by and between the City of Stillwater, a municipal corporation and Paul D. Emerson and Ann E. Emerson, husband and wife, Developer. The Seller certifies that the Seller does not know of any wells on the described real property. together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. The City of Stillwater By: Wally Abrahamson Its: Mayor By: Mary Lou Johnson Its: City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this — day of February , 1991 by Wally Abrahamson , and Mary Lou Johnson the Mayor and City Clerk of The City of Stillwater, a Municipal Corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the City of Stillwater. Notary Tax Statements should be sent to: THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Harold W. Teasdale BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN, LTD. Cottages Phase III 3989 Central Avenue NE Limited Partnership Suite 600 4530 Excelsior Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55421 Minneapolis, MN 55416 • F m No.31-M—QUIT CLAIM DEED Minnesota Uniform Conveyancing Blanks(1978) Miller-Davis Co..Minneapolis 1--- Corporation or Partnership to Corporation or Partnership No delinquent taxes and transfer entered;Certificate of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) not required Certificate of Real Estate Value No. , 1a County Auditor by Deputy STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ Date:. , 19 (reserved for recording data) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, The City of Stillwater , a Municipal Corp. under the laws of the State of Minnesota , Grantor,hereby conveys and quitclaims to Cottages Phase III Limited Partnership , Grantee, a MN limited partnership under the laws of the State of Minnesota ,real property in Washington County,Minnesota, described as follows: Lot 1 , Block 2, Cottages of Stillwater First Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Titles,' in the County of Washington, State of Minnesota. By this instrument the City of Stillwater hereby releases and forever i discharges the real estate described herein from any charge, obligation i or requirement contained in that certain Development Agreement dated March 3 , 1983, filed December 3, 1984, as document number 67958, by and between the City of Stillwater, a municipal corporation and Paul D. Emerson and Ann E. Emerson, husband and wife, Developer. 1 (if more space is needed,continue on back) together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here By Its By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA , ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 9 1 , , i by and the and of The City of Stillwater ,a Municipal Corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota , on behalf of the City of Stillwater . NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL(OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) 0 r t ' SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT Tax Statements for the real property described in this instrument should be sent to(Include name and address of Grantee): i I THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY(NAME AND ADDRESS): David T. Magnuson Magnuson & Moberg 324 South Main Street Stillwater, MN 55082 MAGNUSON & MOBERG ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE GRAND GARAGE&GALLERY 324 SOUTH MAIN STREET STILLWATER,MN 55082 David T. Magnuson Telephone: (612)439-9464 James I.Moberg Telecopier: (612) 439-5641 February 14, 1991 Mr. Tom Donovan Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. 3989 Central Avenue NE Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55421 -3985 Re: Cottages Phase III Dear Tom: Enclosed is the proposed Quit Claim Deed that would hopefully allow the Examiner or Register of Titles to remove the memorial on the Certificate of Title relating to this Development Agreement. I am sending a copy of this instrument to Harold Kimmel for his review, and to James Meunier, Universal Title, 777 Washington Avenue South, Edina, Minnesota 55439. Yours very truly, David T. Magnuson DTM/cs Enclosure cc: Nile Kriesel Nile - Could we put this on the agenda for the meeting of February 19th? • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss• • COUNTY OP WASHINGTON ) • MAYOR'S CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL . • I, Wallace L. Abrahamson, Mayor of the City of Stillwater, do hereby certify • as follows: 1. I am the. chief elected executive officer of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota. 2. The Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") is authorized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C and Ordinance No. 633 of the City of Stillwater to issue revenue bonds pursuant to a program for the financing of a residential rental housing project. 3. The Authority held a public hearing on April 11, 1990 in accordance with Section 147(f)of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), after publication of notice no fewer than 14 days.before the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the County. With respect to the issuance of up to $2,850,000 in Multifamily Residential Rental Bonds to finance the acquisition and construction of a 56-unit multifamily rental housing project (the "Project") located • at the northeast corner of the intersection of Cottage Drive and County Road 5 In • the City of Stillwater,to be owned by Cottages Phase III Limited Partnership. 4. The issuance of the Authority's Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Cottages Phase III Project), Series 1991 in the aggregate principal amount of $2,500,000 to finance the Project to be owned by Cottages Phase III Limited Partnership, is hereby approved. Such approval constitutes the public approval • pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code. . Dated: , 1991. • Wallace L. Abrahamson Mayor, City of Stillwater • • • • • • • • • • 1345 Northland Drive Mendota Heights,Minnesota 55120 B m u Phone 612/683-8700 Fax:612/683-8888 Quality Services Since 1957 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • February 11, 1991 Mr. Nile Kriesel City Coordinator City of Stillwater 216 North 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: CMKX-91-P046 PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT A SOILS INVESTIGATION Proposed Downtown Improvement Project Stillwater, Minnesota SEH File #89255.01 Dear Mr. Kriesel: Braun Intertec Environmental, Inc. (Braun Intertec) is pleased to present to you this proposal • to conduct a soils investigation to be completed in conjunction with the referenced project. The purpose of this investigation is to obtain information required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The MPCA will use the information to prepare a formal "Request To Take Corrective Action"(Request)related to the excavation of petroleum contaminated soil during the referenced project. Jon Carlson of Braun Intertec and Michael Kraemer of Short-Elliott- Hendrickson,Inc.met with Jane Boerboom of the MPCA on January 25, 1991. At that time,Ms. Boerboom requested the following information in order to process the Request. 1. Approximate location and volume of petroleum-contaminated soils to be excavated. 2. Possible sources of the petroleum contamination. 3. Recommended parameters for analysis of soil samples and groundwater samples. 4. Recommendations for field screening of soil samples. 5. Recommendations for treatment/disposal of the excavated contaminated soil. 6. Cost estimates for proper handling and disposal of the contaminated soil. Braun Intertec has designed the following scope of services to obtain this information. Environmental Consulting and Testing Offices in Minnesota,Wisconsin,Illinois,North Dakota and Montana 0 - CMKX-91-P046 City of Stillwater -2- February 11, 1991 SCOPE OF SERVICES Braun Intertec proposes to complete three soil borings, one in each of the three areas shown on the attached sketch, each to a depth of about 10 feet. The purpose of these soil borings will be to obtain soil samples for visual inspection, field screening and chemical analyses. The soil borings will be drilled using a truck-mounted rotary drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers. All drilling materials will be steam cleaned prior to their use at the site. Soil samples will be collected during the drilling operations at 2.5-foot vertical intervals to the termination depth of the boring. These soil samples will be collected according to American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) method for "Penetration Test and Split-barrel Sampling of Soil", ASTM D 1586. The soil samples will be visually examined by an environmental geologist for staining and other signs of apparent contamination. In addition, the soil samples will be screened with a photoionization detector (PID) for the presence of organic vapors using jar headspace procedures. One soil sample and one groundwater sample will be collected from each of the three suspected areas of contamination for subsequent chemical analyses. These soil and groundwater samples will be transported under refrigerated conditions to the Braun Intertece"laboratory and analyzed for the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), total hydrocarbons (THC), methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), and total lead. As requested by the MPCA, Braun Intertec will review information provided by the MPCA and • conduct a reconnaissance of the suspected areas of contamination in order to evaluate potential sources of the petroleum contamination. Based on the results of the soil borings and laboratory analyses, Braun Intertec will evaluate appropriate treatment/disposal methods for the contaminated soil and groundwater that may be removed during the excavation observations. Following the completion of these activities, Braun Intertec will prepare a report describing the results of the investigation,and our methods and conclusions. In addition, the report will contain our recommendations for: • on-site monitoring of the soil excavation; • evaluation of excavated soils for possible petroleum contamination; • appropriate handling and treatment/disposal of contaminated soils; and • appropriate handling and disposal of contaminated groundwater, if dewatering of the excavation trenches is necessary. Braun Intertec will also prepare cost estimates for the work necessary to carry out our recommendations. UMUHT~ • CMKX-91-P046 • City of Stillwater -3- February 11, 1991 PROJECTED COSTS The projected costs associated with the services outlined in this proposal are summarized below: Service Description Projected Costs Soil Borings (three soil borings to a depth of 10 feet each) $1,500 Environmental Geologist to collect and screen soil samples (including equipment and traveling expenses) 500 Laboratory analyses of three soil samples and three groundwater samples for VOCs, THC, MTBE and lead 2,040 Potential Contamination Source Identification 500 Soil Treatment/Disposal Options Evaluation 1,000 • Project Coordination, Supervision and Report Preparation 1.400 TOTAL 6,940 The actual costs may be more or less than the projected costs, but the total projected cost will not be exceeded without your additional authorization. Terms for payment are net 30 days with interest added to unpaid balances according to the attached General Conditions,which are a part of this contract. SCHEDULE Current scheduling will permit us to begin the scope of services within 10 working days of receipt of authorization. Excluding delays beyond our control, our final report will be prepared and submitted about 10 working days after the completion of the field work and laboratory analyses. S B CMKX-91-P046 City of Stillwater -4- February 11, 1991 Ili GENERAL We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal to you. It is being presented in duplicate so, if it is acceptable to you, one copy can be retained for your records and one copy can be signed and returned to us as written authorization to proceed. If you have questions, please call Jon A. Carlson at (612) 683-8760 or Jonathan P. Nedved at (612) 683-8753. Very truly yours, BRAUN INTER C ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. ,� �.n A. Carlson Project Manager/Geologist 1. CrettAAA._ 7 LW), -1-62,) (,J'onathan P. Nedved /Supervisor, Remedial Services JAC\JPN:lgj9\CMXP046.JAN • Attachments: Site Sketch General Conditions IP UR/Aun. CMKX-91-P046 • City of Stillwater -5- February 11, 1991 Please proceed according to the above stated terms: Client's Name Authorized Signature Title Date • HR/lU!! • FROM BRAUN ENG. ST. PRUL 1. 7. 1991 15139 P. 2 r4 1 tn eh en I 8.- > O a ¢ a A 1.164.0tal. it */ • ii 7 tS/ . 1 1 .6. N C1 . i . 1 ;, N a a u4ssalt+t vrlusr ' 00 � I P i R. 1 t Ir 4 l' '" h ^�'1 RS -. -. f? I"+ ri I Jr F tzr. 174. r•' O Y �. M t > .:ar) 4 1:_t v a 4 ,. 0 i• �: A 4 sr Sf ' PA VI:11X � T�� ''J C)'-. vl •1a O Q w,_... ;„ rx 6 d k0 DL+YL � r _ 1 � x y /s if •F 11. 41 C f� Y1 r4 t4 VA j V E i 41 , N. 1 el 0 =I . ... .• . BRAUN 0 .. General CLIENT. At CLIENTs option, BRAUN will such work involves the presence, discharge, restore the site at CLIENTs expense. release or escape of hazardous materials, agrees to hold BRAUN harmless from CLIENT a ■ 1.6 CLIENT shall be responsible for the g Conditions cooperation of its employees and contractors all such claims to the extent that they are not in observing all radiation safety standards insured. where radiographic or gamma ray equipment or other nuclear devices are employed. Section 2:Reports and Records Section 1:Responsibilities 1.7 CLIENT shall notify BRAUN of any 2.1 BRAUN will furnish three copies of each 1.1 BRAUN will provide the Professional knowledge or suspicion of the presence of report to CLIENT without additional charge. Services described in the proposal or confir- hazardous materials at the worksite.If BRAUN 2.2 Reports, notes, calculations and other mation accompanying these General Condi- observes or suspects the presence of unan- documents,as instruments of service,remain tions. Tests and observations will be con- ticipated hazardous materials,it may terminate the property of BRAUN. BRAUN will retain ducted using standard test procedures,where its work without liability to CLIENT or others, principal documents relating to the services applicable,and BRAUN laboratory protocols. and it shall be paid for services provided performed for five years following submission If CLIENT directs the manner of taking according to the Schedule of Charges. of the report.All samples remaining after tests samples or making observations or tests (in 1.8 CLIENT shall timely provide BRAUN with are conducted and field and laboratory number,type,location,depth or in any other all known information regarding existing and equipment which cannot be adequately 0 way), CLIENT agrees to hold BRAUN harm- proposed conditions of the site and under- cleansed of hazardous materials remain the less from all claims,damages,and expenses taking and with new information which property of CLIENT. They will be discarded arising out of that direction.CLIENT acknowl- becomes available to it or its contractors and or returned to CLIENT,at BRAUN's discretion, edges the risk of variation that is inherent in which differs materially from information unless within 60 days of the report date testing by sampling and that samples or previously provided.CLIENT shall provide all CLIENT gives written direction to store or observations may not be representative of changes in plans to BRAUN. CLIENT shall transfer the materials,at CLIENTs expense. things not sampled, and, further, that the hold harmless BRAUN, its affiliates, and the 2.3 If CLIENT does not pay for BRAUN's representativeness of samples or observations respective directors, officers, employees, services as agreed, CLIENT agrees that all may change over time. agents and subcontractors, from all claims, reports and other work will be returned to 1.2 BRAUN will provide CLIENT with written damages, losses, and related expenses BRAUN upon demand, and that reports and reports containing professional opinions and involving subterranean structures which are other work will not be used by CLIENT for recommendations regarding conformance to not called to BRAUN's attention or correctly any purpose whatsoever. established criteria shown on the plans furnished. 2.4 BRAUN will provide endorsements of its 1.3 BRAUN will reference its data and obser- 1.9 CLIENT shall include BRAUN as a reports to others, or letters of reliance, only vations to reference points set as part of beneficiary in any hold harmless or indemnity if those others agree to be bound by the surveying or construction staking by others. agreements between CLIENT and its contrac- conditions of the underlying contract for BRAUN will not survey, set or check the tors.Neither party shall assign this Agreement services,and these General Conditions in full, accuracy of construction staking,or stake or without the express written approval of the and only if BRAUN is paid the administrative reference locations of pilings, caissons or other. fee set forth in its then current Schedule of footings, unless such responsibilities are 1.10 Neither this Agreement nor the providing Charges. specifically included in the accompanying of services shall operate to make BRAUN an description of services. owner,operator,generator,transporter,treater, 1.4 Except as is specifically provided for in storer,or a disposal facility within the meaning Section 3:Services and Compensation the accompanying description of services, of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, Com P BRAUN will not be responsible for directing as amended, or within the meaning of any 3.1 CLIENT will pay for services as agreed the work of contractors or others, or for job other law governing the handling,treatment, upon,or according to the Schedule of Charges or site safety, those being the sole respon- storage or disposal of hazardous materials. if there is no other agreement. The price sibilities of others, nor will BRAUN be CLIENT agrees to hold BRAUN harmless from proposal for the work is predicated upon responsible for the failure of others to perform any such claim. CLIENTs acceptance of the conditions and in accordance with the contract documents, 1.11 CLIENT acknowledges that commonly allocations of risks and responsibilities and BRAUN's services shall in no way relieve used methods of exploration involve an described in the Agreement. A statement of others of their responsibilities. inherent risk of contamination of previously probable cost is not a firm figure unless stated 1.5 CLIENT shall furnish BRAUN with access uncontaminated air, soil and water and that as such. CLIENT agrees to pay invoices as ® to the site. It is understood by CLIENT that insurance for activities involving hazardous stated unless CLIENT notifies BRAUN in in the normal course of the work some damage substances, pollutants or contaminants or writing of a particular item that is alleged to to the site or materials may occur. While hazardous waste ("hazardous materials") be incorrect within 15 days from receipt of BRAUN will take reasonable precautions to either is not available or is prohibitively invoice. minimize damages,BRAUN has not included expensive. If CLIENT is requesting BRAUN 3.2 If BRAUN is delayed by factors beyond the cost of restoration in the estimated charges to undertake work which may result in claims its control,or if project conditions change,or and will not be liable for such damage.The beyond the applicable limits of or which are if the standards or methods of testing change, correction of damage is the responsibility of excluded from its insurance coverage, and BRAUN shall receive an equitable adjustment of its compensation. Unless an equitable - increased insurance coverage, BRAUN will no event shall BRAUN be liable to CLIENT ' adjustment is made, BRAUN may terminate purchase additional insurance if obtainable, unless CLIENT has notified BRAUN of the this Agreement without liability to CLIENT or at CLIENTs expense in accordance with the discovery of error or omission within a others,and it shall be paid for its work to that Schedule of Charges, but BRAUN shall have reasonable time of such discovery,which shall time. no liability beyond the limits and conditions not exceed 30 days. 3.3 CLIENT agrees to pay invoices on receipt, of the additional insurance. and to pay interest on unpaid balances 8.2 CLIENT and BRAUN each hereby waive, Section 11:Entire Agreement beginning 30 days after invoice date at the on their own behalves and on behalf of their These General Conditions and the accom- rate of 1.5%per month,but not to exceed the respective insurers, all rights that each may panying proposal or confirmation are the maximum rate allowed by law. For extended have against the other by operation of the entire Agreement between BRAUN and projects,the billing rates may increase on each doctrine of subrogation. CLIENT and it supersedes all prior agree- anniversary of the date of this Agreement at ments. Any term, condition, prior course of an annual rate not to exceed 10%. Section 9: indemnification dealing, course of performance, usage of 3.4 In the event CLIENT fails to pay BRAUN 9.1 Except as to claims related to hazardous trade,understanding,purchase order,or other within 60 days following the invoice date, materials,BRAUN agrees to hold harmless and agreement purporting to modify,vary,supple- BRAUN may consider the default a total indemnify CLIENT from and against all claims, ment or explain any provision of this Agree- breach of this Agreement and may, at its losses,damages, liability, costs, and reason- ment is null and void and of no effect unless option, terminate all of its duties without able attorneys' fees arising out of the sole - subsequently placed in writing and signed by liability to CLIENT or others. negligence of BRAUN or its subcontractors. both parties. In no event, however, shall the 9.2 CLIENT agrees to hold harmless and printed terms or conditions stated on any Section 4:Responses indemnify BRAUN from and against claims CLIENT purchase or work order be consid- CLIENT agrees to compensate BRAUN,at its described in Section 1.11, and all claims, Bred an amendment or modification of this standard hourly rates, if BRAUN is required losses, damages, liability, costs, and reason- Agreement,even if such document is signed to respond or determines it necessary to able attorneys'fees arising out of the acts or by both parties. respond to a subpoena or other legal process omissions of CLIENT,its subcontractors and BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. or threat of legal process arising out of any others not under direct supervision and services rendered for or on behalf of CLIENT. control of BRAUN, whether insured or not. BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING OF CLIENT also agrees to reimburse BRAUN for To the extent necessary to indemnify and hold NORTH DAKOTA,INC. its attorneys' fees and other reasonable harmless BRAUN hereunder, CLIENT expenses incurred in connection with a expressly waives any immunity or exemption BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING OF response, unless CLIENT demonstrates that from liability for the personal injury or death MONTANA,INC. the amount of reimbursement claimed is of CLIENTs employees that may exist under, unreasonable under all of the circumstances. and it waives any right to receive contribution BRAUN ENVIRONMENTAL from BRAUN created by, the workers' com- LABORATORIES,INC. Section 5:Continuity of Services pensation laws. CLIENT acknowledges that it is customary for Section 10: Limitation of Liability BRAUN PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES,INC. on : the consultant which provides construction or remediation recommendations to be retained 10.1 The total cumulative liability of BRAUN, to provide observation and related services its affiliates, and the respective directors, • during construction or remedial work. If officers, employees, agents and subcontrac- BRAUN is not retained to provide continuing tors shall not exceed 100% of the compen- services, CLIENT agrees to hold BRAUN sation received by BRAUN as its professional harmless from all claims,damages,losses and fee under this Agreement, or the amount expenses,including attorneys'fees,arising out available from insurance, or the amount of of any interpretations,clarifications,substitu- $10,000,whichever is greater. tions or modifications provided by CLIENT or 10.2 CLIENT agrees to notify all contractors others. and others who may perform work in con- nection with BRAUN's services of the limita- Section 6:Disputes tions of liability herein, and to require as a 6.1 If BRAUN brings a lawsuit against CLIENT condition precedent to performing work, the to collect its invoices, then all its collection acce of like limitations in favor of expenses, including attorneys' fees, will be BRAUN. N. paid by CLIENT. 10.3 In the event CLIENT does not wish to 6.2 If CLIENT brings a lawsuit against BRAUN limit BRAUN's liability,BRAUN agrees to waive the limitation provided for is Sections 10.1 and which is dismissed or as to which a verdict is rendered for BRAUN, in whole or in part, 10.2 upon written notice from CLIENT received within e five days after the date this CLIENT will pay BRAUN its costs of defense, including but not limited to attorneys' and Agreement is executed containing its agree- expert witness fees. ment to pay additional consideration equiv- alent to 10%of the total fee,such consideration 6.3 The parties agree that all disputes shall to be called"Waiver of Limitation of Liability be governed by the law of the place services Charge." This charge shall in no way be are rendered. construed as being a charge for insurance of Section 7:Standard of Care any type but will be increased consideration for the greater risk involved in performing work In performing its services,BRAUN will use that for which there is no limitation of liability. degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised 10.4 Neither BRAUN nor CLIENT shall be under similar circumstances by reputable liable to the other for special, incidental, members of its profession practicing in the consequential or penal losses or damages, same locality. No other warranty is made or including but not limited to delay,loss of use, intended. loss of profits or revenues,or cost of capital. Section 8:Insurance and Waiver 10.5 BRAUN shall not be liable to CLIENT • of Subrogation for losses, damages or claims unless suit is 9 commenced within two years of the date of 8.1 BRAUN will furnish a Certificate of injury or the date of the completion of the Insurance upon request. If CLIENT requests services by BRAUN, whichever is earlier. In BGC-001 Rev.6/15/90 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE SECTION 31 .01 , SUBDIVISION 5, ENTITLED ZONING/ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota, does ordain: Section 1 . The Zoning Map is amended as indicated on the attached map marked Exhibit "A" and the area known as the "Benson Farm" annexed by Ordinance by the City Council enacted on the 19th day of February, 1991 , formerly within the Town of Stillwtaer, be and the same is hereby designated "RA, Single Family Residential". This property was the subject of Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 90-1 ) and Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZAM 90-1 ) . Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Section 3. In all other ways the Stillwater City Code shall remain in full force and effect. Adopted by the City Council this 19th day of February, 1 991 . Wally Abrahamson, Mayor Attest: Mary Lou Johnson, City Clerk • ��_ „ F . ! , L—'.— I �AU IRO SGNOOL OISIRRT SSR ►ROf ' I ant:7 ,+ :',7 -_ es 4 . .. : , .4 ijm ..,. .... -----------------ss....... ... hir-j' pd-. ZAM/90 .. ,,,, ! • _ ... F ,f:TILL** rnv�t _'`- tL punuC I.,. TI'11 � • I� '!1 'IA4 PI • "a=_gyp/ .iJ. J—rj / wonlcs j �C- -__--«.. ,� \ p + STORAGE u,n;lu• 1 " •- . PARK •` J / ' -J� AREA 'N: ( ° ��(F.,. •• ��/`•.{ #, ^1 �3' ( e i DyrLOT.I _, 1 1!'I I ,`,t• «j �. • n r • 1 , I1 l •� 1 i t/ 1 _.s?L..•.+iN / 1••i-re 3 i• `r'� `� + I , '-.L_,i•Jl '•__.-'_ _ -..�_—.r• ! 0 % ,y T!• ' : 7_. ••1 I •!ll�.t. • ' ' I a:Elt_ACiiEN ORIVC t • j tr i -77 ; r-17-1) .. ••' a• 116 t....is. , •1 L f ; i 1_, -1,.....e �I..! , t All_. ' i 1...l i.•:1 L ILL- _ i t'I• },c,,Gr.a j z , ' r t t• • �2 t :,"-kill/ , /t J -�-1 9 i?• 1. _.r..-7,ol ..". : ' ” *—;i 1 'T• 1.•-•-`12. • ' 1 4 i.1 ,. 4-•••0- '..... . •r--' ' " ,..I -t •_ j _ ._- - . 1 K ..j_• •1 - 1. ° •PIN .---�� .-.1`. ' • • ,• ' 141111 -- ._ -1 1 `, 1 r / 1 ' 't 1 __/ 'II6. , p' •t2 • • N t 0 1 '•. • • 1 1 r•, . L I. '��i �1 \ s; i_ i ., . 1.1.141... + ... •.L r 1' r • .t•• ..g .- i■ t• "r• • .. t:l ,. • • ,--t 'v. vvim • t e • '" - ..- 'z,r„�i+. "2 \ —• - M� —"`- "' Amendment• from :2 t^ �, a R-4 (Stillwater t TI ' 4•:.•- iR5.• l,.'..t_� ,/ 1 • ' / COL ' —I ISingl- Family•.:...:/ . _ 7 r o1s,rRTS�" (� r 1. ^''.. __l_ I ., Residential ,• .... . '' i • • I• �.� /) ti .4;1.-,_,:43 ,•''Z ! + ,` . 1.�+14. I `•iCa:. '� Lily Lake o ,,, , ., t `.� �° - .. 47. 7 acr, (LILY I A• • . ^ .� pARx ,. •i 1� , 31E09EAI ... . ..;.t. ,. . _It ,., /-—I . iNt A yr i , ....: . . , e. 4,‘„.,,,,,r.,„,/ ,....„.. _ ‘„ • . A /.' COR ORATE I../4111.5 •—_ I , L , • 41• 31.131.01 A 4114191 le I — t/ s m p,,, J ,. \ ' O !1 OUTLO9 A P�� o„„..T 1 IR _ ay3 \ f rtt f 0 . t FAQ(L 3 PARCEL 4 / �rE • �< �� v • CU11VE CnEST BLVD W I 2 ] 4I 53 a Z ••��:RTE'• : • h l I t 1 A I I 7 •i� „ { • t, , Kil•Exhibit "A” ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER INTO CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY THAT IS COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY LAND WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS WHEREAS, certain territory described in the attached Exhibit "A" is not presently included within the corporate limits of any incorporated city; and WHEREAS, this territory is completely surrounded by lands already included within the corporate limits of the city and the land is deemed to be urban or suburban in character. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Stillwater ordains: Section 1 . Territory Annexed. The corporate limits of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, are hereby extended to include the territory described in the attached Exhibit "A" pages 1 and 2, and shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "B". This territory is and has been completely surrounded by territory' already included within the city limits. Section 2. Filing. The City Clerk is directed to file certified copies of this ordinance with the Secretary of State, the County Auditor of Washington County, Minnesota, the Town Clerk of the Township of Stillwater, Minnesota, and the Minnesota Municipal Board. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this day of February, 1991 . Wally Abrahamson, Mayor Attest: Mary Lou Johnson, City Clerk S CERTIFICATE OF '`.SU:RVEY BARRETT M.STACK STILLWATER,MINN. 55082 , MINNESOTA REGISTERED �p. LAND SURVEYOR /, Tel.No.439-3630 JOB NO, None SURVEY MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR: The Estate of Gilbert Benson, c/o Mr. Jeff Benson, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 DESCRIPTION, Description of remainder of Gilbert Benson Farm to be annexed into the City of Stillwater, Minnesota. (presently in Stillwater Township) All that part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: - Beginning at the northwesterly corner of Lot 1, Block 3 of the recorded plat of BENSON'S ADDITION, Washington County, Minnesota, thence on a recorded bearing of South 00 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds West along the westerly line of said Lot 1, Block 3, a distance of 114.84 feet, more or less, to the northerly line of that particular parcel as described in Book 253 of Deeds, Page 137, in the office of the County Recorder of said Washington County, Minnesota; thence South 89 degrees 46 minutes 01 seconds•East along said northerly line 168.71 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner thereof; thence South 00 degrees 41 minutes 59 seconds West along the easterly line of said parcel 100.00 feet•to the southeast corner thereof; thence North 89 degrees 46 minutes 01 seconds West along the southerly line of said parcel 168.57 feet, more or less, to the northwesterly corner of Lot 1, Block 4, of said BENSON'S ADDITION; thence South 00 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds West along the westerly line of said Block 4 a distance of 143.47 feet to an angle point in the westerly line of said Block 4; thence South 22 degrees 21 minutes 56 seconds East along said westerly line of Block 4 a distance of 262.58 feet to the southwest corner thereof; thence North 67 degrees 38 minutes 04 seconds East along the southerly line of said Block 4 and along the southerly line of platted Pine Tree Trail 200.00 feet to the northwesterly corner•of Lot 1, Block 2 of said BENSON'S ADDITION; thence South 22 degrees 21 minutes 56 seconds East along the westerly line of said Lot 1 a distance of 100.00 feet to the southwest corner thereof; thence North 67 degrees 38 minutes 04 seconds East along the southerly line of said Block 2 a distance of 149.86 feet to the most westerly corner of Lot 3 of said Block 2; thence South 25 degrees 36 minutes 56 seconds East along the westerly line of said Block 2 a distance of 140.00 feet to the most southerly corner thereof; thence North 64 degrees 23 minutes 04 seconds East along the southerly line of said Block 2 a distance of 145.00 feet to the most easterly corner thereof; thence South 25 degrees 36 minutes 56 seconds East along the westerly line of said platted Pine Tree Trail 111.38 feet to the southwest corner thereof; thence North 64 degrees 23 minutes 04 seconds East along the southerly line of said platted Pine Tree Trail 60.00 feet to the southeast corner thereof; thence North 25 degrees 36 minutes 56 seconds West along the easterly line of said platted Pine Tree Trail 33.90 feet to the southwesterly corner of Lot 8, Block 1, of said BENSON'S ADDITION; thence North 64 degrees 23 minutes 04 seconds East along the southerly line of said Lot 8 a distance of 20.00 feet; thence North 83 degrees 55 minutes 24 seconds East along said southerly line 11.52 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly limits of the City of Stillwater as established in 1922 and described in Book 93 of Deeds, Pages 574 and 575 in said office of the County Recorder; thence southeasterly along said southwesterly limits of the City of Stillwater as established in 1922, to the easterly line of said Northeast Quarter; thence southerly along said easterly line of the Northeast Quarter 1.99 feet, more or less, to the northeasterly corner of that particular parcel as described in Book Z of Deeds, Page 328 in said office of the County Recorder, said northeasterly corner being 528.00 feet northerly of'the southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence westerly along the northerly line of said parcel described in Book Z of Deeds, Page 328, to the northwesterly corner thereof; thence southerly, southwesterly and westerly along the westerly and northwesterly line of said parcel described in Book Z of Deeds, Page 328, to the southwesterly corner thereof, said southwesterly corner being a point on the southerly line of said Northeast Quarter; thence westerly along said southerly line of the Northeast Quarter to the southwest corner thereof; thence North 01 degree 01 minutes 30 seconds West along the westerly line of said Northeast Quarter 1150.37 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly corner of that particular parcel as described in Book 260 of Deeds, Page 348 in said office of County Recorder, said southwesterly corner being 1489.80 feet southerly of the northwest corner of said North- east Quarter; thence North 88 degrees 56 minutes 30 seconds East along the southerly line of said parcel 400.00 feet to the southeast corner thereof; thence North 01 degree 01 minutes 30 seconds West along the easterly line of said parcel 1255.60 feet to the northeast corner thereof; thence South 89 degrees 07 minutes 00 seconds West along the northerly line of said parcel 159.10 feet, more or less, to the easterly line of that particular parcel as described in Book 206 of Deeds, Page 608 in said office of the County Recorder; thence North 01 degrees 01 minutes 30 seconds West along said easterly line 126.56 feet, more or less, to the northeasterly corner thereof; thence North 89 degrees 22 minutes 01 seconds West along the northerly line of said parcel 50.00 feet to an angle point in the northeasterly line thereof; thence North 01. degree 01 minutes 30 seconds West along the easterly line of parcel described in Book 206 of Deeds, Page 608, a distance of 100 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner thereof, said northeasterly corner being a point on the northerly line of said Northeast Quarter which is 191.00 feet easterly of the northwest corner thereof; thence South 89 degrees 22 minutes 01 seconds East along said northerly line 503.19 feet, . more or less, to a point 1939.08 feet westerly, as measured along said northerly line, from the northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter; t 1,-..1„ ,...,;r,. .�.�, rh;...,, . ...... ... ... ... Exhibit "A" Page One CERTIFICATE OF .SURVEY EARRETT M.STACK•- lil I► STILLWATER,MINN..55082 • MINNESOTA REGISTERED .1 t - LAND SURVEYOR Tel.No.439-5630 0111401 None URVEY MADE EXCLUSIVELY FORT The Estate of Gilbert. Benson, c/o Mr. Jeff Benson, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 DESCRIPTION, Description of remainder of Gilbert Benson Farm to be annexed into the City of Stillwater, MN. (continued- fromSheet 1 of 2:Sheets) fence South 01 degree 13 minutes 23 seconds East parallel with said easterly line of the )rtheast Quarter 561.52 feet, more or less, to the northerly line of the recorded plat F SWAGER BROS. HILLTOP ADDITION, as the same is surveyed, monumented and occupied; fence North 89 degrees 07 minutes 11 seconds West along said northerly line and its isterly projection 17.74 feet, more or less, to the intersection with a northerly •ojection of the westerly line of that particular parcel as described in Book 1 of reds, Page 217; thence South 00 degrees 37 minutes 59 seconds West along said projected ine and along said westerly line 63.83 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly corner ' said parcel; thence South 89 degrees 22 minutes 01 seconds East along the southerly ne of said parcel 124.60 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. • tcepting therefrom all -that part heretofore annexed to the City of Stillwater by •dinance Number 545. 1subject to easements and reservations of record. ' )bject to and together with any other valid easements, 'reservations or restrictions. 'erall parcel to be annexed contains 79 acres, more or less. • )TES: The above description includes the Earl H. and Arlene J. Benson parcel as described in Book 289 of Deeds, Page 525, office of the County Recorder of Washington County, Minnesota. This parcel contains 0.7 acres, more or less: . . The above description also includes the Maxine Benson parcel as described in Book 253 of Deeds, Page 137, office of the County Recorder of Washington County, Minnesota. This parcel contains 1 acre, more or less. ' . All of the above described parcels are subject to and benefited by easements of record. The overall annexation description is intended to be used for the sole purpose of annexing that portion of the Gilbert Benson Farm presently in Stillwater Township, as well as the Earl and Arlene. Benson parcel and the Maxine Benson parcel, into the City of Stillwater. Fee interests are not defined by this annexation description. 0 • i.: {, ..,. t - ",' ll e • Exhibit "A" Page Two ......... , . . - EXHIBIT "B" QM OF STILLWATER . Ho. • N....." \ viersmiti 77/ IVERSON -.3 ie,S)OAK HILL . . • ° 1 4.3 .. ' AK GLEN ) t'll.RV R. I.BOOM RD. 0.." . CT.N....e .4 cao,100U (11 mi 14 1 i ii i 0 ip I I I I I\PI I liko ..0 e;d 0.% GLEN STILLWATE us 0-tu CRESCENT C.,‘' -allillin 0 •ALIA" 4, to' . 11:!?. 1980 POP. 1232t III e•Y N • Sl. ..sm ' / 0 JOHNSON i..7 HAto-v. 0 % ow III ui , POPLAR Sr.ST. tt,:. ', a i CA• v. • Soo-ELI:MI RD m -' C4.,140aisICI•RO. ."..'1 1 g i .0. ei. 1 (4).% .• 11(i. ..■ 4' ' I v RIVER HEIGHTS DR. A • M 1. SPR ME PAS /,•A t 1, . ,.: , _ .\'''' .i•2.DALLAGER WAY',."I. . 6 r .,• AMUNDS.N 2. 11% 1.:. W. MOORE ST. Syc,.. _ ...... .14 ORE YM1 .4 It MOROSIOR\ Ro PI-• *4, • R.w STCAMO IMA ST.MI ' i g ,,EAGLE,,y „r td •,-" 'tAIJUNCISON E.ST.mum g cr. g BMA"1= . ..., YR. ST. CROIX/MB CIR• IP' STILLY'Millillm"=grim W. WI EingERIMILMI , 0' cO' • V Er 1 .4 g'CALIScit 3 c), ..„?.c.ASP EN) acto-4, 1 i . 41/ so LA. 4:b 13 ce i 444 w. A ELU LI ' el.ir§ ST. U I . ". i. SI.E .. Laki . c ETZIIMIEll Sc"°‘ 000- .' ' ' McKu.rick if viallatellenaketiliSle 1 . i.1....t i 0413. , I . V.• c, i- 4Ik MEADOITLARx DR. i 1-1 i 111!'itillit.113•S s'I• ® iiLM. LARD ,,,:4.° • g,Will LINDEN 5 vIsT. it. 043 11111106e1 • C , , ,... . . • 2 ..11113M-S1.11:11111 LOCKOUT§ ST. • , w1091 • A ...-„,-„,„, ram oR miliPt ti eloarisa ...1.4.\ ,> WA; $, i ® T. m •,,, r- ola 0 0 1, SUNNY SL OfE W.El 0 CE niind COO 0,,, r',2 t's f■f•A'P)- co •0 LTA • .. ...L'4. 6 ® EllIblElli t. 4.°1 Wt.1*)1 lAtiAir 1 .. 4-. •at 0 ,,..: CO 'OW % Mali INTERLACH EN t: ca D _ •c): E'' '-',.1., g w.,. R. I'0,4Pe °E. -4?" '-' '.EERIE - f f.gli „ , .. .. 4: .., S V. OLIVE 1 10 SO 11\ \x . , C'-' 6-4 :I TX 0, (Y;tI: OLIVE 11 MI ST.AIME ga titla • ) t A .i 8"` Li ,., % 1 1, 6, EoGvo co k .i. r` 0. gist z2,,,,.10A1 g IHElleriti w. °A.:K 121910103,16, rxr \ . ..,,, ...:? = °.§9rAt E. t°°Meer a"F-q Er EMIE ifiVisti tor' z.00, . to R •-, ST• 4;1" '... . '-' -e DDEw.;= RD .- ''''' "1. v;al t 5 LiEREENIN RD EllaW011164 LARD' ST. ..,., ..., CROIXI/00 0'":`• EILY. 2 ti Ci: 441 E5:4,01/ ./ v. 4, "."1:4•00SK YYIEW t' z tr" ° kile re, of,t; ; wil it Fa Anor II Illiong vi 1. E3 ( C .0- ,,. L p, GREEN..., 9 >sin, ••1' ,di(1. ..4 WILO MSS' Dowl-4. 5 RIZ Cr.LA. 4) co.■..A. CIN...,? j . r 1 tuilleic..RCN Vj ST. RCN ILL ST. W. ANDER SON. IIIIIIIIIIINg c 0 080• 1. N ., ..ij c,4' ciola6 C.2 1:1'8 u 449. , c..1 , „ vi 5 NININTEEIN N'i T. TER $ "1,9 "")4° -.'p-b g g 4.' BENSON FARM t vi v; -c Lual ohisiNg c-3 \ • c):4,t •,,,.c.el. „ E 44 4k". IP * z ,r t 4.,. ,. ANNEXATION a cr .., w 4. › L HUDSON ST. Elt.411 .tatiell 1 v; 1,561 4!. 8 ..s.,.i. .0.0,,•TN... 1 WI LOME CRLY.ANS S . ri ORLEANS ST 1/1 W. ORLEANS .,.;/ .., 10/ BL,D. ...g - ,....--..... . , Itc ,,,,, em OR. 1.-,..: Tay i. 11 oi , . i 215 ST.I4 TN‘ UPPER 116EN MEE le.. -__- 420. . 0. ..... . c,),..- . 0. c7.3111 Y.; 'MEL ' o( 6 0 a a z Z -a co __:\ 001E1 122 7 V;ME ST. . r--. cc 1 o C/c4 \-‘ z ZR I TOTIER DR. ,... -, a N. ._J ,. 4 §W 2 .4 0 x MI i t 4,1 • g 0 i Z. GI r 2 I E N. 1 . FRONTAGE INI• 5 IIROF, E _..........0.4w....4.____ . . ..._...._.... „............ s. ir ,.........,....--_-.......... ....._... V/ CT. .1 grime:L..1 P P icl n' ..,1.,. i ii I, ST.N. \ 59th TV _ . .. ....___ 1111 • BENSON FARM ANNEXATION -- ---- - i \ tj <0>L.; T3ON ROW • ., Second Draft: February 15, 1991 • DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE HIGHLANDS OF STILLWATER BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF STILLWATER, MINNESOTA AND GROUND DEVELOPMENT, INC. , A MINNESOTA CORPORATION This agreement was drafted by: David T. Magnuson Magnuson & Moberg The Grand Garage 324 South Main Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 • DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1991 , by and between the CITY OF STILLWATER, a municipal corporation, and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, (hereinafter called the "City") , and GROUND DEVELOPMENT, INC. , a Minnesota Corporation (hereinafter called the "Developer") ; WITNESSETH THAT, in the joint and mutual exercise of their powers and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties recite and agree as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1 .01 . The Property. The Developer now owns the Property described in the attached Exhibit "A", (the "Property") , which comprises 88.5 acres located in the proposed plat of the Highlands of Stillwater, Town of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. 1 .02. Annexation. The Developer has requested that the City annex the property and the City is willing to take this action subject to the requirements and conditions • set forth in this Agreement. 1 .03. Subdivision. The Developer has made application to the City under the City zoning ordinance and its subdivision ordinance for approval to subdivide and develop the property as for single-family residential uses. The Planning Commission and the City Council have reviewed the application in accordance with Minnesota law, the City Charter, and ordinances and have given preliminary approval to the development, as set forth in Case No. PUD/90-84 and SUB/90-83, subject to all Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibit "B" (the "Conditions of Approval" ) . 1 .04. The Facilities and Project. The Developer, in accordance with City approval, plans to construct or cause to be constructed on the Property single family homes, and to dedicate certain lands to the City as needed for street right-of-way, utilities and parks as set forth in this Agreement. 1 .05. Public Improvements. The Developer has requested that the City construct all street, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water system improvements necessary to serve the Project. Page - 1 - The City is willing to take such action, subject to the requirements and conditions set forth in this Agreement. These Improvements will be known as Local Improvement No. , Phases I through VI. 1 .06. Phase I. The first phase shall include the construction of Orleans Street to the rear property line of Lot 23, Block 7. However, the water main shall be extended 30 feet Easterly of that point in order that water service be made available to the city park. Two North/South streets will be constructed from Orleans Street to the Northerly boundaries of Lot 23, Block 9 and the Northerly line of Lot 24, Block 8, and the cul- de-sac located within Block 7 shall be constructed. In addition to the construction of these streets, sewer and water main extentions and services shall be installed to the lot line to each lot as shown on the final plat of each phase. 1 . 07. Future Phases. Future phases shall be constructed in the sequences indicated in the Developer' s proposal that has been made a part of the Conditions of Approval and provided that the Developer is not in default of this Agreement, and further provided that the Developer follow City subdivision and zoning ordinances with regard to the development of each phase. Section 2. Developer's Representations. The Developer hereby represents, warrants and covenants to the City that as of the date of this Agreement the statements set forth in this section are true and correct. 2.01 . No Disability. The Developer is a duly organized Minnesota Corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota. 2.02. Ownership. The Developer is well seized in fee simple of the Property and has marketable title to the real estate described in the plat. 2.03. Execution No Violation. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement does not and will not result in any breach of, or constitute a default under, any indenture, mortgage, contract, agreement or instrument to which the Developer is a party or by which it, or its property, is bound. 2.04. Litigation. There are no pending or, to the knowledge of the Developer, threatened actions or proceedings before any court or administrative agency Page - 2 - c which will materially adversely affect the financial condition, business or operation of the Developer or the ability of the Developer to perform its obligations under this Agreement. 2.05. Compliance. The Developer will comply with and duly and promptly perform all of its obligations under this Agreement and all related documents and instruments. Section 3. Developer's Undertakings. 3.01 . Easements. The Developer shall furnish to the City, upon request and without charge, all permanent and construction easements as designated in the plans and specifications (or such alternate sites as may hereafter be agreed upon by the Developer and the City) and deeds to property deemed necessary by the City for the location, construction, installation and operation of the improvements to be constructed on the Property by the City, in form and content satisfactory to the City. 3.02. Consultant Fees and Charges. The Developer will pay to the City, when due, all consultant fees incurred by the City in behalf of or at the request of the Developer, all special assessments, interest and other amounts due with respect to the Project as hereinafter provided, and will pay to the City, when due, all permit fees, connection charges, user charges or other charges lawfully imposed by the City with respect to all portions of the Property when such fees or charges are incurred or become due. 3.03. Transfer of Project. Unless and until all bonds issued by the City to finance the improvements are paid in full or discharged in accordance with the resolutions authorizing their issuance, the Developer shall not voluntarily sell, assign or transfer substantially all of its interest in the Project or any part thereof without the written consent of the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Nothing herein shall prevent or apply to the sale, in the ordinary course of business, of lots to individual owners or contractors for the construction of residences, but such sale shall in no way affect or diminish the obligations of the Developer under this Agreement. 3.04. Park Dedication Requirement. The Park Dedication Requirement set forth in the Conditions of Approval shall be satisfied as follows: A. Execution of Deeds. Within ten days after the recording of the final plat of Phase I, the Page - 3 - • Developer shall execute deeds in recordable form evidencing marketable title to all of the parkland required to be dedicated pursuant to the Conditions of Approval. The West 150 feet of the parkland comprising the well site (the "well site" ) shall be described in a separate deed. B. Mortgage Satisfaction or Release. In addition, the Developer shall provide a mortgage release executed by any and all mortgagees to the property, releasing and satisfying any mortgage obligation or encumberance with regard to the land described in either of these two deeds. Both deeds and mortgage releases shall be kept and held in escrow by the City and not recorded until the happening of one of the following events, whichever occurs first, in which event the deeds and releases may be recorded and title shall vest in the City, free and clear of any encumberances. a. Upon the recording of the final plat of Phase IV, or b. Four years has passed from the execution date of this Agreement, or c. The Developer. is in default of this Agreement. Unless the mortgage releases are permitted to be recorded pursuant to this section, these instruments shall be of no effect and shall not operate to release or discharge the mortgage referenced therein. C. Default. If the Developer is in default as defined in this Agreement, the City may immediately draw upon a letter of credit in the amount of $55,000 provided by the Developer in the form attached as Exhibit "C" for the sole purpose of obtaining funds that will be paid over to the mortgagees. Upon payment to the mortgagees in the amount of $55,000 or such lesser amounts as agreed to by the mortgagees, the deeds and mortgage releases shall be recorded and title shall vest in the City, free and clear of any encumberances. Page - 4 - From time to time the amount of this Letter of • Credit can be reduced upon written request of the mortgagee. D. Well Site. Not withstanding any other requirement of Section 3.04, the deed to the well site and the mortgage release for the well site shall be recorded by the City within 60 days after written notice from the Board of Water Commissioners of the City to the Developer that the well site is required by the Board of Water Commissioners for the construction of a municipal well site, and that construction is anticipated to begin within 90 days of the notice. Upon the recording, title to the well site shall vest in the City free of any claims or encumberances. Section 4. City's Undertakings. 4.01 . Public Improvements; Plans, Specifications; Bids. Upon request by the Developer, and provided that the Developer is not in default of this Agreement, the City Council will authorize the consulting engineer to prepare plans and specifications for each separate phase, in sequence. The sanitary sewer, water system, storm sewer and street improvements described in the plans and specifications and any modifications or additions duly made by change order, add-on, or add-alternate, are hereinafter referred to as the "Improvements. " 4.02. Order of Improvements; Award of Contracts. The Developers has requested the City Council to order the construction of Improvement No. in sequential phases, to enter into contract for the construction of the Improvements, and to pay and finance the cost thereof as hereinafter provided. The City is willing to take this action, subject to the requirements as set forth in this Agreement. 4.03. Improvement No. The City shall order the construction of Local Improvement No. in accordance Page - 5 - with law, and shall forthwith award and enter into a contract for the construction of the Improvements and shall cause the Improvements to be constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications. The City shall have the right to order such modifications in the work and the construction contract therefore as are recommended by the consulting engineer and/or are deemed necessary or desirable by the City. 4.04. Financing. The City shall sell and issue its General Obligation Improvement Bonds, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, in an amount sufficient with all moneys available and appropriated for the purpose, to finance its obligations hereunder. Section 5. Cost Recovery. 5.01. Cost of Improvements. For the purposes of this Agreement and all proceedings and actions taken by the City Council hereunder with respect to Improvement No. , the Developer and the City acknowledge and agree that the cost of the Improvements shall include all associated project costs. Upon completion of the work and payment of all costs of the Improvements, the City shall compute the actual cost of the Improvements and the amount thereof allocable to the Property, and shall furnish the same to the Developer, together with the calculations made by the City to arrive at such amounts. The City Coordinator shall thereafter provide to the Developer all such further information and documents as are requested by it in order to verify such costs and computations. 5.02. Levy of Special Assessments; Procedure. Not less than 45 days after the City has furnished its computations to the Developer, the City may levy special assessments with respect to the Improvements on the Property, in the manner specified in Minnesota Sta t ut es, Section 429.061. 5.03. Special Assessments; Amount and Allocation. The amount of the special assessments levied on the Property as a whole shall be based upon the actual cost of the Improvements insofar as available and on reasonable estimates of the cost insofar as actual costs are not available, as reasonably determined by the City. The amount of such cost to be allocated to and specially assessed against the Property as a whole shall be determined in accordance with the Feasibility Report and Exhibit B, which may be revised from time to time to reflect any add-on, add-alternates or change orders that are duly made in the construction contracts for construction of the Improvements. Page - 6 - The Developer agrees that allocation is fair and reasonable and will result in the allocation of costs and the levy of special assessments on the Property as a whole, which are equal to or less than the special benefit accruing to the Property from the Improvements. The Developer expressly waives the right to object to the assessment proposal to be levied against the Property hereunder. This waiver is freely given in consideration for the benefits that the Developer expects to receive from the development of the Property. Section 6. Additional Security. 6.01. Payment of Estimated Assessments. Upon the sale or transfer of any lot or parcel of the Property prior to the actual levy and filing of the special assessments to be levied thereon as herein provided, the Developer shall pay to the City Treasurer an amount equal to 110% of the amount of the special assessments which would be levied on such lot or parcel based upon the Estimated Cost of the Improvements and the estimated assessments as determined by the City. 6.02. Guarantor. The Developer expects to benefit from the execution and performance of this Agreement. In consideration of such anticipated benefit, the Developers guaranty the performance of the Developers ' obligations hereunder. The City Treasurer, and if necessary the City Attorney, shall undertake to collect the money needed to meet such obligations from any one or more of the Guarantors in accordance with the Guaranty Agreement, attached as Exhibit "D". Section 7. Events of Default. The following shall be events of default under this Agreement: A. Failure of the Developer to pay when due any real estate taxes and special assessments duly levied by the appropriate taxing jurisdictions. B. Failure by the Developer to secure final plan approval or zoning and subdivision approval from the City of Stillwater for any phase of the Development. C. Failure of the Developer to meet any condition of approval set by the City Council with regard to planning, zoning or subdivision approval. D. The failure to meet any condition of this Agreement. Section 8. Remedies on Default. When an event of default occurs, the City may take one or more of the following actions: Page - 7 - A. Suspend its performance under this Agreement. B. Withhold any Certificate of Completion. C. Terminate the Agreement, thereby rendering void any covenants, promises or approvals contained in this Agreement. D. Take whatever action, including legal, equitable or administrative, necessary to protect the City, including the right of the City to collect any unpaid public costs associated with the project by certifying the total of such costs in the year in which they are due to the County Auditor for collection with the real estate taxes. Section 9. Administrative Provisions. 9.01 . Notices. All notices, certificates or other communications required to be given to the City and the Developer hereunder shall be sufficiently given, and shall be deemed given, when delivered or deposited in the United States mail in registered form with postage fully prepaid and addressed, as follows: If to the City: City of Stillwater City Hall 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 If to Developer: The City and the Developer, by notice given hereunder, may designate different addresses to which subsequent notices, certificates or other communications will be sent. 9.02. Severability. In the event any provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provisions hereof. Page - 8 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City has caused this Agreement to be executed in its corporate name by its duly authorized officers and sealed with its corporate seal; and the Developer has executed this Agreement at Stillwater, Minnesota, the day and year first above written. CITY OF STILLWATER: (SEAL) BY: Wally Abrahamson, Mayor and Mary Lou Johnson, City Clerk DEVELOPER: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) On this day of , 1991 , before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, appeared Wally Abrahamson and Mary Lou Johnson, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Stillwater, and that this instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of the City by authority of its City Council, and they acknowledge that said instrument was the free act and deed of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) On this day of , 1991 , before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, appeared to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are named in the foregoing instrument and that this instrument was signed as their free act and deed. Notary Public Page - 9 - • CERTIFICATE .O.F ':SURV'EY: 4. BARRETT M.STACK STILLWATER,MINN:55082 • MINNESOTA REGISTERED ` • LAND SURVEYOR • W.No.439-5630 JOB NO, None SURVEY MADE EXCLUSIVELY FORS The Estate of Gilbert Benson, c/o Mr. Jeff Benson, Stillwater, Minnesota • 55082 DESCRIPTION, Description of remainder of Gilbert Benson Farm to be annexed into the City of Stillwater, Minnesota. ...(presently in Stillwater Township) All that part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows:' Beginning at the northwesterly corner of Lot 1, Block 3 of the recorded plat of BENSON'S ADDITION, Washington County, Minnesota, thence on a recorded bearing of South 00 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds West along the westerly line of said Lot 1, Block 3, a distance of 114.84 feet, more or less, to the northerly line of that particular parcel as described in Book 253 of Deeds, Page 137, in the office of the County Recorder of said. Washington County, Minnesota; thence South 89 degrees 46 minutes 01 seconds'East along said northerly line 168.71 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner thereof; thence South 00 degrees 41 minutes 59 seconds West along the easterly line of said parcel 100.00 feet.to the southeast corner thereof; thence North 89 degrees 46 minutes 01 seconds West along the southerly line of said parcel 168.57 feet, more or less, to the northwesterly corner of Lot 1, Block 4, of said BENSON'S ADDITION; thence South 00 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds West along the westerly line of said Block 4 a distance of 143.47 feet to an angle point in the westerly line of said Block 4; thence South 22 degrees 21 minutes 56 seconds East along said westerly line of Block 4 a distance of 262.58 feet to the southwest corner thereof; thence North 67 degrees 38 minutes 04 seconds East along the southerly line of said Block 4 and along the southerly line of platted Pine Tree Trail 200.00 feet to the northwesterly corner•of Lot 1, Block 2'of said.BENSON'S ADDITION; thence South 22 degrees 21 minutes 56 seconds East along the westerly line of said Lot 1 a distance of 100.00 feet to the southwest corner thereof; thence North 67 degrees 38 minutes 04 seconds • East along the southerly line of said Block 2 a distance of 149.86 feet to the most westerly corner of Lot 3 of said Block 2; thence South 25 degrees 36 minutes 56 seconds East along the westerly line of said Block 2 a distance of•140.00 feet to the most southerly corner thereof; thence North 64 degrees 23 minutes 04 seconds East along the southerly line of said Block 2 a distance of 145.00 feet to the most easterly corner thereof; thence South 25 degrees 36 minutes 56 seconds East along the westerly line of said platted Pine Tree Trail 111.38 feet to the southwest corner thereof; thence North 64 degrees 23 minutes 04 seconds East along the southerly. line of said platted Pine Tree Trail 60.00 .. feet to the southeast corner thereof; thence.North 25 degrees 36 minutes 56 seconds West along the easterly line of said platted Pine Tree Trail 33.90 feet to the southwesterly ' corner of Lot 8, Block 1, of said BENSON'S ADDITION; thence North 64 degrees 23 minutes 04 seconds East along the southerly line of said Lot 8 a distance of 20.00 feet; thence North 83 degrees 55 minutes 24 seconds East along said southerly line 11.52 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly limits of the City of Stillwater as established in 1922 and described in Book 93 of Deeds, Pages 574 and 575 in said office of the County Recorder; thence southeasterly along said southwesterly limits of the City of Stillwater as established in 1922, to the easterly line of said Northeast Quarter; thence southerly along said easterly line of the Northeast Quarter 1.99 feet, more or less, to the northeasterly corner of that particular parcel as described in Book Z of Deeds, Page 328 in said office of the County Recorder, said northeasterly corner being 528.00 feet northerly of'the southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence westerly along the northerly line of said parcel described in Book Z of Deeds, Page 328, to the northwesterly corner thereof; thence southerly, southwesterly and westerly along the westerly and northwesterly line of. said parcel described in Book Z of Deeds, Page 328, to the southwesterly corner thereof, said southwesterly corner being a point on the southerly line of said Northeast Quarter; thence westerly along said southerly line of the Northeast Quarter to the southwest corner thereof; thence North 01 degree 01 minutes 30 seconds West along the westerly line of said Northeast Quarter 1150.37 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly corner of that particular parcel as described in Book 260 of Deeds, Page' 348 in said office of County Recorder, said southwesterly corner being 1489.80 feet southerly of the northwest corner of said North- east Quarter; thence North 88 degrees 56 minutes 30 seconds East along the southerly line of said parcel 400.00 feet to the southeast corner thereof; thence North 01 degree 01 minutes 30 seconds West along the easterly line of said parcel 1255.60 feet to the northeast corner thereof; thence South 89 degrees 07 minutes 00 seconds West along the northerly line of said parcel 159.10 feet, more or less, to the easterly line of that particular parcel as described in Book 206 of Deeds, Page 608 in said office of the County Recorder; thence North 01 degrees 01 minutes 30 seconds West along said easterly line 126.56 feet, more or less, to the northeasterly corner thereof; thence North 89 degrees 22 minutes 01 seconds West along the northerly line of said parcel 50.00 feet to an angle point in the northeasterly line thereof; thence North 01. degree 01 minutes 30 seconds West along the easterly line of parcel described in Book 206 of Deeds, Page 608, a distance of 100 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner thereof, said northeasterly corner being a point on the northerly line of said Northeast Quarter which is 191.00 feet easterly of the northwest corner thereof; thence South 89 degrees 22 minutes 01 seconds East along said northerly line 503.19 feet, more or less, to a point 1939.08 feet westerly, as measured along said northerly line, from the northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter; S I h•rehv certify that thi,surrey, phi,. or rrport was Exhibit "A" Page One CERTIFICATE OF .SURVEY BARRETT M.STACK • ' STILLWATER,MINN. 55082 w; • MINNESOTA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR Tel.No.439-5630 . WINO' None URVEY MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR, The Estate of Gilbert Benson, c/o Mr. Jeff Benson, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 ,ESCRIPTIONI" Description of.remainder of Gilbert Benson Farm to be annexed into the • . :.Cityof"Stillwater, MN.' . (continued. from Sheet 1 of.2:Sheets) • fence South 01 degree 13 minutes 23 seconds East parallel with said easterly line of the )rtheast Quarter 561.52 feet, more or less, to the northerly line of the•recorded plat F SWAGER BROS. HILLTOP ADDITION, as the same is surveyed, monumented and occupied; 3ence North 89 degrees 07 minutes 11 seconds West along said northerly line and its 3sterly projection 17.74 feet, more or less, to the intersection with a northerly 'ojection of the westerly line of that particular parcel as described in Book 1 of 3eds, Page 217; thence South 00 degrees 37 minutes.59 seconds West along said projected ine and along said westerly line 63.83 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly corner ' said parcel; thence South 89 degrees 22 minutes 01 seconds East along the southerly ne of said parcel 124.60 feet, more or lees, to the point of beginning. . <cepting therefrom all•that' part heretofore. annexed to the City of Stillwater by "dinance Number 545. • • :1subject to easements and reservations of record. ' Ibject to and together with•any other valid easements,-'reservations or restrictions. , 'erall parcel to be annexed. contains 79 acres, more. or less. iTES: The above description includes the Earl H. and Arlene J. Benson parcel as described in Book 289 of Deeds, Page 525, office of the County Recorder of Washington County, Minnesota. This parcel contains 0.7 acres, more or less: . The above description also•includes the Maxine Benson parcel as described in Book 1 253 of Deeds, Page 137, office of the County Recorder of Washington County, Minnesota. This parcel contains 1 acre; more or .less. • All of the above described parcels are subject to and benefited by easements of record. The overall annexation description is intended to be used for the sole purpose of annexing that portion of the Gilbert Benson Farm presently in Stillwater Township, as well as the Earl and Arlene. Benson parcel and the Maxine Benson parcel, into the City of Stillwater. Fee interests•are not defined by this 'annexation description. • • • . r I,.-..t.. ....ru. ...... ..... .... , Exhibit "A" Page Two Exhibit "C" IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NO. TO: City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota We hereby issue an irrevocabl e stand-by b Y Letter of Credit No. in favor of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota (the "City" ) , for account of Ground Development, Inc. , (the "Applicant") , which is available by negotiation of City' s draft at sight on or before the first day of February,g y ua y, 1995, for 100 percent of statement value, up to an amount not to exceed Fifty- Five Thousand ($55,000. 00) dollars, accompanied by a written statement executed by the Mayor of the City or its designee, bearing the number of this Letter of Credit and stating that the amount u t of the City's draft covers the indebtedness ss of the Applicant to the City, provided for in Section 3.04(c) of the "Development Agreement" by and between the City of Stillwater and the Applicant, approved by the City on the day of , 1991 . We hereby agree with the City that all drafts drawn under and in substantial compliance with the terms of this credit will be duly honored on presentaiton. This credit shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota, including, in particular, Minnesota Statutes Sections 336.5-101 to 336. 117 (Uniform Commercial Code, Article 5, Letters of Credit) . By Its Exhibit "D" GUARANTY RELATING TO THE HIGHLANDS OF STILLWATER THIS GUARANTY made this day of , 1991 , by Steven C. Fiterman, (hereinafter referred to as "Guarantor") to the City of Stillwater, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, Washington County, Minnesota, (hereinafter referred to as the "City" ) with respect to all promises made to the City relative to The Highlands of Stillwater, (hereinafter referred to as the "Project" ) . Section 1 . Application. Ground Development, Inc. , a Minnesota Corporation, has made application to the City under the City' s zoning and subdivision ordinances for approval to develop property located in the City for single-family residential use. Section 2. Inducement. The City has undertaken to install public improvements in furtherance of the development involving installation of sanitary sewer, water systems, storm sewer and street improvements described in the plans and specifications set forth for Local Improvement No. . The Guarantor, after considering all aspects of his liability and all of the proceedings of the City relative to the awarding of the contracts for the construction of the improvements, for the purpose of inducing the City to enter contracts for the construction of the improvements, and to pay and finance the costs thereof as set forth in the attached Development Agreement relating to the development, (hereinafter referred to as the ( "Development Agreement") the Guarantor, his endorsees, transferees, heirs, personal representatives, successors or assigns hereby unconditionally guarantee unto the City due and punctual payment of any charges, consultant fees, special assessments, pending assessments or reassessments, or any other obligations to be paid by the Developer as set forth in the Development Agreement at such times and in such manner as is therein set forth. Section 3. Indebtedness Guaranteed. This indebtedness, the discharge of which is hereby guaranteed, includes any renewals or extensions, in whole or in part, including both principal and interest, such attorneys fees as may be due or collectible by law under the Development Agreement together with any such damages, losses, costs, charges, expenses and liabilities of any kind, nature and description suffered or incurred by the City arising in any manner out of or in any way connected with the Project as defined in the Development Agreement. Section 4. Default. In the event Developer is in default in the payment of any of the indebtedness referred to in the Development Agreement, the payment of which is hereby guaranteed, Guarantor shall immediately, upon demand by the City, pay to the City the full amount of the indebtedness in the payment of which default . P Y has occurred and such obligations shall become the direct and primary obligation of the Guarantor. Section 5. Termination. This Guaranty shall terminate when all of the Developer' s promises with respect to the Development Agreement have been discharged in accordance with the law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the City has caused this Guaranty to be executed in its corporate name by its duly authorized officers and sealed with its corporate seal and the Guarantor has executed this Guaranty at Stillwater, Minnesota, the day and year first above written. CITY OF STILLWATER GUARANTOR Wally Abrahamson, Mayor Steven C. Fiterman Attest: Mary Lou Johnson, Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) On this day of , 1991 , before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, appeared Wally Abrahamson and Mary Lou Johnson, to me personally known who, being by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Stillwater and that this instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of the City by authority of its City Council and they acknowledge that said instrument was the free act and deed of the City. Notary Public • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) On this day of , 1991 , before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, appeared Steven C. Fiterman, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the Guarantor named in the foregoing instru- ment and that this instrument was signed as his free act and deed. Notary Public EXHIBIT "E" CONSENT OF MORTGAGEES The undersigned, being all of the mortgagees interested in the real estate described in the Exhibit "A" to a Development Agreement dated the day of , 1991 , between the City of Stillwater and Ground Development, Inc. , hereby consent to the Development Agreement, including the provision of § 3.04 relating to the release of their interest therein. This consent is freely given this day of February, 1991 . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) On this day of February, 1991 , before me, a Notary Public in and for said County, appeared to me, personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are and mortgagees named in the foregoing instrument and that this instrument was signed as their free act and deed. Notary Public This instrument drafted by: David T. Magnuson Magnuson & Moberg 324 South Main Street Stillwater, MN 55082 WASHINGTON COUNTY EMS COUNCIL DESIGNATION OF DELEGATE TO EMS COUNCIL REPRESENTING: 1991 DELEGATE TO EMS COUNCIL NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: DAY PHONE: EVE. PHONE (Please complete the mailing address as you wish to receive all Council correspondence , minutes , agendas , meeting notices, etc. ) First Alternate: Second Alternate: 1991 SCHEDULED MEETING DATES FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY EMS COUNCIL JANUARY 23 , 1991 APRIL 24 , 1991 JULY 24, 1991 OCTOBER 23 , 1991 All meetings are scheduled for 7 :00 p.m. at the Washington County Public Health Department Training Room, 4th Floor, Government Center, Stillwater, MN (unless otherwise noted on meeting notice) . Please call Lowell Johnson, 430-6725 if you are unable to attend. Thank you. 1 1 '' LIST OF BILLS EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 91-22 i Ace Hardware Batteries/Chain $ 35.46 Allen, Bradley Ice Arena Duty 41.22 American Linen Supply Linen Service 14.00 A T & T Lease/Rentals 146.20 A T & T Leased Equipment 47.42 Blevins Concession Supply Concession Supplies 76.50 Bliss Plumbing & Heating Repair Toilet-Garage 71.38 Bd. Water commissioners Repair Hydrant 707.97 Bureau Criminal Apprehension Work Stations/Connect Chg. 330.00 Bureau Criminal Apprehension Class - Wardell 60.00 Capitol City Regional Fire Fighters Assn. Dues 25.00 Central St. Croix Valley Joint Cable Communications Comm. Davis/Attorney Fees 7,425.28 Century Power Equipment Equipment Parts 111.83 Community Wrlunteer Service Contribution 2,362.50 Courier, The Publications 59.25 Division Emergency Management Conference-Murphy 26.00 Ecolab Pest Elimination Pest Control 195.00 Erban, Dorothy Refund-Filing Fees 170.00 III First Trust National Assn. Bond Fees 2,679.92 Fred's Tire Company 2 Tire Changes 25.00 Frito - Lay, Inc. Concession Supplies 255.01 Fritz Company Inc. Concession Supplies 849.03 Gopher State One-Call Locate Requests 5.00 Grindstone, Inc. - Ice Knives Sharpened 15.00 G & K Services Uniform Rental 686.17 Heritage Printing Daily Log Sheets 115.45 Hydrocon, inc. Estimate #4 19,642.99 Jefferson Fire & Safety Power Blower 1,200.00 J. L. Shiely Company Sand 438.91 Junker Recycling Service January Recycling 6, 594.00 Junker Sanitation Service Services 574.00 Lace Company Mouth Guards/Tape 264.03 League Mn. Cities Insurance Insurance Premiums 48,875.75 Magnuson, David Legal Services 8,102.59 Mahtomedi High School Gate Split 16.00 Metropolitan Area Management Association Membership Dues 15.00 Metropolitan Fire Equipment Oil for Hurst Tool 55.00 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Sewer Service Charge 71,024.00 M I I, Inc. Term Life Insurance 1,009.26 Minn Comm Paging Maintenance Charge 220.00 Mn. Recreation & Park Assn. 1991 Dues-Bielenberg 110.00 r North Star International Switch $ 27.41 10 One Hour Express Photo Photo Work 19.35 Pepsi-Cola Company Concession Supplies 731.75 Places Design History Foundation 65.00 R & R Specialties Impellers/Valve Adj . 303.67 Reliable Office Supplies Office Supplies 333.04 Revere Products Ice Melt 333.24 Ritzer, Joseph Mileage-Jury Duty 3.84 River City Beverage Concession Supplies 275.00 Ruffridge - Johnson Trip Spring 104.45 St. Croix Animal Shelter January Fees 325.00 St. Croix Car Wash Squads Washed 90.75 Seim, Margaret Uniform Alterations 24.50 Sellner, Joanne Ice Arena Duty 19.63 Short Elliott Hendrickson Engineering 4,879.16 Short Elliott Hendrickson Engineering-#257 59,998.05 Snyder Bros. #16 Cat Food/Film/Frame 51.86 Stafford, R. H. Washington County Treas. TIF Property Listing 52.85 Stillwater Book & Stationery Office Supplies 25.97 Suburban Propane Propane 265.50 Taystee Baking Company Concession Supplies 167.20 Thompson Hardware Company Supplies 189.57 ®1 Tri-State Pump & Control 6 Furnace Heaters 68.64 Twin City Suburban Conf. Gate Split • 2,127.00 ',, U. S. West Communications Telephone Service 477.18 411 ''' Valley Auto Supply Auto Parts 429.88 Van-O-Lite, Inc. Lights 62.00 Vern's GTC Auto Supply Tools 301.70 Warren, Mack Ice Arena Duty 17.66 Washington County Public Health Hazardous Waste Fee 142.80 Wybrite, Inc. Mte. Agreement 158.00 Yocum Oil Company Fuel Oil 1,095.14 III ADDENDUM TO BILLS A T & T Long Distance Calls 47.38 B C A Sex Assault clinic 60.00 Croix Oil Co. Gas 9.71 Diane Deblon Health Insurance 219.23 Dorsey & Whitney Re: Oak Glen 1,703.60 League Mn. Cities Workers Comp 31,253.50 Munici - Pals Membership 5.00 Adopted by the Council this 19th Day of February, 1991 APPROVED FOR PAYMENT CONTRACTORS APPLICATIONS • February 19, 1991 Opus Corporation General Contractor Renewal P.O. Box 150 Minneapolis, Mn. 55440 Petroleum Maintenance Excavators Renewal 3172 Spruce St. St. Paul , Mn. 55117 Ritzer Excavating Excavators Renewal 919 5th Ave. So. Stillwater, Mn. 55082 Wallmaster Co. General Contractor Renewal 1197 Payne Ave. St. Paul , Mn. 55101 I. F CLAIM AGAINST CITY OF STILLWATER • NAME OF CLAIMANT --- er`7 I,. /1rK" it SS H 3 ADDRESS /v.cJV 1 PO NE N0. ei4e4.2%fdi9T— WHEN DID EVENT OCCUR? .3 ( `( ?d WHERE DID EVENT OCCUR? _c p v e WHAT HAPPENED? (v\ COY - ,,� kt-ie c I e..`rt'w e,„ (9 I-FL tA. -4-41 t. Ulc Ise C_�. ,ti © � +I—�e �e,4 ►�� vaK7 ` S WHY DO YOU FEEL THAT THE CITY WAS AT FAULT? 1 c���e��/fc cw-7.vtrelo e i7o.re-e7 STATE THE NATURE OF THE DAMAGE AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED Ct.... c.,LL 0 762 NAME OF PERSON MAKING REPAIR; OR GIVING CARE ,,/j,,(.4 ;ter , g/e„riov-141 14 v r s . .a.... C)2 *--/- DATE / SIGNATURE You have to formally notify the City in writing within thirty (30) days of the occurrence of an event whereby you feel you have suffered damages. Return to • City Clerk 216 No 4th St . Stillwater . Minn 55082 e--/3 LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL BXHOSP1874H PATIEt.. MEDICARE 24.0066 'MVO 919 W. Anderson Street, Stillwater, MN 55082 .(612) 439-5330 IRS 41.0811697 .� .,7 1. M, DPW 0101712 ALICIA R ARNOTT JEFF ARNOTT - 441265-0 Outpatient $ 4i...41. ;PATIENT NAME RESPONSIBLE PARTY I MED.RECORD NO. • l • .TYPE AMOUNT REMITTED PLEASE DETACH AND RETURN THIS STUB WITH YOUR REMITTANCE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT. • V ALICIA R ARNOTT 0 1 :4" ,_,;PATIENT NAME I MEDICAL RECORD NUMBER I BIRTHDATE I PAGE NUMBER POLICYHOLDER NAME/ADDRESS INSURANCE INFORMATION JEFF ARNOTT Primary: 105 NE 6TH AVE Id No Gr No PINE CITY, MN 55063 Secondary: Id No Gr No Tertiary: • July 11, 1990 05JUL90 05JUL90 - CARLSIN NAYNE 8 ' ` BIWNG DATE, ...`<: .--I . $.-:,ADMITTANCE DATE I. DISCHARGE DATE: ;.:-I u...•:.PHYSICIAN ':;: • DATE ;'SERVICE CODE DESCRIPTION QUANTITY SEIM= AMOUNT 5JUL90 2505730 LACERATION REPAIR 1 $13.50 $13.50 5JUL90 2702172 EMERGENCY ROOM • 1 $25.00 $25.00 5JUL90 2504664 SUTURES 1 $5.00 $5.00 5JUL90 2716293 STAFF PHYSICIAN SUTURES 1 $68.20 $68.20 SUMMARY OF CHARGES CSR $18.50 EMERGENCY ROOM $25.00 PHYSICIANS $65.20 SUB-TOTAL OF CHARGES $111.70 c0 I / / pct 3 ( -60, -Gk..I(1 l€z- 1 .. S. r PLEASE PAY glop $111.70 l.:r , LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOPITAL THIS AMOUNT K 919 W. Anderson Street, Stillwater, MN 55082 (612) 439-5330 • %Mr erne FROM THE DESX OF JEFF ARNOTT Sey,7 717f 7L2 ' f 7`v y cri . Act-e0 14-1 (a... ,:toC "4-)LL-4 ( 1 • f�t2 1 �J f� r •Q • saes------��1.V�+'4 4)&7 Account Executive 612-629-3805 TvVINc � ■ DRUG OF 900 NORTH THIRD S I uttT MINNEAPOLIS.MN 55401 • • _� •LILY LAKE.RECREATION CENTER • ' '• • REPORT OF PERSONAL INJURY -••NA.E OF INJURE - • AGE `--' ADDRESS t � DATE OF ACCIDEr'T S TIME PLACE OF ACCIDENT Lty• U j 5 - DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT (fail, coUisicn, struck with object, etc.) , U6: Cr r\ aCY\O DESCRIPTION OF INJURY (cut lip, bruised elbow, lacerated scalp, etc.) C \i , C ti WHAT FIRST AID D1T YOU GIVE? najkc.AZinli--) 1.3 EtC1) III HOW WAS INJURED PERSON MOVED? BY WHCiH? • • WHO WAS NOTIF T D OF INJ J:Y? SIGNATURE OF PERSON MAKING REPORT T.--'Q.IJt-r \ l .67131 d- r- DATE OF REPORT 1 /� �v T /PLAYGROUND FO 1-1 • • 1991 • 'Mater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA APPLICATION TO CONSUME Applicant Information Name of oroani zat ion__The_McKusick_Eamillt_Assnciatian Applicant Name (Full) _Qte ]„jmg_m_ aKua ,c , Street Address 404 Birchwood Ave. Birth Date City_aj Qhwood State Minnesota Zip,55110 Home Phone_42.6.-5ia2 Work Phone__amie Facility Information Park or facility to be used__R].,Q,CLQg1<_Ea. .k Date to be used_mi .._3._LgaL___ Time to be Used_lQ_am,_tQ_c14ag____ • Number of persons expected_2QQ_3QQ people Purpose (softball game, wedd i ne, etc. ).aeuu)1-j o Type of activity(fund raiser, dancing, music, etc. )__p,icnic Check Appropriate Information ___.___Beer to Consume Liquor or to Consume Beer to Sell & Consume Liquor to Sell & Consume Wine to Consume Wine to Sell & Consume Security Informat ion (Internal Use Only) Police Officer Required by City?__ X ___Yes. No. Beer will be Officer Rate of Pay $13_,5Q_hr. available only from 12 noon till 6 PM Mail License To: (If different than applicant) CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER. MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency • 11(;);\ 520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-3898 1404t:e Telephone (612) 296-6300 MINNESOTA 1990 February 11, 1991 Mr. Michael R. Kraemer, P.E. Manager Municipal Engineering Department 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 Dear Mr. Kraemer: RE: Conditions for Request to Take Corrective Action (Request) Pursuant to the Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Act. Minn. ch. 115C (1990) • Project: City of Stillwater Sewer Improvement Project Sites: NE Corner of Nelson Street (Area 1); NW Corner of Commercial Street and Main Street (Area 2); NE Corner of Laurel Street and Main Street (Area 3) The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is concerned that while doing excavations for the utility installation, petroleum contaminated soil and/or groundwater be handled properly under Minn. Stat. 115.061 (spill law). Also that enough information be available to MPCA staff prior to issuing a Request. Please be aware that if the contamination is from a source other than a tank, i.e a spill, than the City of Stillwater would not be eligahie for reimbursement from the Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board. In order to process and determine the requested action and exclusions of a request, the MPCA needs the following information submitted for each occurrence: 11. Location of petroleum contaminated soils and total cubic yards. 2. Identification of potential contamination sources (i.e. service stations, industry). In addition, whether the release was from a spill or a tank release. • 3. Parameters for soil and/or ground water analyses. Parameters shall be determined by potential sources in the area. See attached parameter fact sheet for guidance. • Regional Offices: Duluth• Brainerd• Detroit Lakes• Marshall • Rochester Enitro Opportunity Employer • Printed on RecvdQr Paper • aalaAITTlS 'aolaalsTuTwpy 1c 3 'Tasatax ITN :oa saansopug du:of 410 uOTSATQ alsaM snop:rezeg uoT43aS surds pua sxuay aoTuaS 1sTP2TaadS Toa:uoo uoTpnTTod woogaaou •0 auaf 0 -yit 'AtaaaouTS 'q'S'7£-p79/zI9 la aw 13a4uoa as-said 'suoT4sanb Ave aneq no& ;I •4oacoad uoTpanausuoo aql ;o s2so3 puoAaq asTMaaglo 'aalat punoa2 ao/pua sITos aq4 lo TasodsTp pine 2uTTpuaq aadoad agi gxpA palap ossa slsoa TTy •9 i •aa�at punoa2 ao/pine sTTos'Jo TasodsTp aql aoT Tasodoad y •r, •wua2eTp uoTpaaoT a uo parualsnITT aq TTags suoTpanaasgo Ka asagy •anbTugaal 2uT[dwes aosdspaaq aul pua 4uawnaUsuT uoTlazTuoToLogd u 2uTsn a4Fs uo sups palauTwe4uoo wnaioalad 2uTuaaaos pTaTI ;o snnnsag •�j 1661 'TT Aaanagaa z a2Ed aawaaax •g Tamp-FR •41 =sal • ANEW ENGINEERS■ARCHITECTS■PLANNERS 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRN ST.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55110 612 490-2000 February 11, 1991 RE: STILLWATER, MINNESOTA FORCEMAIN EXTENSION ON FAIRMEADOWS ROAD L.I. NO. 270 SEH FILE NO. 89114 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Stillwater Stillwater City Hall 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Council Members: As you requested at the Council meeting on January 15, 1991, we are writing this report to inform you that the Fairmeadows Road • forcemain extension has now been completed. The City crews finished installing the new impellers and motor heaters on the pumps in the Maryknoll lift station on Friday, February 8, 1991, and plugged the old forcemain. The Fairmeadows lift station is now pumping independently through the new forcemain with a discharge into the manhole on Owen Street. This will completely eliminate any forcemain discharge into the deadend manhole just east of Darrell Drive. The City forces will continue to maintain the gravity sewer on Fairmeadows Road and cut the roots in the area as needed. It is our understanding that the Council will make this letter available for residents of the area to pick up at City Hall. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Richard E. Moore City Engineer REM/cmb cc: Mr. David Junker, Public Works Director SHORT EWOTT ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS, HENDRICKSON INC. MINNESOTA WISCONSIN STILLWATER ST. CROIX BARGE TERMINAL CO. • 133 SOUTH WATER STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 439-6060 Terminal Founded 1928 February 11, 1991 City of Stillwater City Hall Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Attn: Mayor and Council Gentlemen: 411 Enclosed please find our check #3510 in the amount of $1,357.93 for rent of the property used by the Corporation according to the terms of the lease of September, 1958 between the City of Stillwater and the Stillwater St. Croix Barge Terminal Co. The tonnage for 1990 totalled 18,317.19 net tons. The tonnage going over our dock has been staying pretty close to the same for the past two years and we are kind of expecting the same for 1991. Hopes are that 1991 will be better. Very truly yours, STILLWATER ST. CROIX BARGE TERMINAL CO. Atogi Frank E. Aiple FEA/lcl Enc. 411 s /144i WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RECEIVED OF $ / 3. 2• 13 • o / / ' d �' FOR • • CODE• AMOU.NT,=; /35-7, 93 • BY �-3 31231 19 • - FIATPAKITO MOORE BUSINESS FORMS,INC.L • • • MEMORANDUM TO: DICK MOORE FROM: GLEN VAN WORMER DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 1991 SUBJ: STILLWATER, MINNESOTA HIGHWAY 95 NORTH OF STILLWATER MN/DOT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SEH FILE NO: 89114 I reviewed the plans which were sent to the City from Mn/DOT for the reconstruction of Highway 95 from just south of Highway 96 north towards Marine on St. Croix. The project apparently will be bid on March 8, 1991 and construction will begin as soon as possible, probably in mid-April. The project is very similar to the preliminary plans which Mn/DOT prepared a few years ago. Major change in the Stillwater area is the conversion of the 3-legged Highway 95 and Highway 96 inter- section to a standard with Alder Street relocated to complete a fourth leg of the intersection. Under this concept, Highway 95 becomes a through street with Highway 96 as a "T" route. The existing north connection between Highway 95 and Highway 96 will become a frontage road connecting to Highway 96 west of the new intersection. It will also connect to the existing frontage road into County Road 11. North of County Road 11, it becomes a dead end street. Highway 95 will have left turn lanes northbound to Highway 96 and southbound to Alder Street. Memorandum February 8, 1991 Page #2 The project begins just north of the old railroad bridge on Highway 95 and ends two miles south of where the previous project through Marine on St. Croix ended. The road will be reconstructed providing right turn lanes at most streets and left turn lanes at major crossroads such as Square Lake Road. At the Boom Site, the existing highway will be totally reconstructed so that it will be a two lane roadway rather than two separate roadways. There will also be some modifications on some of the curves and some of the cross streets will be slightly relocated. The work will require the closing of Highway 95 for the summer. A detour route will be set utilizing Highway 96, County Road 55 and County Road 7 past Square Lake. Most traffic is expected to use County Road 15. The primary changes are shown on Sheet 162 which is enclosed. I have retained the rest of the plans for our reference in the future. If you have any questions or need any additional information, give me a call. If you want the plans back, please call. Enclosure GVW/cih i . toNNESpi4 Z J I/ /' n ° Minnesota Department of Transportation • Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 M NNESOTAI990 lc, 4D OF The 297-1870 January 14, 1991 Room 715N Ms . Mary Lou Johnson City Clerk City of Stillwater 216 North 4th Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 In Reply Refer To: S.P. 8210-81 (T.H. 95=95) Mn. Proj . F-FG 082-1( 38) T.H. 95 from approximately 850 feet South of T.H. 96 in Stillwater to South Limits of Marine Dear Ms . Johnson: A contract is scheduled to be let on or after March 8, 1991 for • construction on Trunk Highway 95 as referenced above. Enclosed we are sending you prints of the final plan sheets . The • proposed right of way limits are indicated on the final plan sheets . These plans are being sent to you for informational purposes only and are intended to alert you of the proposed construction so that you may protect your interests . Mr. Donald Peterson, R.E. , at Oakdale will have the supervision of this project. His telephone number is 337-5177 . If you have any questions regarding the above referenced project, please contact Bruce Mikkelson at telephone number 296-8652 . Sincerely, Leonard M. Sandstrom, P.E. Utilities Agreements Engineer Enclosures: Selected Plan Sheets An Equal Opportunity Empkwer . N W v to s N 0 C �; 0 �` V 0 O A / t.0 - %Cr // 4 747 Z ,. ;V,// /^7.") o ei „(r) 0, ''. 7 V\/a. / / �°�' / O1,•/�P��tia` / 2'• IN 5 `022•as W, © /,�I�.y°/ Obi tu �, u y/ Nip 04.1*---; '9 : t/•/'. \ AC., ft, / to 0 p 4. 41 • ail S'.4111414 - -----........ \ y l'O p c' 50'R m y 0 ;•l\© / h Ki co ti O .t i ka:;(3-7./ ....* /s, \ / 4.`'.,..;, 4 v 40°,.' / . •„...., �� P ° ° ® \'1, c O p + v O a•9 S / ry b \ 'hti / h \\ s ,/ • �. ` l o• �• \F8 / Q 2 2k. 02 •'\ '1 t/ �� o`- �, \ s*y \50.4 „:0, 0 �' ,�: "� ♦may 2 • 8' R h �<tr� °1Q'V` z . '.' A5. \ \ . 0, W . • A. ID 6$. U �•'o a' i I Z t1 " ¢ II uT cr;.-=•• — O \\ .i Q ... N N i • h 1 M ul • n, �o Ob• 0110 bZ98 0 a -. 0 cc a z c! N la m r oNi ' NJQ i ,= W '' m z ` 11 Nzcc o I Z I 00• IaI i °.0�p + 00561, t r` IN .4 09• 'ncr,2 i o 1 Mot Zt)01,• '1N3 ► d a 8 SNtlal •01 i 0�3 bZ98 0N3 £Z• \^ 01• ; at .bZ)S8. •1N3 A ( ,Ol)08.•1N3 el OZ- - - .. \• \ 01,911E64 •1N3 II I I )- Ei ( .91)054 •1N3 111 c� ( .01)91• '1143 0 ' • 88• 09• 1,1• 023 bZ92 '038 livM ON3 £1. 10 t v+ 1 _ TWA 'dNI— "JINN In I 11VM '032 L£•i Z• 013 1,Z9S '039-.11vM ON3 �- .£ i •d�11 O I- F""_1'M V _. • SZ>•St-£yS '038 t - 1 a d 1.« t II gi RI Ri { v o e � P _.' t I �•0Z•6&;-_- %)0+!._«...I...._.«.i.«.•Q C I ! 111111 1111';' I.I } I = 's �11I11I111} ' 1111 I111; 11 ; '1i1, 1 1 = Il; l " 11111111•1111 Iiiir-"1 i', ! I 11,111, 11 1\ � IIIIiIIIIIiI�i1IIiIIII,IiI VIII I I Il IIII I4I II4 0 0 I I _»«=E«»I , Ill l 1 111.1.»1111 1,I ..«. N N esso `00 1,�..»««..TriiTrifilIFIT---ii-t-f----- IIITT:i.'11,1-. i� I(I: iH i } ''�~� 1� s i' C 1 � y I � 11 , 1 � I�I 11} 4l 11 , I!i}� 1�i 0 X 1 I III I I l l 11.11111 II 1 . �„,1 I_II 4 I l III 110.1111 '°•4�`I I Ill ' 111.i!11 i_._» Il ICI I` I 1 _«II•I I 7 Z -0 \ \ 1111 , a Or13 IIIi _-�IV .. 0 t 19f F c iii �\ , I h t 21181• :: t‘o ' -»-. —a:. G. i 1 N ' I LU n 0 t ,0Z191.• •14 \ »«« i ».« «_ » i «««« E'-' .«»_ _. . O 111114:41 11 1111 'ao 1\ cc!' \ • \ V N LL I I w I. .4.• •s. 1 ' III ' iI H111111112- i a n ° \lI, I 1 ii1y at,OZltt• .1N W i «»„. Oa3 rZ99 ON3 59"' I N ' _.«» «»ii;«« w i 411 13 z I I I 1 Go•s,G 1 3 �} ...1::71'), a i2 \ rimiril _ ill, I n t,O 1146•'1143 id \ » -1 pi i \ \ HI • " 1I II II i I!I i I I 1 I II 16• e I I k . Ill II i II 4p I I I_._»»___ . .«_« I , III_ VIII I irk.I , 0 t.,k I r'1 t,011£8•'1143. I v \Z S. ..................... « «. » I Lit i � LLJ•1 .. a t,9(115••1143 1' _ ».` 1 . ig...i.9� «.IRf�, _««dii 1 o 1. '1 I It-I III 4 III In J83 4299 •039 00. 1 I ; I 1 •.I ». I .««»..». Ial. r «_. .. ». ....«. b Z;_t I\ \ I cc .N _ - ££*1) X11 »»» I I II II ;•�I I . ! \ 1 t''>i I 00 v a 11t g. I 1 I I 0 a I I I 33 I H. j:J. 111 I c7: �, i ' 11I1111 11 -1—......i......—.........1 I J1 \ w _« 11 _«1111 k i' . i1 ____1 I i... FE L.7 I I1 II 'j i t r- jj I N a 04• _ .« . «»•_.«.« «.. Him l i l i ' I f = 4U • i 41111110•111.11111\ I I I i 1 1i 1 »«.««r r / OS• i I (.«« _ 1±1 .! IiI I L �, 1� ttI I .1 d li 1 iiI ,1 iili,l:1 i +1 I1z I 1 _ i.: 11I c�,._/ � ` � 1 41 i 1ii11111 I� 11 1 11I11 } ' « 1i I '1 I il ..4411 ' I 1 1 i 1 j i � I / phi-- �1 t9. 1111► [!Iliil ».I.I «_il_«ii ►111 �I I Illi 1 413 � 400;ti I ._..._.. �G) III0., .m 11 1 1 1 111 i 1 I »...«« « 1 4 1 ''<a1 i I i �i 11 I�� I i l I 1 o , —�'; -„v=,.1-^- s �, � 1!«.««.�« ,«. .11IIII � , {111 1111 I I�4 = ;:i� I .«._.� W� a. / 1 s i i�/ X 1I , 1 •11 ! 1 1 ! 11 ;11) _ ` I '1!i'� J 1 1 1/ D 1.1 ,sr Irrl. Itt:41: ,Iiri 111II=11, 10 I li t t1!tis •_ A/i ;'. 1\ \ «!. #» ..i. i. '« I I i {. . 1 i 1 I i I ,n y// 1 r ... ' I .. 'O•.. 1 ' O} I C• I Q S 1 O= i C 1 I I n• N i ' 410 • 0 , -- .`. j ? j i " (.4z) o m i:a' T NI r 1 1 N I f _" , d : .rzL '' IA »-M-- ' 1 1. 1 1 111111111 I I I s I{ {, �0 � L::. .m c3 cp 0 !� i �,i k Z Q r�g o 0~1N3 4 i X• ..0 1.1 / / inct.,11..: oo L. J I l q" r ��11 og.o''z r I _ i 8' �j _ q 21�6Z. 1N '*� I '(�9( I co 0 ii » I 111 t ,. I I a to ol " _ I $ ____»_»_. i ._: » I�$. Q 1 _ »_ _ _ _ __ - t N i I I I J .i D v ....................... I I co Lf,bi)1S• '1N3.' �� I 1g.N I _. z Ps U in „ j. CS An d V' L. : w .o�_@Zlti'4 3 Ill. till.'III , in L. " 1 _»»»__ ».�_ _._»_ _.». » ��II AI rn IN z in :".........NN.......N.......\,............ �, Ix sn N la I p ii M N t6• '1N3 tO 'a a.0£) !1'n I • I I II Ili' cc in cL d �) N. z ul �, m m • •- } • ____.__...__.. _ . jj((, �ty co NI 11 11 1.14k Is ___ .______ _ I l \i In \ ul Icil ,101:1,111.7 r i \ . ...._.........._ _____ , qkk 1 r I _ _» 0 ial i ;_ 1 II I 1 1 . Ili. N • _ »»_; _ dI{'# ' Oh r� .\ 0 \ _.., I _ 1 1 on \.6. 1 1 t V\ \ZS` 1hiI �_ I I . I '. I•111111, 11 I . 1 .. 1wI I�� I I I( I • \ .o L113 N I ' ! i li d � ji I ' ' \ 0 .0 1' 1 ! {,I :Hi I • I . ` , , 1 III, . ' t LL . '\', \\ • r • • 4) 1.159"c WASHINGTON COUNTY J.Scott 8 9 e,MAI,CAE County Assessor '3 <�� ASSESSOR'S OFFICE Dennis Montague,CMA Assistant County GOVERNMENT CENTER Assessor 14900 81ST STREET NORTH,P.O.BOX 8•STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 550820008 430.8092 .'yoosr GpESS� Office(812)430.8090 Facsimile Machine(812)430-8246 ..__ Judith M.Ellis,CMA Assessment Administration Coordinator 430.6093 DATE: February 8, 1991 • TO: Washington County City and Township Clerks FROM: Scott Renne, County Assessor SUBJECT: 1991 Local Boards . of Review February 7, 1991,, the final 1991 Local Board of Review schedule and the assessment notices were mailed to you. Please post and arrange for publication of the assessment notice in the official newspaper of your city or township at least ten days prior to the Board of Review. Once again we will be sending an information book to all local clerks and elected officials that will detail their responsibilities and information about the 1991 Washington County Assessment. The booklet is being developed at present and if you have any items you would like.. covered, please contact me. • The first meeting for the Board is the time that appears on the valuation notices that are sent to property owners that have had a valuation change of $500. 00 or more (either increase or decrease) or classification change. Other property owners do not receive a valuation notice but may still appear at the Local Board. At this meeting the Local Board listens to the appeals of the property owners. The Local Assessor and County Assessor's Office are in attendance to provide information to the Board and property owner. After this meeting is recessed until the second meeting (we have attempted to precede a regularly council meeting by thirty minutes) where the official action is usually taken. Some jurisdictions want the Local Assessor or a representative from the County Assessor's Office at the second meeting, most do not. Our schedule is very hectic during this time period and we prefer not to double the amount of meetings that we have to simply watch a routine action. If you desire P Y Y f me representation at the second meetin g please notify m in writing g as soon as possible. • We look forward to working with you at the 1991 Boards of Review. Please call me at 430-6091 with any questions that you may have. janotice 4% ,nd on Recycled Paw EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ��• • LUMBERJACK DAYS "91" PARADE APPLICATION • NAME OF UNIT NAME OF CONTACT PERSON PHONE ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP r PLEASE CHECK TYPE OF ENTRY: 1 . Drum & Bugle Corps/Marching Bands 2. High School Marching Bands 3. Drill Teams/Marchers & Twirlers 4. Floats 5 . Novelties 6 . Local Amateur Floats and Novelties 7. Non—Competitive Unit (see letter) PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING: HOW MANY PEOPLE IN YOUR UNIT? DOES YOUR UNIT PRESENT MUSIC TO PARADE VIEWERS? • IF YOU ARE REQUESTING A SPONSOR, WHAT IS YOUR COST? Please give a brief description of your unit for our judges and announcer If you have any questions please call the Chamber at (612) 439-7700 . • Please return this entry form to; David Swanson, Parade Chairman C/O Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce 423 South Main St Stillwater, MN. 55082-5127 • February, 11, 1991 Dear Past Parade Participant, Due to a new look coming to downtown Stillwater this summer, our apologies for the timeliness of this letter, as dates needed to be reconfirmed. We hope you' ll accept this as a personal invitation to once again join us for our Lumberjack Days Parade and the commemoration of The Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce Centennial , 1891-1991 . The dates for Stillwater Lumberjack Days 1991 are July 18 through July 21, 1991 . The date of the Parade will be Sunday, July 21st, starting at 1 : 00 p.m. WE WILL MAIL PARADE POSITIONS AND ROUTE INFORMATION IN LATE JUNE Qualified judges will select winners and there will be an awards presentation following the parade in Stillwater' s Pioneer Park. The following categories will receive cash prize consideration; 1 . Drum & Bugle Corps/Marching Bands 2 . High School Marching Bands 3 . Drill teams/Marchers & Twirlers 4. Floats 5 . Novelties 6 . Local Amateur Floats and Novelties Category No. 7 consists of Non--Competitive parade units. Non-Competitive parade units include Commercial , Advertising, and Political units etc, and must include a $50 . 00 entry fee . This fee is waived for paid sponsors of Lumberjack Days. "91" . All category 7 entries must be decorated using the LJD theme "Serving the St . Croix Valley 1891-1991" and are limited in size . We look forward to your early response . Lumberjack Days is an exciting and fun time for all participants, and we hope that your unit will join us in making another Stillwater LJD Parade one to remember! Sincerely, Dave Swanson Parade Chairman ..... - • • -' & 1e( �ci-Ko m SG�'n A- o Lu i C i I - wn s i r7.t i•j h ore d u>he4 b tO1/4. P Y-e4u.n.t ci vYt-e u) ►���vl c_-h to f e Ci-1-v 0 r ch luck -toiby ed r ,. c,T). _ (5\rer h.e Pc& C1L p t jecufs and rn p f0 Li CI o h.Gt CA. a Cpl 0-e. cLr't F Lift t (5-rn m i,crtittl, • S . . 411p /„. Mb 8T I L L W AT E R, MINNESOTA 55082 Mayor Wallace Abrahamson February 19 , 1991 Stillwater City Council 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater MN 55082 Dear Mayor Abrahamson & City Council Members ; The project orientation meetings for the downtown improvement project held last week were informative and helpful. Since contract letting appears imminent, I am submitting the following request and proposal for the shared-cost removal of three to four NSP power poles north of the Lowell Inn on the west side of North Second Street between Myrtle and Mulberry streets. Second Street (and the Lowell Inn) are presently served by the outdated, four kilovolt primary power service from NSP Second • Street service. NSP has indicated to me that if and when the city decides to install new street lighting in this area, that the power infrastructure for the section of the downtown area will be upgraded to a 13 .8 kilovolt power service corresponding to the already upgraded main street area. PROPOSAL: The City and the Lowell Inn share the cost of under- ground installation of approximately 500 feet of underground service. PLAN: Installation of the secondary, underground, power service is the oblication of the Lowell Inn. The present location of the Lowell Inn transformer is on top of the power-pole located on the northeast corner of the Second Street service driveway 30 feet from our building service entrance of which a present junction-box for city street lighting is located. I propose transfer of the Lowell Inn transformer to a ground-level pad near the second pole north of the Lowell Inn. This location will add approximately 220 feet to the length of the secondary. power-service we require and will install underground at our cost and expense provided: 1. The city allow installation of Lowell Inn transformer on r the most northerly and easterly portion of the city parking lot north of the Lowell Inn at no cost to the Lowell Inn. page 2 2. The City bear the cost of an underground primary service (from the corner of Mulberry and Second streets) of a length equal to or greater than the 250 feet of secondary service from the relocated transformer to be paid for by the Lowell Inn. Aside from the obvious cost savings and reduced discription by undertaking this project along with the other Second Street improve- ments, public interest will be served as follows: 1. Underground power service will allow further development to the area north of the Lowell Inn without obstruction from the random location of power poles. 2 . Increased automobile and pedestrian safety from removal of poles obstructing parking driveways. 3. Long-term visual improvement of the area from the removal of unsightly power poles. Your consideration and attention to this matter at this time will result in a greatly improved NSP electrical power infrastructure for our area. Sincerely, Arthur V. Palmer (Dictated today) cc: Mayor Abrahamson, Steve Russell AVP/ms CENTRAL SAINT CROIX VALLEY JOINT CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1917 MX S. Greeley Street Stillwater, MN 55082-(5012 (612)439-8803 A N N U A L M E E T I N G N O T I C E The Central Saint Croix Valley Joint Cable Communications Commission will hold its annual meeting on Wednesday, February 20, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. in the Valley Access Channels Studio, 1913 South Greeley Street (above Tom Thumb in Greeley Square Building, ) Stillwater, Minnesota . A G E N D A (Tentative) • CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA APPROVAL ITEM I ANNUAL REPORT to MEMBER CITIES and to the PUBLIC ITEM II ELECTION OF OFFICERS A. Chairperson B. Vice Chairperson C. Secretary D. Treasurer ITEM III ANNUAL BUDGET • A. Method of Billing Government Entities ITEM IV ANNUAL DESIGNATIONS A. Official Newspaper B. Official Depositories ITEM V ANNUAL TASK SCHEDULE ADJOURNMENT mgr 2-13-91 Representing the Cities of Bayport, Oak Park Heights, and Stillwater also the Townships of West Lakeland, Baytown, and Stillwater • MICHAEL E. KNUTSON, Chairman JACLYN ULRICII, Vice Chairperson EDWARD LAWSON N t✓ ' BEV SCIIULTZ, Secretary MARY KREIMER-ADRIAN �• ANN M. BOI)LOVIC:K, Treasurer PHYLLIS WHITE DEAN KERN JACK 1)OERR CENTRAL SAINT CROIX VALLEY JOINT CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1917 =X S. Greeley Street • Stillwater, MN 55082-6012 (612)439-8803 F E B R U A R Y MEETING N O T I C E The Joint Cable Commission will meet in regular session at approximately 7:30 p.m. on WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1991, after its annual meeting, in the VALLEY ACCESS CHANNELS STUDIO, 1913 South Greeley Street (above Tom Thumb in Greeley Square Building, ) Stillwater, Minnesota . A G E N D A (Tentative) CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA APPROVAL MINUTES APPROVAL ITEM I CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT A. Announce Executive Session ITEM II PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM III FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION A. 4th Quarter Franchise Fee Report 1 . Breakout of Limited Basic Subscribers B. 4th Quarter Access Expenditure Report C. Year Five of the Franchise Allocation D. Carryover Account AK - E. Johnson Complaint F. Schultz Request for Cable G. Verification/KVC ' s Workers' Compensation Insurance H. Form 325 - Outstanding ITEM IV CABLE COMPANY REPORT A. Subscriber Activity Report - January 1991 ITEM V COMMUNITY ACCESS REPORT ITEM VI COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Presentation of Bills 1 . Ayotte Bill 2. Fixmer Bill B. Financial Reports C. Commission Employees 1 . Cablecaster (Motion) 2. Cablecast Assistant (continued) Representing • the Cities of I3ayport, Oak Park Heights, and Stillwater also the Townships of\Vest Lakeland, Baytown, and Stillwater MICIIAEL E. KNUTSON, Chairman JACLYN ULRICII, Vice Chairperson EDWARD LAWSON BEV sciiui;rz, Secretary MARY KREIMER-ADRIAN ANN M. IIODLOVICK, Treasurer I'IIYLLIS WHITE DEAN KERN JACK DOERR Joint Cable Commission Agenda 2-20-91 Page Two ITEM VI COMMISSION BUSINESS (continued ) D. Channel 12 Equipment E. Evaluation - Admin. Secretary 1 . Computer F. Interconnect 1 . Mathews Letter 2. Glenn Letter G. Correspondence/Announcements UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC COMMENT AFFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE ADJOURNMENT mgr 2-13 91 II 4 CENTRAL SAINT CROIX VALLEY Aft JOINT CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 16, 1991 MINUTES UNAPPROVED CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jaclyn Ulrich called the regular meeting of the Joint Cable Commission to order at 7: 38 p.m. on Wednesday, January 16, 1991 , in Oak Park Heights City Hall, 14168 North 57th Street, Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Jaclyn Ulrich, Ann Bodlovick, Ed Lawson, Dean Kern, Doug Beedle ABSENT: Commissioners Michael Knutson, Jack Doerr, Phyllis White, Mary Kreimer-Adrian ALSO PRESENT: Roy Lalime, David Thorbus, Charlie Foukes, Don Fixmer, Marilyn Richert AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION was made by Bodlovick, seconded by Lawson to approve the agenda as amended. Motion CARRIED. MINUTES APPROVAL gli MOTION was made by Bodlovick, seconded by Lawson, to approve the Mr minutes of the December 17, 1990, meeting as presented . Motion CARRIED. Charlie Foukes said that the $18,000 allocation mentioned on page four of the December 1990 minutes under Community Access Report should be $12,000 for year five of the franchise, $18,000 for year 8, and $18,000 for year 12. Chairperson Ulrich pointed out that the Commission had been of the impression that the year five allotment was $18,000, so the minutes accurately reflected conversation during the meeting. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT Chairperson Ulrich announced that the Commission would recess for a short time at 8 :00 p.m. to listen to the President of the United States' speech relative to the war, which started today. She said the Commission would go into executive session immediately after the meeting. Ulrich said she had attended a recent School Board meeting and explained to the members the Commission ' s need for support in funding the governmental meetings . She said they will discuss this further at their next meeting on January 24, 1991 . The Board questioned whether their meetings are viewed by a sufficient number of people to warrant the cabelecasting. Viewers were asked to call the School Board or the Commission Office to indicate their interest. The Gazette carried an article on this subject in tonight 's edition. It would appear the three member cities and the County Board of Commissioners will support . the Commission with costs for cablecasting their respective monthly meetings. PUBLIC COMMENT - None. Joint Cable Commission Minutes 1-16-91 Page Two FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION VERIFICATION OF KING'S INSURANCE - On the advice of their insurance agent the Commission had previously requested to be added as additional insureds on King's auto liability insurance policy, and had also requested verification of King's workers' compensation insurance. Foukes said because the company' s auto liability follows the vehicle it was not necessary to add the Commission as additional insureds, but that the company had honored the Commission's request. He presented a front-page copy of the certificate, stating that the certificate would be forthcoming from Marsh & McLennan. He will request verification of King's workers' compensation insurance, also. RECONCILIATION OF LOCAL PROGRAMMING FEE Regarding the "carry- over" account at the end of King's fiscal year, June 30th, Foukes commented that this account indicated King's intent to spend these moneys for public access. He said an information session will be held on Friday to discuss the company spending money in the areas of promotion and publicity directed at non-subscribers geared at community access. Ulrich requested that Thorbus be invited to provide some input at this meeting. Ulrich said that because of the $1 . 35 notation on billings, subscribers get the impression that this amount of money is being O spent on public access. Foukes said the company does not collect $1 . 35 on bills that are not paid, and that it is difficult to tell who actually pays $1 .35 because it is not broken out as a line item. He continued that the amount paid is all credited to basic and does not classify $1 .35 paid for access . He said if the $1 . 35 was a separate line item, it could be tracked and cash receipts counted for public access. KING ALLOCATION - YEAR FIVE OF THE FRANCHISE - Discussion followed regarding the company's allocations of $12,000, $18,000 and $18,000 in years 5, 8 and 12, respectively, per the franchise agreement. Thorbus presented a letter to the Commission from the Community Access Corporation, which stated that the corporation and the access coordinator were in consensus with the Commission that the cost of the editor should be paid by King out of the five-year equipment upgrade/replacement funds . It further stated that Lalime had made the company aware of this request and that it would be addressed at tonight 's meeting. In response to Fouke's question regarding funds for initial payment, Bodlovick explained that the Commission had used the matrix switcher fund (with the company's approval . ) Foukes said that year five of the franchise ended in 1988, and the $12,000 allocation for year five should have been spent by Coaxial. Bodlovick replied that King had assumed Coaxial 's responsibility for payment. Foukes said Lalime had mentioned playback decks and two D-5000 camera being purchased in year five. Bodlovick pointed out that the company had never addressed these purchases as part of the year five allocation. Ulrich said that during flow-through discussions , $48,000 had been projected for access expenditures and equipment, and that Jim Commers had never disputed this projection. Joint Cable Commission Minutes 1-16-91 Aft IIP Page Three Foukes said he thought the company did spend money in year five, and that he will check the company' s records tomorrow. The meeting recessed at 8:05 p.m. , and reconvened at 8 : 17 p.m. KING ALLOCATION (continued) - Ulrich said the Commission would have to research this matter, also, and that these allocations had been one of the conditions of flow-through discussed with the company. Foukes said the Commission should be assessing needs for year 8 allocation, which will be available in October 1991 , at this time. Bodlovick replied that the company has two commitments, one for year five and one for year eight. Foukes said that if money was spent for capital equipment, it would have to counted as capital equipment upgrade. Ulrich questioned if there was capital equipment line item in the company' s budget. Discussion followed in connection with who should be ultimately reponsible for the editing equipment and the origin of funding for same. The matter of the remaining outstanding bills for the relocation and upgrade expenses was then addressed. Thorbus said the remaining unpaid balance related to lighting, and amounted to approximately $809.00. Foukes said if Lalime submits billing to company, the company will pay. Lalime and Foukes will meet to assess needs for the access center. Mgr Ulrich said the Commission will research from their office. NEW COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS - Ulrich apologized for not introducing Doug Beedle earlier in the meeting. Doug is the newly appointed official representative, fulfilling the balance of Bev Schultz's term, ending January 31 , 1992, for the City of Bayport. Phyllis White was appointed as alternate representative for an additional two-year term, ending January 31, 1993. The resident position is open effective February 1 , 1991 . CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS Darold Johnson - The Commission received resolution from the company, stating that none of the problems were the result of action on the part of King, and that the problems had been corrected and Mr. Johson is satisfied. Minnie Juhl - Foukes said the employee sending out a letter to Mrs . Juhl did not make a copy of the letter, so he was unable to furnish the Commission with a copy, as requested . King credited Mrs . Juhl 's account with $6.00 (late fees. ) The Commission will consider the Juhl complaint resolved unless it resurfaces. Lois Lutz - stated that she preferred Home Shopping Channel over Penney's Shopping Channel, saying that Penney's merchandise was considerably higher and that ads on same merchandise were too repetitive . She thought the $1 . 35 mentioned on the subscribers ' bills should go to the Commission rather than be held by the company, and she complained about the contents of the Joe Goulet Audio Hour, 40 stating she would not willingly contribute toward this production. Joint Cable Commission Minutes 1-16-91 Page Four Prime Sports Network - Complaints were received that in December a Timberwolves game had been scrambled. Foukes said their chief technician said this was caused by a faulty signal from the satellite. On January 11th, a Gopher game was also scrambled . Foukes said he was unaware of this. Complaint Log Foukes commented that there were only a few other names on the complaint log, and he was of the impression that all other complaints have been settled. AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS - Foukes informed the Commission that American Movie Classics has been added to the basic lineup on Channel 14 instead of Channel 22, as previously stated . FORM 325 OUTSTANDING - Foukes stated that the FCC never sent the forms to the company for completion. REPORTING REQUIREMENT Monthly Subscriber Report/Quarter Franchise Fee Report - The Commission previously requested the addition of Prime Sports Network (PSN) , and a breakout on the number of limited basic subscribers, and number of full-service subscribers. Pay per View and Prime Sports Network have been added to the monthly subscriber report. Foukes said breakout of limited basic subscribers could be done on the quarterly franchise fee reports. CABLE COMPANY REPORT • The Commission reviewed the December 1990 monthly subscriber report. Foukes explained that of the total 3,591 basic subscribers recorded during the month of December 1990, only ten of this total were limited basic subscribers. Foukes said the company's "Make-A-Wish" campaign had been a success bringing in over 200 new subscribers and over $3, 300 system-wide. COMMUNITY ACCESS REPORT Thorbus said the corporation's budget was being planned at a $30,000 level for approval by the board and for presentation to the Commission for the Commission's February meeting. He announced that an open house will be held at Valley Access Channels on February 21 , 1991 . Discussion followed regarding installation of dead bolt locks on the two doors into the Access Center and the studio. COMMISSION BUSINESS PRESENTATION OF BILLS - Ulrich stated that she would like to discuss one-quarter hour charge on November 5, 1990, regarding withdrawal of franchise violation notice with Mark Ayotte before authorizing payment. MOTION was made by Bodlovick, seconded by Kern, to adopt Resolution No. 91-1-28 approving payment of bills , reducing payment to Briggs & Morgan by one-quarter hour ($22 . 50) to $163.30. Motion CARRIED. FINANCIAL REPORTS - The Commission reviewed the financial reports for December 1990. There were no questions. Joint Cable Commission Minutes 1-16-91 Page Five NOMINATING COMMITTEE - Ulrich suggested formation of a nominating committee to select a slate of officers for the Commission for fiscal year 1991 . Bodlovick felt it would be sufficient to ask commissioners at the February annual meeting in what position they would be willing to serve. Jack Doerr was appointed as official representative and Dean Kern as alternate representative for Oak Park Heights for two year terms, ending January 31,. 1993. INSURANCE POLICY - The Commission's policy through League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust was returned to Keister and Keister Agency for corrections. The policy was received back on January 10, 1991 , with revisions made. The Commission paid $2,296.00, or two-thirds of the total bill of $3, 766.00, and the Corporation paid the remaining $1 ,470.00. FY 1991 BUDGET TO CITIES - Ulrich said copies of the budget had been submitted to the member cities for their approval. It was reported that Oak Park Heights had approved the budget Monday night. Ulrich read a letter received from Mayor Schultz of Bayport tonight, which stated that the Bayport City Council agreed to cablecast the 1991 City Council meetings at $31 . 25 per monthly meeting, and that the Bayport Community Action League was asked to fund this cost. They 4 will vote on this matter on February 14, 1991 . Schultz requested that the February 4th meeting be cablecast and that payment for same would be forthcoming from either the BCAL or the city, which will be conducting its meetings in Room C of the Bayport Public Library starting on February 4th, 1991 . Kern indicated that Oak Park Heights would pay in one lump sum, also . The Commission also received a letter from the City of Stillwater regarding Jackie Ulrich's appointment to the Commission for another two-year term, ending January 31 , 1993. Lawson questioned charge if there should be breakdown of equipment, preventing the cablecasting from taking place. Bodlovick said she felt if the Commission was not at fault, they should be reimbursed. Ulrich pointed out that the meetings would still be taped for replay. Beedle felt any continuations of meetings should be cablecast, also, and would request that the BCAL support cablecasting of any such secondary sessions. Ulrich said that the government entity would have to pick up the full expense for the cablecaster for any extra meetings . INTERCONNECTION - Ulrich briefed the Commission on a letter dated December 14, 1990, from Brian Grogan to Christopher Glen, and attached correspondence ondence re ardin g interconnection proposals relating to the 916 interconnect. Discussions are taking place in connection with who is putting up towers in what locations and microwave capability. Foukes did not think the cable company has been involved in any of the discussions yet. Ulrich said the interconnection is not a dead issue, as it was previously thought to be. Some feel fiber optic is still the preferable choice. EMPLOYEE EVALUATION - Ulrich said that Knutson, Schultz, and she had performed an evaluation last year on the Commission's employee, and had decided at that time to have another evaluation prior to February 1, 1991 . Ulrich and Beedle will conduct the evaluation. y+ y Joint Cable Commission Minutes 1-16-91 Page Six CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS - Mark Ayotte of Briggs & Morgan had invited members of the Commission to attend a North Star game on January 22, 1991 . Commission members respectfully declined because of other commitments. A file of additional incoming and outgoing correspondence during the past month was available for commissioners' review. OLD BUSINESS - None. NEW BUSINESS - Announcement was made that the Commission Office will be closed the week of January 21st through the 25th. Regular office hours will resume on Monday, January 28th. Don Fixmer said he would like to purchase a carrying case for the Sony monitor recently purchased (September 1990. ) This item will be included as an agenda item at the Commission's February meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT - None. AFFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, February 20, 1991 , at Stillwater City Hall . The annual meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. with the regular monthly meeting following immediately, thereafter. ADJOURNMENT - MOTION was made by Lawson, seconded by Bodlovick, to adjourn the meeting. MOTION carried . Meeting adjourned at 9: 20 p.m. , with the Commission going into executive session. Respectfully submitted, Ann Bodlovick Acting Secretary mgr 2-7-91 -s a i. ,, , fi association of metropolitan municipalities February 14, 1991 TO: AMM City Officials FROM: \, ern Peterson, Executive Director RE: BOARD AND TAB VACANCIES AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 1. AMM BOARD OF DIRECTOR'S VACANCY: There is one vacancy on the AMM Board due to Sharon Klumpp's resignation as Oakdale City Administrator to become the new Executive Director of the Metropolitan Council. The person selected to replace Sharon on the AMM Board will serve the balance of her term which expires May 31st. but will be eligible to be re-elected to a full term beginning in June. The AMM Board is IIIresponsible for the yearly work program and budget, overall management of the AMM staff and office and establishes the yearly dues rate. The Board meets the first Thursday evening of each month at 7:00 P.M. THE BOARD IS SOLICITING NOMINATIONS VIA THIS BULLETIN. NOMINATIONS ARE WELCOME FROM THROUGHOUT THE 7-COUNTY AREA AND MAY BE EITHER ELECTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS. NOMINATIONS ARE ESPECIALLY ENCOURAGED FROM WASHINGTON COUNTY CITIES. WRITTEN NOMINATIONS INCLUDING A BRIEF RESUME SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE AMM OFFICE TO MY ATTENTION BY NO LATER THAN THE END OF FEBRUARY. 2. NOMINATIONS WANTED FOR TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD (TAB) VACANCY: There is also one.city vacancy on TAB due to the sudden death of Apple Valley Councilmember Barbara Savanick. Metropolitan area cities are allocated 10 positions on this very important advisory body and the AMM is responsible for making these nominations. To be eligible for nomination, you must be a Mayor or Councilmember. WRITTEN NOMINATIONS FOR THIS VACANCY SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE AMM OFFICE TO MY ATTENTION BY NO LATER THAN THE END OF FEBRUARY. -1- ti•t 4 , 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-4008 - 3. REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD (RTB) LOCAL OFFICIALS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: We also need to replace Ms. Savanick on the RTB Local Officials Advisory committee. While Barb was both a member of TAB and this committee, it is preferable that the same person not fill both positions. Members of the RTB Local Officials Advisory Committee can be either elected or appointed City Officials and this committee meets the second Wednesday morning of each month at 7:30 AM in Mears Park Centre and parking is reimbursed. NOMINATIONS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE AMM OFFICE TO MY ATTENTION BY NO LATER THAN THE END OF FEBRUARY AND THIS NOMINEE SHOULD BE A CITY OFFICIAL FROM DAKOTA COUNTY. 4. OVERSIGHT OF THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION (MWCC) : As you may know, there has been discussion and several proposals in recent months about the possible need for additional monitoring and oversight of the MWCC. The AMM Board discussed this item at length at the January Board meeting to determine what role, if any, the AMM should play in this matter. The Board was not convinced that additional monitoring or oversight is needed at this point in time but since a number of member city officials believe there is a problem, the Board decided an investigation is warranted. As such, the Board has directed that the AMM Metropolitan Agencies Committee take the lead in this matter. The charge to the committee is two-fold. A. Determine if additional monitoring of the MWCC is warranted and what can be accomplished, and B. Recommend the role that the AMM should play if in fact additional monitoring and oversight is determined to be needed. The committee will hold an initial meeting very soon to begin its investigation and we will keep you updated as its work unfolds. 5. NEGOTIATION TRAINING SEMINARS: Enclosed is a copy of a news release from the State Planning Agency announcing the schedule for several negotiation training seminars to be held throughout 1991. We were asked to communicate this by Roger Williams, Dfrector of the office of Dispute Resolution and Chair of the AMM's Dispute Resolution Committee. 6. BOARD MEETING SYNOPSIS: To better communicate board actions to members, we are beginning a monthly digest of board of directors meetings. The synopsis will include major discussion topics and a brief description of board -2- • i action and/or comments. We will try to mail the synopsis within a week to 10 days of the meeting. A copy of the February 7th. board meeting synopsis is attached. BOARD MEETING SYNOPSIS (board meeting of February 7, 1991) STATE AIDS: It may be a matter of who blinks first -- the governor or the Legislature -- regarding cuts in state aids to cities, Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) board members said during the February 7 board meeting. Board members agreed that the message city officials need to stress when talking to legislators is twofold: 1. city government is not a big spender, and 2. cutting aids to cities too deeply will cause service cuts and increased property taxes may be politically damaging for state officials. The board agreed that alternatives to deal with proposed cuts must be explored and asked that the AMM Revenue Committee reconvene to discuss and report options. In other business: RTB RESOLUTION: The board voted not to endorse a Regional Transit Board (RTB) request to support its resolution for a one-cent sales tax dedicated to light-rail transit. The board expressed its continued support of AMM policy relating to a metropolitan tax. FISCAL DISPARITIES: The board agreed to support the AMM Fiscal Disparity Task Force recommendation of no fiscal disparity policy for 1991. The Task Force will reconvene if it appears that legislative action is likely. SCOPE REPORT: Board member Bill Barnhart reported on the Select Committee on Packaging and the Environment (SCOPE) . He said the committee recommended that recycling goals be set for packaging materials. If packers do not meet these goals by the mid-1990s, they would be assessed a non-compliance tax. Other recommendations were: 1. elimination of all toxics in packaging, 2. support of volume-based pricing for waste disposal, and 3. suggesting that creators of hazardous materials in the waste stream pay their way. -3- - AMM DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD: The board approved the presentation of AMM's Distinguished Service Award to Jim Krautkremer, longtime AMM activist and past president, and former Brooklyn Park Mayor. This prestigious award for outstanding city service has been awarded only four times since its inception eight years ago. APPOINTMENTS/NOMINATIONS: --Eagan Mayor Tom Egan was named to fill vacant board position. --Oakdale Administrator Sharon Klumpp will resign effective February 22 to become Executive Director of the Metropolitan Council, creating a vacancy on the AMM board. --Brooklyn Park Council member Dale Gustafson was nominated to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) . The search for a TAB replacement for the vacancy created by the sudden death of Barb Savanick, Apple Valley Council member is under way.. --Brooklyn Park Council member Douglas Pearson was nominated to replace Gustafson on the RTB Local Officials Advisory Committee. DISTRIBUTION NOTE: This bulletin has been mailed to mayors and Managers/Administrators. Please copy and distribute it to other officials in your city as you deem appropriate. Thank you. -4- • STATE OF MINNESOTA State Planning Agency 300 Centennial Building 658 Cedar Street St.Paul,Minnesota 55155 NEWS RELEASE (612)296-3985 February 11, 1991 Contact: Roger Williams • 612-296-2633 • Negotiation Training Seminars Announced The schedule for the 1991 Effective Negotiation Training Seminar series has been announced by the Minnesota State Planning Agency's Office of Dispute Resolution. This year's seminars will be held on March 13-14, May 22-23, September 11-12 and November 13-14. • Regardless of position,public employees negotiate every day with supervisors, fellow employees, elected officials and the general public. An improvement in negotiation skill is likely to be matched by an improvement in job performance and satisfaction and in one's interpersonal relationships. Employees who deal more effectively with job related disputes at their level in the organization reduce the need for costly and time consuming intervention by others. The curriculum provides a balanced blend of theory and practice. Trainers use lectures and demonstrations to illustrate negotiation techniques. Participants engage in role-play exercises to practice a concept or technique before going on to learn another. Class size is limited to 30 participants to assure individual attention from the three professional trainers. Since 1987, over four hundred public employees from state and local governments have attended these seminars. Recent participants have said, "This is the most useful training I've received as a public employee, and the trainers were personable, knowledgeable and experienced." = Training will be conducted at the Energy Technology Center, 1450 Energy Park Drive in St. Paul. The registration fee is $180 per person. For more information,please call or write to Roger Williams,Director, Office of Dispute Resolution, State Planning Agency,300 Centennial Building, St. Paul, MN 55155, 612-296-2633. • - end - AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER • DeL,c__ce S Exempt Employees ¶220` • ¶220 Exempt Employees In addition to certain employees of state and local governments who are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), other employees are exempted from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Act. Exempt employees, like non-covered workers, are covered by Equal Pay Act pro- visions (1700). Unlike non-covered employees, however, exempt employees are still covered by FLSA recordkeeping requirements (1800). The key reason that an employer would prefer it's employees to be classified as exempt under the FLSA is that exempt employees do not have to be paid overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek. ¶221 Introduction to the White Collar Exemptions The major general exemptions of concern to employers (29 U.S.C. §213), including state and local governments, relate to executives, administrative employees, and professionals, otherwise known as the white-collar or EAP exemptions. These exemptions are based on the specific job descriptions and duties of the employees involved and apply regardless of the nature of the employer's business. The Department of Labor (DOL) has outlined and interpreted these statutory exemptions in its regulations (29 C.F.R. Part 541), which can be found in Appendix II of this Handbook. These rules pro- vide interpretative guidelines and set the standards for determining whether a particular employee quali- fies under the executive, administrative, or professional exemptions. The FLSA regulations on exemptions address the actual job duties of the employee and are not concerned with job titles, civil service classifications, or other group identifications. This makes it diffi- cult to generalize whether any particular class of employees is exempt without looking at individual work duties. Nonetheless, ¶233, ¶243, and ¶253 offer examples of, and pertinent legal citations to, particular classes of employees who generally have been found to be exempt executive, administrative, or professional employees. Two independent FLSA tests are applied to determine if an employee meets the executive, adminis- trative, or professional exemption. The first is known as the "long test" and specifies in some detail the duties, responsibilities, and obligations of the employee; it also requires that the employee be paid on a salary basis (rather than hourly) and specifies a minimum salary for the employee to qualify for the exemption. "short fewer conditions related to employee duties and The second, known as the short test, sets forth few r requires a higher minimum salary for the employee to be exempt. An employee whose duties satisfy either the long or short test will be deemed exempt from the FLSA minimum wage and overtime stan- . _ dards. The full DOL requirements on these tests (29 C.F.R. §§541.1, 541.2, and 541.3) are reprinted in Appendix II. ©Thompson Publishing Group, Inc. May 1989 Tab 200 • Page 25 ¶222 Exempt Employees Under the long test, an employee's duties are measured weekly, resulting in an employee being • either exempt or nonexempt each workweek. Under the short test, employees do not lose their exemp- tions if they perform non-exempt work in some weeks as long as their work on the whole is exempt (¶232). The proper classification of many state and local government employees will qualify them for the executive, administrative, or professional exemptions. Teachers, for example, are generally classified as exempt professional employees, a factor that excludes approximately 50 percent of school personnel from minimum wage and overtime provisions. Social service agencies, as well, employ a substantial percent- age of professional employees. Thus, if state and local governments analyze job descriptions and duties carefully and apply the following tests, they will limit dramatically the application to their workforce of the FLSA overtime requirements. ¶222 Salary Basis for the White Collar Exemptions A threshold requirement for application of the executive, administrative, or professional exemptions is the requirement that the employee be paid on a salary basis (see 29 C.F.R. §541.118). This require- ment has been the source of numerous problems for employers. If the salary basis requirement is not satisfied, an employee will not meet the requirements of the white-collar exemptions, and overtime must be paid. To be paid on a salary basis, an employee must be paid a predetermined amount on a weekly or less frequent but regular basis. Generally, full salary must be paid regardless of the number of days or hours worked in a workweek, except that an employee need not be paid for any workweek in which he performs no work. Deductions from an employee's salary will destroy the exemption, except in certain cases. An em- ployer may deduct from an employee's full salary (1) when the employee is absent from work for a day or more for personal reasons other than sickness or accident, and (2) when the employee is absent from work for a day or more due to sickness or disability and the deduction is in accordance with a bona fide plan, policy or practice of providing compensation for loss of salary occasioned by sickness and disabil- ity. Thus, an employer need not pay an employee for absences of a day or longer because of sickness or disability if such absences occur either before the employee has qualified for compensation under a bona fide sick leave plan, or after the employee has exhausted his or her leave allowance. However, no de- ductions can be made for absences of less than one day for personal reasons or due to sickness. In addition, to maintain the exemption, deductions cannot be made for absences caused by jury duty, attendance as a witness, or temporary military leave. (In such instances, however, the employer can offset any amounts received by an employee as jury or witness fees or military pay for a particular week against salary due for that particular week.) An employer is allowed to deduct from salary for penalties • Page 26 • Tab 200 May 1989 Fair Labor Standards Handbook • Exempt Employees ¶222 imposed for infractions of significant safety rules relating to prevention of serious danger to the workplace or other employees. In a Wage Hour Opinion Letter dated Jan. 15, 1985, DOL concluded that a state or county em- ployee who is docked pay for an absence of less than one day because the employee has exhausted sick leave will not be exempt under 29 U.S.C. §213(a)(1) of the Act. Such an employee will not be consid- ered a salaried employee. If this is an occasional occurrence, the employee will lose exempt status for that workweek only. However, if such deductions are regular and recurring, the employee may lose exempt status permanently (see also a Wage Hour Opinion Letter dated Jan. 15, 1986). *Public employers should be aware that DOL issued a special memorandum on Jan. 9, 1987, to an- nounce a non-enforcement policy concerning wage deductions for absences of less than a day for exempt public employees under the FLSA. According to the memorandum, this policy applies only to public employers who are prohibited by state or local law from paying employees for time not actually worked and not covered by some type of leave, even though this practice is prohibited in §541.118 of the regu- lations. DOL noted that Part 541 of the regulations relevant to executive, administrative and profes- sional (EAP) exemptions is under review at the time, and it had received public comments pointing out the conflict between the DOL salary test and state and local laws. Until the regulations are revised, • DOL indicated that it will not deny an EAP exemption under §213(a)(1) of the FLSA to an otherwise exempt employee whose salary is reduced by deductions for absences of less than a day because avail- able paid leave is exhausted. It is important to keep in mind that while DOL may not bring lawsuits for violations of the salary basis test, employees may still bring suits. DOL regulations state that a salary may consist of a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employee's compensation. In other words, a salary will still be considered a salary where it consists of a guaranteed predetermined mimimum amount plus additional compensation. The compensa- tion may be in the form of a commission, a flat sum, or on any other basis, and may be calculated on an hourly, daily or weekly basis. See Wage and Hour Division, Field Operations Handbook, §§22b01, 22b03. The regulations (29 CFR §541.118(b)) state that the salary requirement is also met where the em- ployee is: paid on a daily or shift-basis, if the employment arrangement includes a provision that the employee will receive not less than the amount specified in the regulations in any week in which the employee performs such work. There are Wage Hour Opinion Letters and case law that extend this reasoning to include employees paid on an hourly basis. Nairne v. Manzo, No. 86-0206 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 1986); Wage Hour Opinion Letter dated Sept. 22, 1965; Wage and Hour Division, Field Operations Handbook §22b03. See, however, Donovan v. Carl's Drug Co., 703 F.2d 650 (2d Cir. 1985). *Indicates new or revised material. ©Thompson Publishing Group, Inc. May 1989 Tab 200 • Page 27 ¶223 Exempt Employees It should be noted that DOL's Nov. 15, 1985, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking specifically sought • comments with respect to whether the salary test levels should be increased or eliminated altogether. DOL has also solicited comments on possibly establishing a salary test based on some sort of relation- ship to the minimum wage. 50 Fed. Reg. 47,696 (1985). Although payment on a salary basis is a prerequisite for white collar exemptions, other criteria (described in ¶230—¶250) must also be met. An employee is not automatically exempt from FLSA over- time and minimum wage requirements just because he or she is paid on a salary basis. ¶223 Occupational Index for the White Collar Exemptions Another threshold concern is whether DOL regulations offer any explicit guidance on the particular job classification which may concern the employer. DOL regulations do contain an occupational index of more than 100 job titles, which can be found at 29 C.F.R. Part 541. This index facilitates research into whether a white-collar exemption might apply to a particular job. We have reprinted the DOL index at Appendix II, page 65 to assist Handbook users in identifying DOL's position on application of the ex- ecutive, administrative, and professional employee exemptions. While the index is helpful, it is, of course, not exhaustive. ¶224 Combination of White Collar Exemptions • The FLSA regulations permit the "tacking" of exempt work under two or more different exemptions to make an employee exempt. For example, a person who performs a combination of executive and pro- fessional work may combine the two exemptions to qualify as exempt (29 C.F.R. §541.600). In combina- tion exemptions, (1) the employee must satisfy the stricter of the monetary threshold of the tests, and (2) the non-exempt work not qualifying under the combined exemptions must not exceed either 20 percent of the employee's own time or 20 percent of the hours worked in a workweek, whichever is the smaller amount. ¶225 Primary Duty Each of the white-collar exemptions contains a primary duty requirement, which varies with each exemption (29 C.F.R. §§541.1, 541.2, 541.3). In 29 C.F.R. §541.103 a rule of thumb is provided that if an employee spends 50 percent of his or her time involved in the employee's primary duty, he or she will satisfy this requirement for the exemption. The 50 percent test is not mandatory, however, and less time may be sufficient. The regulations (29 C.F.R. §§541.103, 541.206, 541.304) provide the following factors as a guide to determining whether an employee satisfies the primary duty requirement: • the relative importance of managerial duties as compared with other types of duties; • the frequency with which the employee exercises discretionary powers; • Page 28 • Tab 200 May 1989 Fair Labor Standards Handbook Exempt Employees ¶225 • the relative freedom from supervision; and • the relationship between the employee's salary and the wages paid other employees for the same kind of work. The definition of primary duty as it applies to the short test exemptions has been the subject of a great deal of litigation. In Marshall v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 621 F.2d 1246 (3rd Cir. 1980), DOL sought to require Western Union to pay overtime compensation to managerial employees who filled in for rank and file employees during a strike. In this case, the circuit court rejected the use of a work- week standard to determine the primary duty under the short test. The definition of "primary duty" was also a central issue in Donovan v. United Video, Inc., 725 F.2d 577 (10th Cir. 1984). In this case, United Video appealed a district court determination that micro- wave engineers were not exempt from the FLSA under the administrative exemption. The district court examined the percentage of time the engineers spent performing various tasks. The court considered the time spent on tasks such as driving to microwave relay stations to perform maintenance inspection and repairs, and time spent on customer relations. The district court concluded that the microwave engineers' primary duty consisted in large part of maintenance of microwave systems, which involved a substantial amount of manual work, and that the engineers did not customarily and regularly exercise independent judgment. On appeal, United Video argued that in evaluating the "primary duty" as involving manual work, the district court erroneously narrowed its view to a single aspect of the engineers' duties instead of evaluating the total nature of the work required. United Video further argued that the district court had applied the wrong standard in requiring that the engineers "customarily and regularly" exercise discretion and independent judgment. The circuit court rejected these arguments and affirmed the district court's determination that the duties were primarily manual. Thus, the engineers were not primarily performing office or non-manual work. The importance of determining what an employee's "primary duty" is can be seen in a Dec. 26, 1985, Wage Hour Opinion Letter, where police liaison officers were found to qualify for the FLSA pro- fessional exemption. According to the letter, the police liaison officer teaches topics related to law en- forcement to two classes of seventh or eighth grade students per day. The officer works full time and has additional responsibilities, including counseling. The liaison officer must be qualified to teach in the state, and the school board pays the police officer's jurisdiction a salary of about $22,000 per year. However, the liaison officer is required to investigate crimes in and around the school, must respond to police department commands, and is at all times an employee of the police department. Moreover, in addition to the program's immediate purpose of educating children, its ultimate purpose is "to build a • better relationship with the schools and communities and to reduce juvenile crime." DOL concluded that under such circumstances, the primary duty of the liaison officer is teaching—not law enforcement. This ©Thompson Publishing Group, Inc. May 1989 Tab 200 • Page 29 ¶226 Exempt Employees being the case, the officer is a bona fide professional employee, exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. ¶226 Workweek Basis Each of the white collar exemptions contains either a primary duty (short test) or a maximum of 20 percent non-exempt work requirement (long test) for professionals. (See ¶225 for an explanation of pri- mary duty.) The troublesome issue in this area is determining on what basis the "primary duty" or "20 percent" is to be tested. It has been DOL's position that the correct basis is the workweek. For example, if employees in any given workweek perform non-exempt duties more than 20 percent of the time, or if their primary duty in that week is non-exempt, then they lose their exempt status for that particular week. For an employer, the workweek basis may result in substantial liability for overtime payments. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in Marshall v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 621 F.2d 1246 (3rd Cir. 1980), concluded that the primary duty test could not be applied on a workweek basis. The court found that DOL could not use a particular time frame until it properly promulgated regulations. The current workweek basis rule is not contained in the regulations, so it has not been subject to typical administrative law procedures such as a public notice and comment period. One of the issues addressed in a proposed rulemaking dated Nov. 15, 1985, is whether the current limitations on the amount of non-exempt work should be eliminated altogether (50 Fed. Reg. 47,696 (1985)). The proposed rulemaking also asked for comments on whether a standard time frame for deter- mining whether an employee has met the primary duty test should be established, and, if so, whether it should be by the week, month or some other length of time. Recent decisions, however, indicate that DOL continues to apply the workweek basis (see Wage Hour Opinion Letter dated Dec. 26, 1985) despite its legal uncertainty. [The next page is Tab 200, page 35.] Page 30 • Tab 200 May 1989 Fair Labor Standards Handbook ' J Exempt Employees ¶230 ¶230 Executive Employees An employee who meets either the "long test" or the "short test" for executives specified in 29 C.F.R. §§541.1 and 541.101 is exempt. ¶231 Long Test for Executive Employees An executive employee must meet all of the following requirements to be exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) minimum wage and overtime provisions: (1) Duties: Primarily management of the agency, department, or subdivision. (2) Supervision: Customarily and regularly directs two or more other employees. • (3) Authority: Possesses the power to hire or fire employees, or whose suggestions are given sub- stantial weight in such decisions, including promotions. (4) Discretion: Customarily and regularly exercises discretionary power. (5) Work Responsibility: Does not devote more than 20 percent of his or her hours in a workweek to the performance of activities not closely related to items (1) through (4). (6) Compensation: Is paid not less than $155 per week exclusive of board, lodging, or other facili- ties (1490). (On a yearly basis, $155 per week equals about $8,060 per year.) 4 ¶232 Short Test for Executive Employees An executive employee must meet all of the following requirements to be exempt: (1) Compensation: Is paid not less than $250 per week exclusive of board, lodging, or other facili- ties (1490). (On a yearly basis, $250 per week equals about $13,000 per year.) (2) Duties: Primarily management of the agency, department, or subdivision. (3) Supervision: Customarily and regularly directs two or more other employees. ¶233 Examples of Executive Employees After a detailed analysis of their particular job duties, the following types of employees are gener- ally categorized as "executive" employees who are exempt from the FLSA: • executive directors of government agencies; • department chiefs; • city managers; • chief clerks of a court; • police and fire chiefs; • principals of schools. m Thompson Publishing Group, Inc. May 1989 Tab 200 • Page 35 ¶234 Exempt Employees ¶234 Examples of Non-Exempt Employees I The following are examples of employees who, after analysis of their job duties, do not generally qualify for the executive exemption: • hourly employees, regardless of duties; • working "foremen" who do not "primarily" manage; • executives paid less than $250 per week who temporarily take over the work of striking employ- ees. ¶235 Defining and Delimiting an Executive Employee The regulations (29 C.F.R. §§541.99-541.119) provide some guidance as to the application of the executive exemption test. For example, managerial and supervisory functions are described in the follow- ing manner at §541.102(b): Interviewing, selecting, and training of employees; setting and adjusting their rates of pay and hours of work; directing their work; maintaining their production or sales records for use in supervision or control; appraising their productivity and efficiency for the purpose of recommend- ing promotions or other changes in their status; handling their complaints and grievances and disciplining them when necessary; planning the work; determining the techniques to be used; apportioning the work among the workers; determining the type of materials, supplies, machinery or tools to be used or merchandise to be bought, stocked and sold; controlling the flow and distribution of materials or merchandise and supplies; providing for the safety of the men and the property. The Wage and Hour Division Field Operations Handbook provides that the supervision test is satis- fied when an employee supervises one permanent employee and, on fairly frequent occasions, supervises additional temporary employees such that the supervisory employee supervises two or more employees for a total of 80 hours of work (DOL Field Operations Handbook, ¶22c00). The Field Operations Hand- book interprets 29 C.F.R. §541.105(a) as requiring, in most circumstances, an employee to supervise the equivalent of 80 hours of a subordinate's work. In some instances, however, supervision of employees for a total of 70-75 hours may be sufficient (Field Operations Handbook, ¶22c00). The "primary duty" requirement for management is generally, though not always, a 50 percent test (29 C.F.R. §541.103). In some cases, the employee can therefore spend less than 50 percent of his or her time on management and still qualify for the executive exemption. The words "customarily and regularly" regarding the exercise of discretion signify a greater fre- quency than occasional, but less than constant (29 C.F.R. §541.107). Working foremen,-strawbosses, or gang leaders who work alongside the workers doing production tasks are not considered exempt employees under the long test, but may well qualify under the short test (29 C.F.R. §541.115). *Several factors should always be considered when making a determination as to whether an em- ployee • in a managerial position is exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. One factor is that *Indicates new or revised material. Page 36 • Tab 200 May 1989 Fair Labor Standards Handbook Exempt Employees ¶235 • just because one employee is exempt, you cannot assume that a second employee who performs similar duties is exempt. There are simply no class exemptions. An employer must be able to show that each employee meets every requirement of the executive exemption test. See Pezzillo v. Gen. Tel. & Electron. Inform. Sys., Inc., 414 F. Supp. 1257, 1268 (M.D. Tenn. 1976). *In using both the short and long tests to determine whether an employee is exempt as an execu- tive, the amount of time spent on managerial duties, the amount of discretion the employee has, and the number of employees he or she supervises or directs are critical. In addition, the type of job skills used is also important; the executive exempt employee exercises managerial duties that are critical to the suc- cessful operation of the enterprise. *Percentage of non-exempt job duties must be considered Where it becomes difficult to determine whether the employee is an executive is when the em- ployee also performs non-exempt work. This situation frequently arises in retail and service establish- ments and enterprises where foremen are used. In these situations, managerial employees often pitch in and work alongside the employees they supervise. Under the long test, for those employed in a retail or service establishment, an employee's "primary duty" must be managerial, and he or she cannot spend more than 40 percent of work time on non-exempt duties. For employees employed in other establish- • ments, the maximum amount of time that can be spent on non-exempt duties is 20 percent. Courts have adhered strictly to the 40-percent rule. See Donovan v. Burger King, 672 F.2d 221 (1st Cir. 1982). Under the short test, however, the requirement is different. No particular amount of time is re- quired to be spent by the employee on managerial duties. Instead, the standard is only that the em- ployee's "primary duty" must be managerial. Although this has generally been interpreted to mean an employee must spend at least half of the time on managerial duties, the 50-percent rule is not conclu- sive, especially where management and non-management functions are not clearly separable. One court has ruled under the short test that "time spent is not the sole test, and if the circumstances demonstrate the existence of bona fide executive authority and functions, the employee may properly be treated as exempt even if more that 50 percent of his time is devoted to non-exempt activities." Guthrie v. Lady Jane Collieries, Inc., 556 F. Supp. 164 (W.D. Pa), aff d, 772 F.2d 1141 (3rd Cir. 1983). In Guthrie v. Lady Jane Collieries, the court held that section foremen were exempt under the FLSA overtime provisions as executives. The court found that the section foremen spent on the average, in addition to their managerial duties, about 44 percent of their time doing exactly what their crew mem- bers did. The court found that their managerial duties included overseeing the work done by the crews, assuring that the work complied with the plans, maintaining proper ventilation, giving out assignments, training the crew, deciding when crew members were sufficiently trained, keeping records, recognizing dangerous work conditions and carrying out safety functions. Generally the foremen supervised six to *Indicates new or revised material. 0 Thompson Publishing Group, Inc. May 1989 Tab 200 • Page 37 ¶235 Exempt Employees nine men, and their time spent in supervising the crewmen ranged from 57 percent to 32 percent. In • addition, the foremen enjoyed relative freedom from supervision. Although the foremen did not frequently exercise discretion in their duties, the court found that the importance of their responsibilities sufficed to make managerial tasks the "primary duty" of the foremen, even when it only amounted to 32 percent of the foremen's time. In determining whether the duties were primary, the court considered whether the duties were critical to the successful operation of the enter- prise and found that they,were. Similarily, in Snipes v. Paramount Liquor Co. of Missouri, 544 F. Supp. 563 (W.D. Mo. 1982), the court stated that the 50-percent rule is only a guideline to be used in conjunction with other factors when applying the short test. In that case, the employee was a distribution manager who oversaw and supervised the day-to-day activities of the warehouse. In determining whether the employee's primary duty was management, the court specifically looked at the amount of time spent on managerial duties, the relative importance of those duties to the successful operation of the warehouse, the frequency with which the employee exercised his discretion, the relative freedom from supervision and the relation between his wages and the wages of other employees. The court found that the employee directed and scheduled the work activity of other employees in the warehouse, was responsible for ordering merchandise, took customer complaints, authorized payment of bills, was responsible for maintenance and made recommendations for hiring and salary compensation. The court also found that the employee worked in relative freedom from supervision, as his branch man- ager was seldom at the warehouse. All of these responsibilities, the court stated, went to the very heart of the successful operation of the warehouse. The employee spent nearly half his time performing these duties, and, the court held, they constituted his "primary duty," making him exempt as an executive em- ployee. Even if an employer has well-defined management policies that are set out in detail and must be followed with little or no variation, that does not negate the supervisory function of its managers, and therefore does not prevent such a manager from being an exempt executive under the FLSA. In Donovan v. Burger King, 672 F. 2d 221 (1st Cir. 1982), the court found that assistant managers qualified under the short test as exempt executives despite the fact that they were required to follow highly detailed, step-by-step instructions in managing their stores, and that they also spent more than 50 percent of their time taking orders, preparing food, filling orders, and performing other non-exempt work. The court said that the assistant managers might not exercise sufficient discretion to meet the long test, but under the short test (which does not have a discretion and independent judgment component), managerial responsi- bilities were clearly their principal and most important duty. The court found that the assistant managers were solely in charge of the store in the absence of the manager and that this was a frequent occurrence •because their shifts rarely overlapped. The court also stated that the assistant managers clearly exercised Page 38 • Tab 200 May 1989 Fair Labor Standards Handbook Exempt Employees ¶235 • some discretion and that, with regard to the detailed managerial instructions, ensuring that company policies are carried out is the very essence of supervisory work. Assistant managers who did not meet the salary requirement under the short test, however, were not found exempt under the long test for weeks in which they spent 40 percent or more of their time on non-exempt work. *Number of employees supervised must also be considered To qualify as an exempt executive, the employee must supervise or direct two or more other em- ployees, according to the regulations. Courts have interpreted this requirement to be two or more full- time employees or the equivalent of two full-time employees working 40 hour weeks. This means that an employee can supervise any number of part-time employees as long as the total number of hours of the supervised employees equals 80 or more. In Secretary of Labor v. Daylight Dairy Products, Inc., 779 F. 2d 784 (1st Cir. 1985), the court stated that even though many part-time employees may require more supervision than full-time employ- ees, the 80-hour rule is reasonable. In that case, however, the court found that none of the managers met the 80-hour rule more than 76 percent of the time, and this fell short of the "regular and customary" re- quirement of supervising 80 hours of work. Another factor is how an employee is paid. Only salaried employees can be exempt, and no matter how much the employee is paid or what the employee's duties are, if payment is on an hourly basis, the employee is not exempt. Keep in mind that the executive exemption from the FLSA overtime provisions is very narrowly construed by the courts, and that the employer bears the burden of proving that each employee claimed as exempt meets each and every requirement set out in the regulations. • •Indicates new or revised material. ©Thompson Publishing Group, Inc. May 1989 Tab 200 • Page 39 ¶235 Exempt Employees - co @ a < 0 co a. W < o w 0 w p o / 0 > , w a. Ee E> 0 -0 E� x 22§ 2k q § E0 w W c2 § 0E LU �ƒE k §k a.§ W k § E 0 R e2) ƒ2 t�/ \ K E C) m 0 . w °S o I -0 •C•C e x eto Q §f2 � o c k0 ` n Z cn 0 z / �2` LU 0 c m_. oo Z E §c I-- 2 a—g 0 §k /ck k X w = e -0— ° 0 L CI 2k 2 E ■/ 2-L 2 LLI 2 k0k Z § mk § R /g 0 0 � 0-c z ƒ/ 0 % R% E 2 E% ) » » $ 8 °£ E 0 2 W 2 S '2 f3» Z X w IG EE § �k z > • o© = a 0oa p 2& C � § ova 2 0 kk (Cl o- Cl) X o aCC. 0.a >- e w eo °� §£ tt 0 § mf 0 \aE & f ( z x .CO ` � ©. 22 Z a.,- @ \ z 0 C)° A 7 0 m ErD (5 ) e m\ EE 0 § See- Z W G mEEk 7 e c k2. 0 />k Cl) '' E i- = oo k w §i ¢ 6 3 §2 z 0 z • [The next page is Tab 200, page 45.] Page 40 • Tab 200 May 1989 Fair Labor SaAlsJHandbook Exempt Employees ¶240 ¶240 Administrative Employees An employee who meets either the "long test" or the "short test" for administrators provided in 29 C.F.R. §§541.2 and 541.201 is exempt. ¶241 Long Test for Administrative Employees An administrative employee must meet all of the following requirements to be exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) minimum wage and overtime provisions: (1) Duties: Primarily consist of either— (a) non-manual or office work directly related to management policies or general business opera- tions; or (b) performance of administrative functions in an educational establishment in work related to academic instruction or training. (2) Discretion: Customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment. (3) Supervision: (a) regularly and directly assists a person employed in an executive or administrative capacity; or (b) performs under only general supervision work requiring special training, experience, or knowl- edge; or (c) executes special assignments and tasks under only general supervision. (4) Work Responsibility: Does not devote more than 20 percent of work time to activities not directly or closely related to performance of administrative work. (5) Compensation: Is paid not less than $155 per week exclusive of board, lodging, or other facilities (11490). (On a yearly basis, $155 per week equals about $8,060 per year.) ¶242 Short Test for Administrative Employees An administrative employee must meet all of the following requirements to be exempt: (1) Compensation: Is paid at least $250 per week exclusive of board, lodging, or other facilities (11490). (On a yearly basis, $250 per week equals about $13,000 per year.) (2) Duties: Primarily performance of office or non-manual work directly related to management policies or general business operations, or the performance of functions in the administration of an educa- tional establishment, or a department or subdivision thereof, in work directly related to the academic instruction or training. (3) Responsibilities: Primary duty includes work requiring the exercise of discretion and independent judgment. • ©Thompson Publishing Group, Inc. May 1989 Tab 200 • Page 45 ¶243 Exempt Employees ¶243 Examples of Administrative Employees Of the three FLSA exemptions, the administrative exemption is perhaps the most vague and subject to differing interpretation. Thus, it is worthwhile for state and local governments to consider carefully which employees may be exempt from FLSA coverage due to the administrative exemption. The question of who is an exempt administrative employee presents many difficulties. An example of such problems is found in a Wage Hour Opinion Letter dated Jan. 10, 1975, concerning OSHA field inspectors for elevators, boilers, mines, quarries or similar services. DOL refused to comment directly on the applicability of the administrative exemption, claiming that it did not have sufficient details. DOL did say, however, that "inherent in this question [is] whether the work of the employees merely requires that they apply knowledge and skill acquired by experience and training rather than the exercise of discretion and independent judgment." This would imply that most code inspectors are not exempt. DOL has also concluded that paralegals, in most instances, will not be exempt from the Act. Two Wage and Hour Division opinion letters have addressed the issue of whether a paralegal may qualify as exempt as an administrative employee (Wage Hour Opinion Letters dated Sept. 27, 1979, and Aug. 17, 1979). In each, DOL determined that the paralegals involved did not exercise "discretion and independent judgment." DOL noted that strict legal prohibitions against unauthorized practice of law and the restric- tions imposed by the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility concerning delegation of legal tasks to • non-attorneys indicated that most paralegals do not have the authority to exercise enough independent judgment to bring them within the ambit of the administrative exemption. DOL's views on paralegals are very strict and may be subject to some revision if challenged in court under the right circumstances. DOL has also concluded that paralegals, in most instances, are not exempt under the professional exemption. In a Wage Hour Opinion Letter dated June 12, 1984, DOL concluded that duties of paralegals do not involve the exercise of independent judgment and discretion. After a detailed analysis of their particular job duties, the following types of employees are generally categorized as "administrative" employees who are exempt from the FLSA: • executive and administrative assistants (29 C.F.R. §541.201(a)(1)). • staff employees such as tax experts, wage-rate analysts, statisticians, personnel directors, and labor relations directors (29 C.F.R. §541.201(a)(2)). • employees who perform special assignments, such as lease buyers and special organization planners (29 C.F.R. §541.201(a)(3)). • individuals engaged in overall academic administration, such as assistant superintendents of schools, vice principals, and heads of academic departments (29 C.F.R. §541.201(c)). • certain buyers and contract administrators (29 C.F.R. §541.207(d)(2)). • data processing senior system analysts and, sometimes, computer programmers. (See the discussion • in ¶342; see also 29 C.F.R. §541.207(c)(7).) Page 46 • Tab 200 May 1989 Fair Labor Standards Handbook Exempt Employees ¶244 • • office managers who do not supervise two or more employees yet exercise discretion and judgment (29 C.F.R. §541.208(f)). • purchasing agents, buyers, personnel directors, and labor relations directors who work in one- person departments (29 C.F.R. §541.201(a)(2)(ii)). • public defender investigators and deputy probation officers (Wage Hour Opinion Letter, WH-292, Oct. 8, 1974). ¶244 Defining and Delimiting an Administrative Employee The regulations (29 C.F.R. §§541.201-541.215) provide some guidance as to the application of the administrative exemption test. For example, the phrase "directly related to management policies or gen- eral business operations" can include: advising management, planning, negotiation, representing the agency, consulting, safety direction, wage rate analysis, and systems analysis in computers (29 C.F.R. §541.205). Similar to the executive exemption, the "primary duty" requirement is not necessarily a 50-percent test (29 C.F.R. §541.206(b)). The meaning of"work which is directly and closely related to performance of the work" is illustrated by examples in 29 C.F.R. §541.208. • *The regulations categorize administrative employees into three basic types: (1) executive and ad- ministrative assistants to a proprietor or to an executive or administrative employee; (2) staff or functional employees, such as advisory specialists to management heads; and (3) those who perform special assign- ments, which may often be away from the employer's place of business. Executive and administrative assistants include employees with such titles as executive secretary, administrative assistant or assistant manager. Staff employees would include tax, insurance or sales research experts, wage rate analysts and investment consultants. Special assignment employees might hold such titles as lease buyers, field repre- sentatives and location managers. *Because the administrative field contains jobs with extremely diverse functions and a wide variety of titles,job title alone is of little assistance in determining whether an employee is exempt. The regula- tions point out that honorific titles that do not adequately portray the nature of the work are common, and these titles are of no determinative value. As the regulations state: "it is not hard to call a rate setter (whose functions are limited to timing certain operations and jotting down times on a standardized form) a `methods engineer' or a `production-control supervisor' (29 C.F.R. §541.2021 (b)(1)). The exemption depends on the duties of the employee and other qualifications, not on how the employer classifies the employee. Reeves v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 357 F. Supp. 295 (D. La. 1975). • *Indicates new or revised material. ©Thompson Publishing Group, Inc. May 1989 Tab 200 • Page 47 ¶244 Exempt Employees *How the courts have ruled Several factors should always be kept in mind when making a determination as to whether an em- ployee is exempt under the administrative provisions of the FLSA. An employee must meet each and every requirement of the regulations, not just one or some of them, to be an exempt administrative employee. Ramos v. National Biscuit Co., 324 F Supp. 1310 (D. Puerto Rico 1971). In addition, no class exemptions can be established for administrative employees. An employer must show that each employee meets every requirement of the claimed exemption. Pezzillo v. General Telephone & Electronics Informa- tion Systems, Inc., 414 F. Supp. 1257, 1268 (M.D. Tenn. 1976), aff d, 572 F.2d 1189 (6th Cir. 1978). Another important factor is that, even where an employee is engaged in a bona fide administrative capacity, if the employee's salary is less than $155 under the long test or $250 under the short test, the employee is not exempt from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA. Also, the wage rate calculation cannot take into account such things as bonuses or transportation allotments. Donovan v. Irj, Inc., 567 F. Supp. 93 (D.N.C. 1983). Furthermore, an employee who is paid on an hourly basis and not guaranteed a pre-determined wage cannot be an exempt administrative employee, regardless of the amount of compensation being received. Hodgson v. Barge, 377 F. Supp 842 (D. Tenn. 1972), aff d, 477 F.2d 598 (6th Cir. 1973). Disputes over whether an employee is a bona fide administrative employee often arise in situations where the nature of the employee's duties have changed. For example, in Clark v. J.M. Benson Co., 789 F.2d 282 (4th Cir. 1986), when a company accountant resigned, a bookkeeper took on some of the ac- counting duties, such as preparing payroll and commission checks (but not signing them) and W-2 forms. Bookkeeping is a category of employee described by the regulations as "run-of-the-mill positions in any ordinary business" and not administrative because the work being performed is not directly related to management policies or general business operations. In this case, the company asserted that the account- ing duties Clark had undertaken transformed her status to that of an exempt administrative employee. The court held that the company, as a matter of law, had not carried its burden of proving that the plaintiff was an administrative employee, and sent the case back for a new trial. Under the primary duty rule, the court stated that Clark could not be exempt unless her newly added duties took up 50 percent or more of her worktime. That Clark was an "indispensable employee" — as the sole representative of the company's accounting department — did not prove that her primary duty was administrative, the court held, as it is the nature of the work, and not its ultimate consequence, that controls the issue. The court also examined the issue of whether Clark's primary duty required the exercise of discretion and independent judgment. On that issue, the court held that, as a matter of law, Clark's decisions regard- ing whether to complete certain tasks at home, and choosing which order to perform tasks in, could not be considered an exercise of"real and substantial" discretion as required by the regulation. *Indicates new or revised material. Page 48 • Tab 200 May 1989 Fair Labor Standards Handbook • Exempt Employees ¶244 • A case that discussed the flip side of the issue— whether an administrative employee's additional non-exempt duties took away his exempt status — is Gelstrap v. Synalloy Corp., Industrial Div., 409 F. Supp. 621 (D. La. 1970). In that case, Gelstrap was hired to formulate and implement a new system of inventory control. The inventory made up 70-75 percent of the company's physical assets; Gelstrap had considerable authority to requisition products and supplies, and his name appeared on purchase orders. As such, the court found that his work clearly was directly and closely related to the general business opera- tions of the company. Later on in his employment, however, he took on some in-house salesman duties and relinquished the more clerical aspects of handling the inventory to another employee. Gelstrap argued that because his in-house sales duties occasionally took up more than 50 percent of his workweek, he was no longer an exempt administrative employee. The court stated, however, that under the 50-percent primary duty rule, time alone is not the sole test. Other factors to be considered are: (1) the relative importance of the employee's duties as compared with other types of duties; (2) the fre- quency with which the employee exercises discretionary powers; (3) the employee's relative freedom from supervision; and (4) the relationship between the employee's salary and the wages paid other em- ployees for the same kind of non-exempt work being performed. Using these criteria, the court found that Gelstrap still had primary charge of the inventory control process and had retained his authority to requi- sition and purchase stock. He also signed time sheets and interviewed prospective employees. In addition, • his salary was higher than all other employees except the branch manager, and he was responsible only to the branch manager. Thus, the court held, Gelstrap's employment had remained administrative after he took on in-house salesman duties. Even though an employee's work is subject to the approval of a supervisor and the employee's decision can be reversed by high level management, that does not mean that the work necessarily does not require the exercise of discretion and independence. See Dymond v. U.S. Postal Service, 670 F.2d 93 (8th Cir. 1982). The test is whether an employee's work involves responsibility and judgment or whether it is clerical and run-of-the-mill work where the employee is merely applying acquired skills. In addition, it should be remembered that an employee can be exempt even where a portion of the work involves no responsibility and judgment. Under the long test such work cannot take up more than 20 percent of the employee's workweek. Under the short test, however, the employee's primary duty need only take up to 50 percent of the employee's workweek, and it is that primary duty that must include the exercise of discretion and independent judgment and must consist of office or non-manual work related to manage- ment policies or general business operations. Public employers should keep in mind that the FLSA overtime provisions are construed very nar- rowly, and that the employer must prove that each employee it is claiming as an administrative employee • is exempt. ©Thompson Publishing Group, Inc. May 1989 Tab 200 • Page 49 ¶245 Exempt Employees *11245 Confining the Administrative Exemption for Public Employees DOL has issued several letter rulings that apply the administrative exemption rule to local govern- ment entities. These rulings demonstrate the barriers to successful use of the exemption•and are relevant to a wide range of job classifications. In fact, the recent thrust of DOL opinion letters is to constrict the use of the exemption by state and local governments. The administrative exemption has always been the vaguest of the three major FLSA exemptions. To meet the administrative exemption test, the employee must be paid on a salary basis (at least $155 per week for the long test or $250 per week for the short test). In addition, the employee's primary duty must include work requiring the exercise of discretion and independent judgment, and the employee must primarily perform office or non-manual work directly related to management policies or general business operations. It is this last portion of the test, the requirement that the employee be involved in work directly related to management policies or general business operations, that has come under increased scrutiny by DOL. Based on the application of this portion of the test, recent Wage Hour Opinion Letters have found some positions non-exempt that were previously thought to be generally exempt. This is something of a departure from DOL's earlier tendency to find that employees failed to meet the administrative exemption on the basis of the discretion and independent judgment requirements. • Wage hour rulings on administrative exemptions For example, probation officers in some instances have been considered exempt (see WH-292, Oct. 8, 1974, App. III). However, in a Wage Hour Opinion Letter dated April 12, 1988, probation officers were declared non-exempt administrative employees. The probation officers, DOL concluded, did not perform work related to management policies or the general business operations of the county they worked for. According to DOL: In determining whether the activities are"directly related to management policies or general business operations"of the employer,it is important to consider the nature of the"business" itself, or in this case, the function of the government agency in question. Inasmuch as the Department has as its primary function the providing of probation services,the activities performed by the Juvenile Probation Officers would appear to be related more to the ongoing day-to-day"production"opera- tions of the Department than to management policies or"general business operations." A similar conclusion was reached in a Feb. 16, 1988, letter also dealing with probation officers. In a Feb. 1, 1988, Wage Hour Opinion Letter, DOL found that a "hypothetical police officer" who had primary responsibility for investigating major crimes and determining whether to file charges was likewise a non-exempt employee. DOL reasoned that a police department's primary function is law en- forcement and that the investigative activities performed by the police officer were more akin to "day-to- day production" operations of the police department than to its management policies or general business operations. This letter is significant for the classification of detectives. *Indicates new or revised material. Page 50 • Tab 200 May 1989 Fair Labor Standards Handbook Exempt Employees 1245 • A review of other recent Wage Hour Opinion Letters reveals that DOL has concluded that fire pre- vention officers and district attorney investigators, in letters dated May 19, 1987, and Sept. 10, 1987, respectively are not exempt employees because these functions do not relate to the management policies or general business operations of the entities in question. Indeed, this line of thought could extend to many job classifications in virtually every state and local government agency. Narrow reading of"general business operations" The difficulty with this narrow reading of the terms "management policies" and "general business operations" for state and local governments, as well as for all service-oriented employers, is that many employees who perform critical functions requiring discretion will not be deemed exempt administrative employees. DOL's view implies that, for example, in a city, only those in strictly administrative functions (such as personnel, budget and analysis) or those who carry out the policies of the city (such as the staff in the mayor's office) max,be considered exempt administrative employees. Those who perform other city services, regardless of the importance of the services and the amount of discretion they require the em- ployees to exercise, will simply not be exempt under DOL's interpretation. The administrative regulations issued for commercial entities give relatively little guidance for •• public employers in this regard. Instead, 29 C.F.R. §541.205, which defines the term "directly related to management policies or general business operations," deals primarily with employers who are in the manufacturing business. Obviously, the meaning of"production" work makes sense when discussing assembly line workers in a factory; its application to public employers, however, is less relevant. DOL"s interpretation arises from the regulations (29 C.F.R. §541.205), which state: The phrase"directly related to management policies or general business operations of his employer or his employer's customers"describes those types of activities relating to the•administra- tive operations of a business as distinguished from"production"or,in a retail or service establish- ment,"sales"work. In addition to describing the types of activities,the phrase limits the exemption to persons who perform work of substantial importance to the management or operation of the business of his employer or his employer's customers. DOL obviously meant to exclude production workers engaged in manufacturing and salesmen from the exemption. It is unclear, however, how public service employees fit in. The regulations go on to list a number of service-type employees who may be found to be exempt, such as tax consultants, buyers, credit managers, safety directors and systems analysts. It is difficult to determine why the listed employees could be exempt, while public employees such as probation officers could not be, since these employees appear to be equally involved in work directly related to their employers' management policies or general business operations. • In addition to the Wage and Hour Opinion Letters discussed above, DOL has issued almost verbatim letters reaching the same conclusion for the following public employees with respect to the administrative exemption: ©Thompson Publishing Group, Inc. May 1989 Tab 200 • Page 51 ¶245 Exempt Employees • tax appraisers (Wage Hour Opinion Letter dated Feb. 25, 1986) • • child protective investigators (Wage Hour Opinion Letter dated May 9, 1988) • deputy sheriffs and sergeants (Wage Hour Opinion Letter dated May 19, 1988; June 9, 1988) • criminal investigators (Wage Hour Opinion Letter dated June 9, 1988) • special agents (Wage Hour Opinion Letter dated July 8, 1988) • parole agents (Wage Hour Opinion Letter dated July 26, 1988). With this new emphasis, all public employers should carefully review employees classified as admin- istratively exempt to ensure that the employee meets the "general business operations" or "management policies" test as outlined above. For employees who are questionable, the employer should seek an opinion letter or legal advice. The implications of classifying an employee incorrectly, namely back pay, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees, may be substantial. S Page 52 • Tab 200 May 1989 Fair Labor Standards Handbook • Exempt Employees ¶245 0\ $ k a. a < » z % 0 0 �k LU �� O 0 o0 ..?.%-o > / 02 \— ` < 2a§ 00 _ R m= co .6 j2, 2E 2 w eat 00 § a. I- ca Eot \f 2 < cc Stet o.� Z ca�2 0 § 0 _ 0 Q �#., /2 > a ok 2 Z ■ac- LU 0 .- c �� o m ■ m \� k k\ ( L Q us o k BE CU §$ EEg CO § § § O U) 000 » z £ § ® 2 0o >, o e _ c 0 o°k° @ § � c Cl) R 0.000c 2 I k\ B e .-2 © o. 0..t c w © _ < x ¢ 0� § ¥ 0 @ � W E � Cl)n 2 .7422C 2 of al 2 ƒ 0 kk §\ k 2 22 00 m O 0 @ Cl) I 0 ƒ 7 g .\ 0 I _I ■ >- e >.�§ CO ©�°gf t�St §/ z w 0 �2Uf � 000 00 0 w ©- > 0 § �\ � o. o > o_� » §Q � 0E ■ 8 0.r...' e a 0 .j$ t (t 0 § CO E ` 0 � ■ § •2 f�£ z x ©/ z .0e- ems eE LU B z c E o 0 7 wo >E k0k 0 < 22 > 0E .oa \ 2 » � c e e� 2 k 0 ac22 Z LU a. o ao § (�.2 w m -a_ o$ © Z ? ©=-te0 0 O 02207E z a) // 0 0• / Z § . e z @ § 0 3% • [The nex page is Tab 200, Page 63.] ©Thompson Publishing Group, Inc. May 1989 Tab 200 • Page 53 Exempt Employees ¶250 • 11250 Professional Employees An employee who meets either the "long test" or the "short test" for professionals specified in 29 C.F.R. §§541.3 and 541.301 is exempt. ¶251 Long Test for Professional Employees A professional employee must meet all of the following requirements to be exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) minimum wage and overtime provisions: (1) Duties: Primarily work requiring — (a) advanced learning acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction, as dis- tinguished from general academic education, apprenticeships, or routine training; or (b) original or creative work depending primarily on invention, imagination, or talent; or (c) teaching, tutoring, instructing, or lecturing for a school system or educational institution. (2) Discretion: Work requiring the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment. (3) Work product: Predominantly intellectual and varied in character and which cannot be standard- ized in relation to a given period of time. (4) Work responsibility: Must devote not more than 20 percent of his or her hours to activities not essential, part of, or necessarily incident to the work. (5) Compensation: Is paid not less than $170 per week exclusive of board, lodging, or other facilities 0490). (On a yearly basis, $170 per week equals about $8,840 per year.) ¶252 Short Test for Professional Employees A professional employee must meet all of the following requirements to be exempt: (1) Compensation: Is paid not less than $250 per week exclusive of board, lodging, or other facilities (11490). (On a yearly basis, $250 per week equals about $13,000 per year.) (2) Duties: Primarily consist of performing work requiring advanced learning or work as a teacher. (3) Discretion: Must include work which requires the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment or consist of work requiring invention, imagination, or talent in a recognized field of artistic endeavor. ¶253 Examples of Professional Employees After a detailed analysis of their particular job duties, the following types of employees are generally categorized as "professional" employees who are exempt from the FLSA: • the so-called "learned" professions, such as medicine, law, and dentistry (29 C.F.R. §541.302(e)(1)). • • artistic professions and architects or degreed urban planners, depending on job duties (29 C.F.R. §541.303, 541.302(e)(1)). ©Thompson Publishing Group, Inc. May 1989 Tab 200 • Page 63 ¶253 Exempt Employees • teachers and professors (29 C.F.R. §541.302(g)(2)). • professional medical technologists (29 C.F.R. §541.306). • registered nurses (29 C.F.R. §541.302(e)(1)). • accountants, depending on training and job duties, but not necessarily junior accountants or ac- counting clerks (29 C.F.R. §541.302(f)). • engineers and scientists (29 C.F.R. §541.302(e)(1)). Wage hour rulings on professional exemptions There are several Wage Hour Opinion Letters that address the issue of whether agricultural inspec- tors, paralegal employees, conservation agents and writers qualify for the professional exemption. DOL concluded in all but the last that they did not. The reasoning used by DOL is instructive in deciding whether particular employees fit the professional exemption. An Aug. 11, 1986, Wage Hour Opinion Letter found that a county employee classified as an agricul- tural inspector would not qualify for a professional exemption under the FLSA. To be an agricultural inspector, the employee must have a bachelor's degree in agriculture or biological science and pass state tests to obtain a certificate. Job duties include inspection of agricultural produce, enforcement of pesticide regulations, and other duties related to agriculture. DOL ruled that such employees do not meet the pro- fessional exemption test of advanced learning customarily acquired by prolonged course work. Also, the duties of agricultural inspectors generally involve the use of skills and procedures rather than discretion and judgment as required by FLSA regulations at 29 C.F.R. §541.305. Three Wage Hour Opinion Letters, dated Aug. 17, 1979, Sept. 27, 1979, and June 12, 1984, address the question of whether paralegal employees are exempt from the minimum wage and overtime pay re- quirements extended to executive, administrative, or professional employees under Section 13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. DOL ruled in each case that paralegals are not exempt as professionals, because their duties do not require advanced knowledge acquired through a prolonged course of specialized study. Most jurisdictions — and the American Bar Association — strictly limit the range of legal work that can be done by a layperson. As a result, a paralegal would not be given an opportunity to exercise the independent judgment that would qualify for the administrative exemption. Even if the work occasionally requires a degree of discretion, in DOL's opinion, paralegals fall into the category of employees who apply particular skills and knowledge in preparing assignments, rather than exercise independent judg- ment. The 1984 letter also explains why a distinction is drawn between professional physician assistants, who are exempt under the Act, and paralegal employees, who are not. According to regulations, an em- ployee must have at least a bachelor's degree to be considered a bona fide professional. An exception is made for physician assistants on the grounds that they are directly engaged in the practice of medicine and • Page 64 • Tab 200 May 1989 Fair Labor Standards Handbook Exempt Employees ¶253 • perform duties requiring considerable judgment and discretion. The duties performed by paralegals — such as legal research or drafting documents — do not, in DOL's opinion, warrant an exception to the normal requirements for professional status under the Act. It may be, however, that a particular paralegal does engage in high-level work which may justify a professional (or an administrative) exemption not- withstanding DOL's position. *In an Oct. 26, 1987, letter, DOL concluded that conservation agents for a particular county would not be considered professional employees under the FLSA and therefore must be paid in accordance with the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Act. The county's conservation agents are paid in excess of$250 per week and are required to have a bachelor's degree in biological science, fisheries management, wildlife management, forestry or a similar field. The agents must also pass the Department of Conservation's 20-week training course and work with very little supervision. *According to DOL, the bachelor's degree required for the agent's position is not the kind of training specified under the regulations for the professional exemption. The skills necessary to the job are ac- quired mostly from the training course, not through intellectual study, according to the letter. Further, the conservation agent's work consists mainly of disseminating information to the public, a responsibility which does not require knowledge of an advanced type, said DOL. *A court case in the District of Columbia District Court, Lewis v. News World Communications, Inc. and the Washington Times Corp., No 83-3426 (D.D.C. October 20, 1987), decided that a newspaper writer was exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. The employee claimed that he was hired as a reporter and was wrongfully denied overtime pay. His employer, the Washington Times, asserted that the employee was hired as a television and radio columnist and critic and thus, as a professional, was exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. *The court concluded that the employer had met its burden of proof and that the employee was indeed a columnist/critic and therefore exempt from the overtime provisions of the Act. The employee's primary duties involved writing original and creative columns on television and radio broadcasting as well as columns and articles containing creative, individualized criticisms and analysis. Any clerical or non- exempt work performed by the employee, according to the court, was incidental to carrying out these professional duties and did not destroy the applicability of the exemption. As a professional, artistic employee, the columnist/critic was not entitled to overtime compensation under the FLSA. *The determination of whether a journalist is a "reporter" or a "columnist" is critical in determining whether the employee is a bona fide professional. Reporters generally report the news objectively, while critics and columnists are engaged in creative, opinionated, critical and interpretative work. While the duties of a reporter are usually not professionally exempt, the duties of a critic or columnist may be. • *Many state and local governments publish books, pamphlets or newsletters and hire reporters and *Indicates new or revised material. ©Thompson Publishing Group, Inc. May 1989 Tab 200 • Page 65 ¶254 Exempt Employees writers to perform these tasks. The writing found in governmental publications tends to be objective and • straightforward and, therefore, is more akin to the kinds of tasks performed by "reporters" than by "col- umnists/critics." As such, it is important for all government employers to recognize that these employees are generally not exempt professionals under the Act. State and local governments must, therefore, com- pensate these employees for overtime.work in accordance with the mandates of the FLSA. ¶254 Defining and Delimiting a Professional Employee The regulations (29 C.F.R. §§541.301-541.315) provide some guidance as to the application of the professional exemption test. The "primary duty" requirement is, by reference (29 C.F.R. §541.304), the same as that for execu- tives and administrators. Professional work is not purely mechanical or routine, since it involves discretion (29 C.F.R. §541.305). "Predominantly intellectual" means that the job is varied and not routine mental, mechanical, manual, or physical work. For routine work to be exempt, it should be an essential part of and necessarily incident to the professional work (29 C.F.R. §541.307). The regulations state that the term "professional" is not limited to traditional professions such as law, medicine and theology. Professions which have a recognized status and are based on the acquiring of knowledge through prolonged study, such as acting or music (20 C.F.R. §541.301), are also included. ¶255 Learned Professions The learned professions are those requiring (1) knowledge of an (2) advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a (3) prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study (29 C.F.R. §541.302). The regulations distinguish this three-part advanced learning test from general education or training in the performance of routine mental, manual or physical processes. DOL lists (29 C.F.R. §541-302(e)(1)) a number of professions which, generally speaking, meet the requirement for a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study, including: • law • medicine • nursing • accounting • actuarial computation • engineering • architecture • teaching • various types of physical, chemical and biological sciences, including pharmacy and registered and • • Page 66 • Tab 200 May 1989 Fair Labor Standards Handbook Exempt Employees ¶256 certified medical technology. According to the regulations the best evidence of professional training is the appropriate academic degree which, in the professions listed above, is a standard if not universal prerequisite. The regulations make clear that being a highly skilled technician is not enough to meet the learned professional test (29 C.F.R. §541.302(e)(2)). It should be noted that the regulations specifically address the issue of whether computer program- mers and systems analysts in the data processing field are included in the learned professions. DOL concluded that there is too great a variation in standards and academic requirements to conclude that employees in such occupations are a part of a true profession. (See 29 C.F.R. §541.302(1) and ¶340.) However, a 1985 proposed rulemaking notice from DOL asked for comments on whether computer pro- gramers or systems analysts with at least a bachelor's degree ought to be considered exempt. Other occu- pations that DOL solicited comments about possible professional exemptions included: newspaper report- ers, court reporters, aircraft pilots, and flight engineers (50 Fed. Reg. 47,696 (1985)). ¶256 Discretion and Judgment One of the threshold questions for determining whether an employee is a professional under the long or short test is whether the employee performs work which requires the consistent exercise of discretion . and judgment (29 C.F.R. §541.305). A prime characteristic of professional work is that the employee exercises judgment and discretion in the application of special knowledge or talents. Purely mechanical or routine work does not meet this test. ¶257 Predominantly Intellectual and Varied To meet the long-test requirement for a professional employee, the work engaged in must be pre- dominantly intellectual and varied in character as opposed to routine mental, manual, mechanical, or physical work (29 C.F.R. §541.306). According to the regulations, the work of a true professional is inherently varied even though similar outward actions may be performed. Thus, for example, a doctor may perform 20 physicals in a morning, conducting the same basic tests on each patient. However, for each patient the doctor sees, he must use judgment and discretion in interpreting the various test results he will encounter. The test may be routine, but the work of the professional is inherently varied, even though similar outward actions may be performed. ©Thompson Publishing Group, Inc. May 1989 Tab 200 • Page 67 ¶257 Exempt Employees , cn w J a. a. a c Z o iii Z • I o a. 'D w X y W 2 ® J o Z A 0 w -�` J U) CE O Q o e Et Z e a a O } g ° o c Ec I- w m e a 2 N w 2 m � .0 X Q a 0.'- ec w as z i ea z o o 0 to c c°c o � Z Z ° Z 0 e m 0 - a � e'y U '0 a) LL ., w c d c m U o N E as s e ° O C as i=. y >.�.Y o °'y CO L ° OO > Z H c C 0 c 0. o,.to ; l•-• 0 moo owo 0 0. O m a. 0 x am m g m.oc o w c x z W W m � O X 0.(1 ca Z X � e Z w a> o'°n 0ac° 0 W 08to Z .0 c.... u,me z w � � o EG u, NE w A mOe Z ee e > w >' III Y O M..... 0 0 >.0 7 } F- 0 m 0. e o >,0) a e 2 GJ. O e (I) c e, E ° E z w 2 e } O y c a ° e w >8 0 C Ca .0 y.-. Z J O o o0 °v0 v�co e Z Z e c te c,ac°c Tc v, O e as as y Oy O-- } H US > - N as V) am eoe Ec a. w Eo 002 e `a O 2 U.. 0 Ema � o Z X 0 m w IX w • O a ta O d O z C e y Z 0as ° cr 0v Z 0. N.. td 0 N A eY ,.. m e D.. a O co 0 0,e e > ca mEt`o a. e e `e m Z w >c' ..c.c 0 x mn � � w 0,- a) 8e z L v> o we- O m C 0.0 m Z ca >,Y N '6.e w >"OE d «o 0 w LLI 00 w O• 0 0 Z • [The next page is Tab 200, page 81.] Page 68 • Tab 200 May 1989 Fair Labor Standards Handbook