Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-13 CPC Packetheater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE OF MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET The Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, November 13, 1995, at 7 p m in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street Approval of Minutes of October 9, 1995 AGENDA 1 Case No V/95-79 A variance to the front yard setback (30' required, 25' requested) for the construction of a 12' x 16' EZ frame shed at Oak Park Elementary School, 6355 Osman Avenue North in the RA, One Family Residential Distnct Independent School Distract 834, applicant 2 Case No V/95-80 A variance to the front yard setback (30' required, 7' 9" requested) for the construction of an addition to an existing one -car garage at 1323 Hillcrest Dnve in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct John and Christine Cass, applicants 3 Case No V/95-81 A variance for an accessory building (120 sq ft required, 192 sq ft requested) to move a playhouse to 1505 South Hamet in the RB, Two Family Residential Distract Barbara Vento Charlsen, applicant 4 Case No V/95-82 A variance to the front yard setback (30' required, 17' requested) for the replacement of a wrap -around porch which was previously torn off at 515 West Laurel Street m the RB, Two Family Residential District Karen Dahlquist, applicant 5 Case No SV/95-78 A street vacation of Nelson Alley bounded by Olive Street, South 2nd Street, Nelson Alley and Union Alley containing approximately 13,260 sq ft Dick Anderson, Applicant 6 Kennel Ordinance Modification to City Kennel Ordinance regulating and restricting the location of dog kennels City of Stillwater, applicant 7 Other Business - - Modification to approved plans for increase of 25,000 sq ft of a commercial building Kellison Company, applicant - Discussion of information for November 15, 1995, Comp Plan Meeting CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 F • PLANNING COMMISSION Oct 9, 1995 Present Chairman Jerry Fontaine Glenna Bealka, Duane Elliott, Rob Hamlin, Kirk Roetman, Don Valsvik, Darwin Wald and Terry Zoller Absent Dorothy Foster Others Steve Russell, Community Development Director Mr Fontaine called the meeting to order at 7 p m Mr Valsvik, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved approval of the minutes of Sept 11, 1995, all in favor Case No SUP/95-50 Case No. SUP/95-55 Case No SUP/95-58 These three cases were continued Case No V/95-66 A variance to the sideyard setback (5 required, 2 • requested) for the construction of an 8' x 10' shed at 1010 N Fourth St in the RB, Two Family Residential District Billy J Elliott, applicant • Mr Elliott and his mother, Adeline Dornfeld, appeared regarding the request The intent is to sheetrock the structure as conditioned The building will be used for storage of tools, yard equipment, etc The shed will be wood and painted to match the house Mrs Bealka, seconded by Mr Elliott, moved approval as conditioned All in favor Case No V/95-73 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 21 requested) for construction of a garage addition at 920 Amundson Drive in the RA, One Family Residential District Ray Damis and Marilyn Morehead, applicants The two applicants appeared regarding the request Mr Damis explained there is no storage except for a downstairs area they would like to finish as a family room, a storage area would be constructed under the garage addition Because of the unique shape of the lot, only a corner of the garage addition would be outside setback requirements, he said Most r ; neighbors already have 3-car garages, and he said he did not feel the addition would adversely affect the neighborhood, no neighbors have objected to the proposal For discussion, Mr Valsvik, seconded by Mr Zoller, moved approval as conditioned Mr Hamlin and Mr Elliott spoke in favor of upholding setback requirements, rather than granting a precedent -setting variance Mr Zoller noted that most houses in Oak Glen have 3-car garages, and he said he felt the requested addition would fit in with the neighborhood Motion of approval failed 6-2, with Mrs Bealka and Mr Zoller voting in the affirmative Case No V/95-74 A variance to the sideyard setback (30 feet required, 24' 4" requested) for the expansion of an existing garage at 421 W Elm St in the RB, Two Family Residential District Duane and Marylou Kendrick, applicants Mr and Mrs Kendrick appeared regarding the request Mrs Kendrick showed photos indicating the slopes of the yard which would prohibit expanding the garage in a different direction She also showed photos of the intersection to indicate the addition would not impact visibility at the intersection She said her husband is handicapped, which makes it difficult to park on the street Mr Elliott noted the requested variance should be 6' 4", rather than as indicated on the agenda item Mr Hamlin, seconded by Mr Roetman, moved approval as conditioned Mr Zoller noted that a one -car garage is inadequate for the applicants and there is no other way to build an addition given the topography of the lot Mr Valsvik also noted it doesn't appear the addition will affect the intersection visibility, and there will still be room for a sidewalk if the addition is constructed Motion for approval passed unanimously Case No. V/95-76 A variance for additional building signage for Schoonover Body Works, 2000 Curve Crest Blvd in the BP -I, Business Park Industrial District Kellison Company, applicant 0 © • A representative of the Kellison Company appeared regarding the request He said the additional signage on the building is needed to provide visibility for traffic eastbound on Curve Crest The requested signage will be backlit, rather than facelit, he said, the requested signage has 36" high lettering He also noted a number of neighboring businesses have two signs The monument sign will be about half the allowable square footage -- 9' x 6', including the rock base Mr Russell suggested that 36" high lettering was rather large Mr Wald, seconded by Mr Valsvik, moved approval as conditioned Mr Roetman suggested adding language that the building sign lettering be no more than 30" high to the condition of approval Mr Wald and Mr Valsvik accepted that as an amendment to the motion -- that no additional signage beyond the building sign with 30" high lettering and the pedestal monument sign be allowed Motion passed unanimously Case No. V/95-77 A variance to the front yard setback (30' required, 12' requested) for the expansion and renovation of City Hall, 216 N 4th Street in the PA, Public Administration District BWBR Architects, applicant Dick Olsen, Olsen Construction, and Dennis Vonasek, BWBR Architects, appeared regarding the request Mr Vonasek briefly went through building plans Mr Valsvik, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved approval, all in favor Case No. 377 A request from Monti A Moreno to delete restrictive covenants limiting the commercial use of a vacant site at 6720 N Stillwater Blvd (County Road 5) between KinderCare and Brooks Superette Mr and Mrs Moreno appeared regarding the request to delete covenants to enable him to construct a one-story building, with his hair salon as one of the building uses Mr Moreno said he understood some property owners are concerned However, he said he thought the project would serve as a buffer zone between County Road 5 and the residential area He noted the property was zoned commercial when the neighbors bought their homes Speaking in opposition to the proposal were Janet and Charles Kenning, 2337 Hidden Valley Lane, Steve and Leslie DeMars, 2307 Hidden Valley Lane, Tom and Beth Schwintek, 2327 Hidden Valley Lane, Peg and Leo • Lautele, 2317 Hidden Valley Lane, Mick Johnson, 2318 Hidden Valley Lane, and Joni Morris, 2347 Hidden Valley Lane Concerns raised included decreased property values, increased traffic congestion and the existing problem with driveway access, the potential for odors from the hair salon It also was pointed out Mr Moreno knew there was a restrictive covenant on the property when he purchased it Neighbors also voiced a concern about the upkeep of Brooks and the early morning garbage pickup Mrs DeMars said the covenant was drawn up following discussions with neighbors and City Attorney David Magnuson The intent of the covenant is to allow a single professional office building, she said, and she said the allowable uses were carefully thought out A hair salon was discussed when the covenant was being developed and was not included as a use Mr DeMars presented a petition with 79 signatures opposed to the project Mr Moreno said he is not asking that the covenant be removed, rather that a hair salon be added as an allowable use under the same kind of business parameters allowed under the covenant He also said there would be no odors from the salon Mary and Frank Taylor, 327 Northland Ave , spoke in support of Mr Moreno Mr Elliott said he favored keeping to the letter of the covenant, a covenant, he said, is an absolute promise He later suggested he thought the issue was a legal question and one the City Council should address Mr Hamlin moved to support the covenant to the letter and that a hair salon is not an allowable use under the covenant Mr Wald seconded the motion Mr Zoller suggested splitting the motion into two separate motions Mr Hamlin accepted that amendment The motion to retain the covenant as written passed unanimously The motion that a hair salon is not an allowable use under the covenant passed 6-2, with Mrs Bealka and Mr Valsvik voting no The Planning Commission's action will be forwarded to the City Council as a recommendation Other business Mr Russell told members a joint workshop on the comprehensive plan will be held with the City Council at 7 p m Oct 24, that date was later changed to Oct 25 • • • • Dorothy Foster has resigned Mr Russell said he didn't know if the vacancy should be filled until the comprehensive plan process has been completed He will bring the matter before the City Council Mr Russell gave a brief update on the SuperValu and UBC site proposals Mr Hamlin asked that staff check out the comments regarding the early morning garbage pickup at Brooks Mr Roetman, seconded by Mr Hamlin, moved to adjourn at 9 40 p m All in favor Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording secretary • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. V/95-79 PC Date November 13, 1995 Project Location 6355 Osman Comprehensive Plan District One Family Residential District Zoning District RA Applicant's Name Independent School District 834 Type of Application• Variance Project Description A variance to the front yard setback (30 required, 25' requested) for construction of a shed Discussion The request is to install a 12' x 16' EZ metal frame shed on the west side of the building Because of fire codes the shed would be placed 20 feet from the school and used to store items not allowed in the school ( a rider snow blower and other flammable equipment) The applicant sites that the proposed location is well lit and would be the most vandal proof area in the school lot Recommendation Approval Attachments Site location plan • • Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED DEPARTMENT Certificate of Compliance Conditional or Special Use Permit Design Review Tanned Unit Development Variance Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Amendment Subdivision Resubdivision Total Fee SO Cr 1 LI FEE(1) $70 $701170 -0- 270 300 $300 $100+$50/lot $50 The applicant xs responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION etddress of Project 6 '15 5 o sma n Ave . N. Assessor's Parcel No oning District Description of Project PrPrt-i on of nut -building "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct I further certify I will comply with the permit fit is granted and used " Property Owner ISD # 8 3 4 Mailing Address 1875 S Greeley St Stillwater, MN 55082 Telephone No Representative Bernie Anderson 6355 Osman Ave N Mailing Address Stillwater, MN 55082 Telephone No 35 8600 Signature Signature g SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONKA i Lot Size (dimensions) see a licl.ached Land Area Height of Buildings Stories 2 Principal Accessory Feet 30 10 •(')ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAY BE REQUIRED AS PART OF REVIEW Revised 9/19/95 Total building floor Area 160 sq ft Existing 0 sq ft Proposed 1 6 0 sq ft Paved Impervious Area 1200 s. ,,ee Number of off street parking spa iYeii' 'S � % fir, ICAt� 95cs `LI Gq�y��.__ • • • o6r0 \77.31g:0-4 No r141 Ito -)I ng � S c,►,00 '3,00-) «J 7 ,6 W i9 OanY0 WAD ge Oak Park. .School /7/7//0644W//// / PI a round 10 AZ —YS OCT-24-95 TUE 13.00 OAK PARK ELEMENTARY , _ FAX NO 612351 635j_�� 1-0P 02/02 1. GENERAL Prior to beginning construction, the area selected for the shed location must be leveled and cleared of obstructions 3. FRAME PREPARATION Unfold each frame setting aside two frames to be used as end walls From 1' x4' Pine boards, cut Gusset plates 6' long--24 for a 12' building,32 for a 16' building or 40 for a 20 building Apply gusset plates on each side of the top and bottom fold locations Frames to be used as end walls require only one gusset plate top and bottom on the side opposite of the metal plate and to the inside of the building Use four 8d nails on each plate See Figure 1 • • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. V/95-81 PC Date November 13, 1995 Project Location 1505 South Harriet Street Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential Zoning District RB Applicant's Name Barbara Vento Charlsen Type of Application Variance Project Description A variance is requested for an accessory building (120 sq ft required, 192 sq ft requested) Discussion The request is to move the applicants childrens 12 ft x 16 ft playhouse from its current location to her new residence at above location Condition of Approval Should the Commission approve the request staff recommends the following conditions. 1 The playhouse cannot be used for living space 2 No running be brought into the playhouse Attachments Application Form Photo Plan • Case No Date Filed Fee Paid %0 " Receipt No (P%O PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM V9 —9/ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED DEPARTMENT Certificate of Compliance Conditional or Special Use Permit Design Review Planned Unit Development Variance Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Amendment Subdivision Resubdivision Total Fee FEE(1) $70 $70/170 -0- $270 $70 $300 $300 $100+$50/lot $50 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting matenal submitted in connection with any application 60pit, PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION oi�35-31027 /036 si fourr//i✓E To •.ddress of Project 5-05 So //'),in/E r sr Assessor's Parcel No Zoning Distnct R 0 Description of Project M6e/No + Pui y//ouJJ "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct I further certfy I will comply with the permit fit is granted and used " Property Owner &MARA 1/6//to GIARSC/I Mailing Address 15o5 So IA>;a,Ei Sr _ St,u.,A✓,, Erg , Mi,i,I of R 5508 z- Telephone No '139 -09/l Signature'A' Representative Mailing Address i✓aNE et Telephone No Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) 1 '0 x 80 Land Area Height of Buildings Stories Feet Pnncipal Accessory—�— Total building floor Area Existing sq ft Proposed — sq ft Paved Impervious Area / sq ft Number of off street parking spaces provided •')ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAY BE REQUIRED AS PART OF APPLICATION REVIEW sq ft Revised 9/19/95 \•,I -.c' --IN \ill 7 '1 N'-' /\ boi NeieWg S Yncy 1-�v '2fi % '7 3 yS/6/2' YO/5W'7 OW Gp'v A/"I&7 AW Y 1 &wf0 G7h0M -4L//oy ^y i*vo/J/90y do �sr7t/7'�j $ St/ a1V':' oi/v//10W 7' 'N0/L /cloy --y n 7Jv/ 01 ! 0/✓ Ai 71 t/ / a 9 vv W / 'jvOO 4 o! .0 c7 V f // i - �», o w _?Sn n f// p -rd '.--YN] f0 pO LZ-Vd / 2 UP Yr/ L /✓/ Y'7N9 ?'f /1 .via'?// c/al 3'/-/1-2N/,,Z Cry �'0 py iP Stif/ I Yv_e ?'if/7'7 - /i - �'Snaf/,Z & d '/iL 10 v9_1Sive J S/I/i q--1r,091/75' G&I/ / .0/�'1-b -Y /I/vn G9WY&/v/ 1 oJv cwo / chi y.20,,7r1r,// _do )/?try A 6N17- 'Oo/v›,,, ,2jv/1 /vio i//Ij d0 'i /1 /7 'S 7'4(01/1/ 69a/21177jV/ A0e/aZ/'Yj! ;y/y`/ / s' 'Avd oL 9j1 &// 01 ?. /v/ o d) Wy / 1 //./_ / SQ) t/ y i x ' a 1 i76'Y/fin-? s/ 9 ' /i / /-1:/a,/$ O j1 n v►e y 1 oiv S / = / // All /:/ f7/ ?Loa .9 oaf/ oJ4 1/ G? l/ mlid / Of f, , "')/ /�'oi l/v-9/+, f/ $ / ,4 kG//./ 2//8/ 5 0-y0 ?i E/ '/- z' MN ,/Q )-' A 1/ 1 a'9 of `lil/09 fi 1/ //-Y/ 1 vcv Iv/. 6'vb /v/ ,t6/Yj of oc'fn s/ 7 r» Qf//C'yd -a'yi /v9e/0702 ,W /t8 /7Jvh o) Ail TvJJ%\_ • • • • R-R I ET S r 2ECT (p(p T 1 lip 14 H AI2fL IET THEE-r- i NO RI" d-fl -DuN iAy 1-RE.ES VAT DEC K --/" iZ EE a 2I{t 1 / i 2 PLA Y HOUSE — I& fi X K R x X 36,ft (0041 +,s /20 it 1, N c f.I = 20 FE41, P20Po5et> SITE OF 'PLAY HOUSE (EfrUE TCIZ y CHAIN L4JI( FEA c C y 7q N��N Wooer FEACC (Co 4- HIC,N) 1 • • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO. V95-82 PC Date November 13, 1995 Project Location: 515 Laurel Street Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential Zoning District RB Applicant's Name Karen Dahlquist Type of Application Variance Project Description A variance to the front yard setback (30' required, 17' requested) for the replacement of a wraparound porch. Discussion The request is for a variance to replace a wraparound porch that has been removed The proposed porch would be as close to the original dimensions as the applicant can decipher (the porch was removed before she bought the house) The front of the porch would be 8'-0" wide and 30'-4" long, the side porch width would be 6'-0". Two homes directly south have front porches and are 16 feet back from the property line Condition of Approval 1 The large oak tree in the front yard should be protected with a silt fence around the canopy line during construction to prevent damage to the root system Recommendation• Approval as conditioned Findings That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan Attachments Application Form Photos Site Plan r 4 • Case No Date Filed Fee Paid '7 D 3 7/ Receipt No S c' U'67' PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 ACTION REQUESTED Certificate of Compliance Conditional or Special Use Permit Design Review lanned Unit Development Variance Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Amendment Subdivision Resubdivision Total Fee FEE(' 70 170 -0- $270 $70 $300 $300 $100+$50/lot $50 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material subnutted in connection with any application /� ^/ PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION ,oddress of Project �N �/'� I z_aVt rot Assessor's Parcel No ning District Description of Project t P /UCeihP / ' pptee_1,-, \c L�.aS e (dlnSLL �4 D 2 fr O "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct I further certify I will comply with the permit fit is granted and used " Property Owner4•<Otir(in Representative Mailing Address 5 V'I . L- CL(J R P Mailing Address Telephone No ?) - (o U`iS Telephone No Signatu Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) x 00 -i- 15 >NO Land Area ?LI0C Height of Buildings StUries Feet Pnncipal Accessory Total building floor Area Existing sq ft Proposed sq ft Paved Impervious Area sq ft Number of off street parking spaces provided `')ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAY BE REQUIRED AS PART OF APPLICATION REVIEW sq ft Revised 9/19/95 z_co ,i)( • LobvC • • 7-11 C14 o" 1' 0 o 9 6 • • '1 / 71 (. _ (r 11 -mow r c1 g — —/SIC-- > h 1 1_ ' 1 1 1 11 r R �2 h 9 1 9 1 1-1 — r-, 1 a 0 11 I 11 I I I 11 I • • 4) • L. rJ Z2 9 J J '1 -J J J n g A' o' •r N VI z. In a Y / v 3s / o- µ ArE.e A4 /A/ ,e89 • • • MEMORANDUM TO Planning Commission FROM Steve Russell, Community Development Director DATE 11-9-95 SUBJECT Public Heanng on Kennel Ordinance Amendment As you may recall, the City Kennel Ordinance was recently revised to require all residents with three or more dogs to get a Special Use Permit and Kennel License The existing ordinance is attached Based on complaints from people with dogs and the cost and time of reviewing kennel license requests, the Council directed that the new ordinance be changed to not require a Special Use Permit The new ordinance does that but also limits the number of dogs in residential districts to three dogs Kennels would only be allowed in commercial districts Recommendation Review changes to ordinance, hear public comments, and make ordinance amendment recommendation to the City Council Attachment Existing and proposed kennel ordinance f • • • AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 27 TITLED DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS 27 03 KENNELS Subd 1 The term kennels shall mean any place where four (4) or more dogs over six months of age are kept, owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale It shall be unlawful to operate a kennel in any residential zoned district Kennels shall be allowed in any commercial zoned district It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corpoation or other legal entity to own or operate a dog kennel without a Special Use Permit issued by the Planning Commission. Conditions of Approval A Each owner or keeper of a dog or dogs shall operate and maintain the premises as well as all of its pens, run -ways and all the premises upon which a dog is kept or harbored, in a clean and sanitary manner; (a) provide adequate light and ventilation, (b) dispose of fecal materials through an approved sanitary manner, (c) keep the premises vermin free, (d) conduct its operation in such a manner that no public nuisance will be created or offensive odors arise therefrom, (e) shall be open for inspection by City Authorities during working hours Y • • • ORDINANCE NO 813 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 27 OF THE STILLWATER CITY CODE "DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS' I tJ 12.I!llu--flAA__ 0 1'51G7 The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain 1 Amending Chapter 27 01 Dogs and Other Animals is amended by changing the definition of Kennel by adding a new Section 4 and adding a new section 4a that will read as follows S0 ' 4 Kennel means any place where three or more dogs or three or -mere --eats over feet' months of age are kept, raised, sold, boarded, shown, treated, groomed or a place where animals are bred or offered for sale at any age or in any number in the regular course of business 4a Kennel Licenses Kennels are not permitted without a Conditional Use Permit No Kennel License may be issued or renewed unless the applicant has a valid Conditional Use Permit for the facility 1) Existing kennels must be in compliance with this Ordinance within 60 days after its effective date " 2 Saving In all other ways the City Code shall remain in full force and effect 3 Effective Date This ordmance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law ATTEST L kJ, OJA Morli jWeldon, Clerk Adopted by Council this 2nd day of May , 1995 Publish Stillwater Gazette May 22, 1995 • • • CHAPTER 27 DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS 27 01 DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS Subd 1 As used in this ordinance the following terms shall mean 1 Owner Any person, partnership or corporation owning, keeping or harbonng animals 2 Kennel Any owner engaged m the business of breeding, buying, selling or boarding dogs, provided that such owner customanly owns more than three (3) dogs over six months of age 3 Pet Shop Any owner engaged in the business of breeding, buying, selling or boarding animals of any species 4 Veterinary Hospital Any establishment maintained and operated by a licensed vetennanan for the diagnosis and treatment of diseases and injunes of animals 5 Animal Any nonhuman living being, domestic or wild 6 Anunal Shelter Any premises designated by the Council for the purpose of impounding or canng for ammals held under authonty of the ordinance 7 At Large At large shall be defined as off the owner's premises and not under the control of the owner or a member of the immediate family either by leash, cord or chain or similar physical restraint Subd 2 No person shall own, keep, harbor or have custody of any dog over six months of age without first obtaining a permit from the City Applications for permits shall be made on a form prescribed by the city which form shall set forth 1 The name and address of the owner 2 The name and address of the person making application, if other than the owner 3 The breed, sex and age of the dog for which a permit is sought No permit shall be issued to any person other than the owner except upon of the owner's wntten request Subd 3 Penmts shall be valid for a penod of one (1) year, commencing May 1 and expinng Apnl 30 of the year next following, and, except as hereinafter provided, shall be issued only upon payment of the following annual fees to the city 1 For each male or female dog $5 Chapter 27 - Page 1 2 For any kennel or pet shop, covenng all dogs kept dunng the year $50 Permits may be issued at any time upon payment of the applicable fees, provided that the fee in Subd 3 (1) shall be prorated on the basis of the number of months remaining in any permit penod For this purpose fifteen (15) days or more shall be construed a full month Subd 4 Upon issuing each permit, the city shall provide the owner with a metallic or durable plastic tag, stamped with an identifying number and with the year of issuance, which in the case of permits issued dunng any one-year penod shall be the year in which the preceding month of May shall have fallen The tag shall be so designed that it may be conveniently and securely fastened to a dog collar or hamess and shall be fastened to the dog's collar or hamess by the owner and shall be worn at all times when the dog is off the premises of the owner The city shall keep and maintain an accurate record of identifying numbers which shall be open to public inspection Subd 5 No animal shall be allowed to run at large Subd 6 It shall be the obligation and responsibility of the owner or custodian of any animal in the City to prevent such animal from committing any act which constitutes a nuisance It shall be considered a nuisance for any animal to habitually or frequently bark or cry, to frequent school grounds, parks or public beaches, to chase vehicles, to molest or annoy any person if the person is not on the property of the owner or custodian of the animal or to molest, defile or destroy an any property, public or pnvate Failure on the part of the owner or custodian to prevent his animals from committing an act of nuisance shall be a violation of this ordinance Subd 7 Unrestrained animals may be taken by any officer and impounded in an animal shelter Impounded animals shall be kept for not less than three (3) days unless reclaimed by their owners If by a permit tag or by other means the owner can be identified, the Chief of Police shall immediately upon impoundment notify the owner by telephone, mail or personal contact of the impoundment Anunals not claimed by their owners within three (3) days shall be humanely disposed of by any person or agency delegated by the Council to exercise the authonty Subd 8 Impounded animals may be reclaimed by their owners after payment is made to the city of a pound fee of $35 In addition, no animal may be released to its owner without the owner first having secured any license required for that animal in the City (Ord #752 Adopted 1-21-92) Subd 9 Notwithstanding the provisions of Subd 7, if an annual is found at large and its owner can be identified and located, the animal need not be impounded but may, instead, be taken to the owner In this case, proceedings may be taken against the owner for violation of this ordinance Subd 10 Every female animal in heat shall be confined in a building or other secure enclosure, in such manner that the female animal cannot come into contact with another animal, except for planned breeding Chapter 27 - Page 2 • • • • • Subd 11 No owner shall fail to provide any animal with sufficient food and water, proper shelter and veterinary care when needed No person shall beat, cruelly treat, torment or otherwise abuse any animal or cause to permit any dog fight, cockfight, bullfight or other combat between animals or between animals and humans No owner of an animal shall abandon it Subd 12 Any animal that bites a person shall be quarantined for such time as may be directed by the Council Dunng quarantine the animal shall be securely confined At the discretion of the council the quarantine may be on the premises of the owner, however, if the council requires other confinement, the owner shall surrender the animal for the quarantine period to an animal shelter or shall, at their own expense, place it in a veterinary hospital Subd 13 No person shall kill or cause to be killed, any animal suspected of being rabid, except after the animal has been placed in quarantine and the diagnosis of rabies made by a licensed vetennanan If a vetennanan diagnoses rabies in an animal in quarantine, then the animal shall be humanely killed Subd 14 The Mayor with the consent of the council may from time to time appoint that persons necessary to assist the police in the enforcement of this ordinance Subd 15 The sections of this ordinance requinng a permit shall not apply to nonresidents of the City provided that their dogs shall not be kept in the city longer than 30 days without a permit and shall be kept under restraint 27 02 DANGEROUS ANIMALS PROHIBITED Subd 1 No person shall harbor, maintain or control any dangerous animal within the City A dangerous animal is one which is capable of inflicting severe bodily harm to humans, and shall include but not be limited to the following species A Class Mammalia Afncan Buffalo (Syncerus caffer) Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius) Wolves, dingos, jackals, all species except foxes (Family Camdae) Fyenas, all species except aardwolves (Proteles cnstatus) (Family Hayaemdae) Wolverine (Gulo gulo) Honey badger or ratel (Mellrvora campensis) Old world badger (meles meles) Bears (Family Ursidae) Lions, jaguars, leopards, tigers (Genus Panthera) Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) Chapter 27 - Page 3 Cougar or mountain lion (Fells concolor) Elephants (Family Elephantidae) Rhinoceroses (Family Rhinocerotidae) Gibbons, siamangs (Family Hulobatidae) Orangutans, chimpanzees, gonllas (Family Pongidae) Baboons, dnlls, mandnlls, (Genus Papio) Macaques (Genus Macaca) Gleada baboon (Theropithecus gelada) B Class Reptiha Gavials (Family Gavialidae) Crocodiles (Family Crocodylidae) Alligators, caimans (Family Alligatondae) Cobras, coral snakes (Family Elapidae) Sea snakes (Family Hydrophidae) Adders, vipers (Family Vipendae) Pit vipers (Family Cortandae) All venomous rear -fanged species (Family Colubndae) The following species of constricting snakes over eight (8) feet in length Boa constrictor (Boa constrictor), all subspecies Anaconda (Eunectes munnus) Indian phthon (Python molurus) Reticulate python (Python reticulatus) Rock python (Python sebea) Gila monsters and beaded lizards (Family Helodermatidae) Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) Subd 2 Violations of this ordinance shall be misdemeanors If any violation be continuing, each day's violation shall be deemed a separate violation Subd 3 In addition to the other remedies and penalties provided in the ordinance, city officials, after approval of the council, are authorized to file appropriate civil actions for a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction or permanent injunction against any person violating this ordinance (Ord #763 Adopted 7-21-93) 27 03 KEEPING OF BEES Subd 1 BEEKEEPING LIMITED No person shall keep any bees within the City on property within five hundred (500) feet of the property line of any other property owners, nor shall any person keep or have at any one location more than one bee hive Bees kept contrary to this ordinance are Chapter 27 - Page 4 • • o • • • declared a public nuisance and may be abated according to law Subd 2 PENALTY An person who shall violate the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor Chapter 27 - Page 5 • • • MEMORANDUM TO Planning Commission FR Steve Russell, Community Development Director DA November 9, 1995 RE VACATION OF NELSON STREET A street vacation request for Nelson Alley from Main Street to Second Street The Downtown Plan shows the concept of closing Nelson Street to provide access to a new parking lot The parking lot will not be where it is shown but rather on the UBC storage yard site on the west side of Second Street The request for street vacation has been reviewed by the Fire Department They feel the street must remain open for fire truck access Emergency vehicle access would have to be accommodated by any closing of the street Access to the Grand Garage parking lot would also have to be accommodated Notice of the closing has been sent to adjacent property owners for comment Recommendation Review of request with recommendation to City Council Attachments • Street Location Affected Properties NAMES 21. c ,e 1 4- KeP tat -CO ,a PETITION FOR VACATION OF STREET LOCATED IN THE CITY OF STILLWATER Provide parcel map and legal description of street for which vacation is requested List all property owners who own property abutting the street vacation area LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY OWNERS I/ 114 4, i.„ PT !� /o ff 2Z3 U6j06 22 3 a o 4 p2D t+ 10692 —3i50A6VY / LI7, o j The undersigned, a majority of the abutting property owners listed above, respectfully petition the City Council to vacate a portion of a City street as described above FEE $100 00 • ADDRESSES 1-4-G0l /tt, 11 te PHONE NO `i3o-177e A0-0-11N N .-N-N �1-11 M Com a u !I °Existing Parking '(111 ,i R, ,,l_11J+1J- is - 1C4(ii-1mTi 16.- J • RE STREET VACATION J1lsvater. THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA November 7, 1995 Dear Property Owner The City of Stillwater has received a request from Dick Andersion for a street vacation of Nelson Alley bounded by Olive Street, South 2nd Street, Nelson Alley and Umon Alley containing 13,260 sq ft Case No SV/95-78 The Planning Commission will be considering this case at a public heanng on Monday, November 13, 1995, at 7 p m , in the Council Chambers of City Hall If you have any comments or concerns regarding this request, please attend the meeting If you have any questions regarding this notice, please feel free to call the Community Development Department at 439-6121 Steve Russell Community Development Director Enclosure • CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 ti • • • PLANNING REVIEW CASE NO. DR/V/95-34 PC Date November 13, 1995 Project Location: 402 North Main Street Comprehensive Plan District: Central Business District Zoning District: CBD Applicant's Name: Kellison Company Type of Application: Revised Design Review Projection Description The request to construct an 8,000 square foot retail building north of the Isaac Staples Mill Discussion The applicant received design approval from the HPC Committee on May 8, 1995 for a 5,500 square foot retail building The request is to increase the square footage of the building by approximately 2,500 square feet The exterior materials would remain metal siding with brick detailing around the entrances and below the first story windows These materials are compatible with Staples Mill and generally fit into the character of the north end of the downtown The signage will remain the same as proposed May 8th Parking is being leased from the Desch Building. Conditions of Approval Would be the May 8th conditions of approval• 1 To provide for required parking an in -lieu parking fee of equal tog@ spaces shall be paid yearly by the occupant of the new building space (this condition shall remain as long as the city leases the lot from the Desch Building owner and the space is occupied) 2 Employees of the building shall park in the North Main Lot Design Review Conditions 1 The HPC shall review the signage plan and any street furniture including benches, trash receptacles and picnic tables 2 The trash area to the rear of the building shall not be visible from Main Street 3 The north elevation shall have a brick base and metal siding similar to the front (east) elevation Recommendation Approval as conditioned Findings The proposal meets the intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines Attachments Revised drawings • • K.ELLISON CO. REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 3880 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH LAKE ELMO MN 55042 • OFFICE 612 777 8646 • FAX 612 777 8673 October 31, 1995 Sue Fitzgerald City of Stillwater 216 North 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Sue, Please find enclosed the revised plans for A B S Retail We are resubmittmg for the design/review process due to the proposed project mcreasmg m size from approximately 4,100 square feet to 5,300 square feet footprint and adding a full second floor m heu of a partial mezzanine The design and appearance will remain as ongmally proposed Please call with any questions you may have Sincerely, Peter S Vanasse PSV hmh Enclosure • -\-v"c RIGI-iT SIPS ELEVATION 1 t 1 °REAR ELEVATION • • • NOLWWA313 1N0'd 11000ruu111 uifiimiiiuuuiuimuimmi i(iimiu C a N NOI1GA313 3C115 1�3-1 CAD L FA'135 GOELEVATIONSe.CdAn NORTH MAIN STILLwATER MN 1 u�� I i 1 -w ..71 .YO .,~PPM PT PC OP M! pTas '02 L RAPIC C Q PINNOI1011. ~ M�A� °Raw sTEv£ 0110 l�N5ED KELLISON COMPANYJP 3580 LAVERNE AVE SUITE 210 LAKE ELMO MN 55042 CHECKED DON 13' RE ,,,,�WO • SITE PLAN sew F•r.2G'-0' • 51-4' 21'B" 14'10' NVIal NO01A 10' 0' 4P 4" r1/4 4 J0I8Te J01618 J01510 J018T8 6 J01610 5 J016T6 • • • MEMORANDUM TO Planning Commission FR Steve Russell, Community Development Director DA November 9, 1995 RE UPDATE ON COMP PLAN AND PREPARATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 15, 1995 At the City Council/Planning Commission Workshop of October 25, the City Council indicated they would like the Planning Commission to consider a Comprehensive Plan that includes all the land bordered by TH 96, CR 15 and TH 36 west of Stillwater, the URTPA Other plan direction from the workshop include 1 Consider using the rural taxing distract for existing township residents effected by the expansion of the city boundary 2 Review of city assessment and hook-up policy for expansion area residents 3 Change land use designation for area just south of West Orleans from multifamily to industrial Attached to this memo are two memos from the city attorney that descnbe the rural taxing distract and give an example of its use on a $150,000 residence A second memo descnbing public sewer and water assessment that will result from the expansion of the city The City of Stillwater has recently extended services in the southeast section of the city The city's policy for extending services in that area is also described in the city attorney's memo I have also attached to this memo a report on annexation concerns regarding the Comprehensive Plan that was presented to the Council at the October 25 meeting and a section of the Fiscal Impact Report that was also presented at that meting At the Monday, November 13, 1995, regular Planning Commission Meeting the Comprehensive Plan document will be handed out and briefly reviewed Attachments MAGNUSON LAW FIRM • • • LICENSED IN MINNESOTAAND WISCONSIN THE DESCH OFFICE BUILDING 333 NORTH MAIN STREET SUITE #202 PO Box 438 STILLWATER MN 55082 TELEPHONE (612) 439 9464 TELECOPIER (612) 439 5641 DAVID T MAGNUSON MATTHEW A STAEHL1NG MEMORANDUM TO Steve Russell, City Planner City Planning Commission LEGAL ASSISTANTS MELODIE ARVOLD JODI JANTZ FROM /� Dave Magnuson DATE November 8, 1995 RE Assessment Issues for Annexation Area There could be three (3) distinctly different assessments that have the potential to burden already developed residential property annexed to the City The first is for core charges for trunk, sewer and water mains, lift stations, water towers and other utilities that benefit a large area The City must establish a policy for the assessment of these core facilities They are normally collected either through an area wide assessment that would be levied by the acre or through collection of hook-up charges that would be paid when anyone hooks into the system The Engineer has estimated a cost of $5,518 per acre for core water and sewer core facilities A second type of assessment could result from drainage or street improvements, since these types of improvements have been assessed on an area basis based upon the square footage of land that an owner contributes to a watershed area or the frontage on a street These systems are available and used by everyone and do not lend themselves to financing through connection charges A policy must be established for the spreading of these kinds of assessments in the annexation area The Engineer has estimated a cost of $4,800 per acre for storm sewer core facilities The third kind of assessment are those that would be spread for the provision of services for both sewer and water These assessments have normally been levied against abutting owners based upon the availability of the utilities In addition to charges for the availability of the system, additional private expenses are required when anyone hooks into the City system That cost is the property owner's responsibility from the property line to the house A policy should be established for the annexation area that would deal with service availability charges and private connection charges since all of these charges could potentially be burdensome to any property owner Page 1 9 November 8, 1995 The City has had recent experience with providing public sewer and water to a previously developed area In the Southeast area of the City, sewer and water services were installed to approximately 165 property owners Previous to that improvement, the City had a policy that anyone was required to hook into an available sewer system within 90 days of it being available to them Because of the potentially expensive burden of hooking into these systems with short notice, the City Council changed the assessment policy to provide that no property would be required to connect to the City sewer system unless the system failed This policy is embodied in Ordinance Number 797, a copy of which is enclosed This policy would be effective for areas annexed to the City and would allow people with existing systems to operate these systems as long as the public health would not suffer It should be remembered, however, that the assessments for the Southeast area for street, curb and gutter, sewer main, sewer service, water main, water service and storm sewer service was assessed and spread with the taxes even though the people were not required to hook into the system In that project, the City paid one-half of these assessments from the general fund in order to relieve the burden on these homeowners However, even though the City paid one-half of the assessment and did not require immediate hook-up, assessments against individual owners ranged from $6,000 to $11,000 per lot Homeowners in the annexed area could face similar expenses Further, private hook-up charges in the Southeast area have ranged from $1,000 to $4,000 per site depending upon site difficulties and distances The City currently has no provision to assist with these kind of privates charges and any person in the annexation area would be faced with these charges if required to hook up In summary, a policy must be developed for 1 ) payment of the cost of core facilities, 2) for assessments normally paid by the area or unit such as street and storm water assessments that cannot be collected by hook-up charge, and 3) for the payment of assessments for services such as sanitary sewer and water DTM/ds Enclosure Page 2 • • ORDINANCE NO 797 • • • AN ORDINANCE AMENDING STILLWATER CITY CODE §29 03 "REQUIRED CONNECTION TO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM' THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN Section I Amending The City Code is amended so that §29 03 shall hereafter read as follows ' 29 03 REQUIRED CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM Subd 1 CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM REOUIRED 1 The owner of all houses, buildings or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation or other purposes and abutting on any right of w», m which there is now located a public sanitary sewer of the city is hereby required to connect its plumbing facilities directly to the City sewer system A permit application and connection shall be made within a period of 90 days of receipt of notification from the Public Works Director The Public Works Director must issue notification in any of the following cases a Surface eruption of sewage b Backup of sewage from the disposal unit into other facilities of the system c Discharge of a tracer dye from the disposal system d Discharge of a flowing stream of raw or partially treated effluent from the treatment units of the system to the environment e Contamination of ground water by treatment or disposal units of the system f Anv part of the system located in an area demonstrated to exhibit fluctuations in the ground water or surface water to within 3 feet ertically of the lowest elevation of the system g Any part of the system located in an area having been designated by the County Soils Atlas or floodplain maps to be subject to seasonal fluctuations of groundwater or surface water elevations which are less than 3 feet in vertical separation from the system h Any conventional onsite disposal system located in an area designated by the County Soils Atlas as having soils typically exhibiting percolation rates slower than 60 mpi ► Any mounded type of disposal system located in an area designated by the County Soils Atlas as having soils typically exhibiting percolation rates slower than 120 mpi J Any type of disposal system located in an area designated by the County Soils Atlas as having soils typically exhibiting percolation rates faster than 5 mpi k Any type of disposal system located in an area designated as floodplain by the County Soils Atlas or other governmental sponsored publication 1 Any type of disposal system located in an area designated by the County Soils Atlas as having soils which have typically less than four feet of separation from bedrock or other impermeable barrier m Any part of the disposal system located in an area Moser than 50 feet to any portion of a public or private water supply n Any system constructed with materials prohibited or of inferior or lesser quality than that required by the City's onsite sewer ordinance o Any system exhibiting an emission of noxious odors discernible from a separated distance of 10 feet p Not later than January 1, 2010 Subd 2 APPEAL The property owner shall be permitted a period of 30 days following receipt of the notification to request a variance from this section from the City Council The Council shall then issue an order suspending or enforcing the Public Works Director's notification within a further period of 30 days Subd 3 IMMEDIATE CONNECTION REOUIRED Any new building built within the City which is on property which has City sewer service available must have its plumbing facilities connected to the City Sewer System upon construction The use of individual sewage disposal systems shall not be allowed In addition, any building in which a municipal water system is being installed shall be connected to the City Sewer at the same time if the Sewer Service is available Subd 4 INSTALLATION OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM No individual sewage disposal system shall be hereafter constructed without a permit issued by the Council In considering a request, the Council shall investigate the feasibility of the extension of the City Sewer System to serve the property for which the permit is requested If it finds extension to be feasible, the Council shall order the extension of facilities in the customary manner Subd 5 PENALTIES AND CONTINUED VIOLATIONS Any person or firm failing to observe the provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to the applicable penalties therefore Each and every day that a violation of this ordinance continues to exist shall constitute a separate violation -2- • • • • • • Section II SAVING In all other ways the City Code shall remain in full force and effect Section III EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 1st day of November 1994 ATTEST eriLP / J1 Morli eldon, is Clerk Published Stillwater Gazette December 5, 1994 Charles M Hooley, Its Mayor -3- , MAGNUSON LAW FIRM • • 0 LICENSED IN MINNESOTAAND WISCONSIN THE DESCH OFFICE BUILDING 333 NORTH MAIN STREET SUITE #202 PO Box 438 STILLWATER MN 55082 TELEPHONE (612) 439 9464 TELECOPIER (612) 439 5641 DAVID T MAGNUSON MATTHEW A STAEHLING MEMORANDUM TO Steve Russell, City Planner City Planning Commissionsi FROM Dave Magnuson 11 ` DATE November 8, 1995 RE Annexation Tax Capacity Issues i LEGAL ASSISTANTS MELODIE ARVOLD JODI JANTZ Some years ago pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statute Section 272 67, the City established by ordinance Urban and Rural Service Districts The assumption underlying the statute and the ordinance is that within the city, some property has not been developed for commercial, industrial or urban residential purposes and therefore is not benefited to the same degree as other city lands by municipal services financed by general taxes I enclose a copy of Chapter 56 of the City Code and also a recent amendment to Chapter 56 found in Ordinance 798 that establishes the current 80% ratio between urban and rural service districts This ratio does not include the municipal levy for bonds, interests and judgments since these amounts must be paid by any property owner within the City and there is no authority for eliminating responsibility for payment of these charges For the taxable year payable in 1995, the City's percent of tax capacity is 35 162% To arrive at the percent of tax capacity for the Rural Taxing District, we start with a 12 914% of tax capacity since that is the amount attributable to bonds and interest in the City budget The balance is 22 248 % of tax capacity The applicable ratio of 80% or 17 798%, when added to the 12 914%, equals 30 712% tax capacity for the Rural Taxing District The ratio between urban and rural taxing districts must be reviewed annually by the City Council and the ratio is subject to change at least annually Further, the Rural Taxing District is created by ordinance and therefore, could be changed by ordinance A future council could decide that there is no justification for the difference in the provision or benefit of municipal services, and therefore, no justification for a Rural Taxing District Page 1 November 8, 1995 RURAL URBAN TAXING DISTRICTS TAX ESTIMATE FOR PAYABLE 1995 Using the Minnesota Property Tax formula for the pay 96 taxes the following comparison of the Municipal Tax levy is made using the different net tax capacity rates Assuming a $150,000 00 property The first $ 72,000 00 x 1% = $ 720 00 Remainder of $ 78,000 00 x 2% = $1,560 00 $ 720 00 + $1,560 00 = $2,280 00 City Urban District City Rural District Stillwater Township Rate DTM/ds $2,280 00 x $2,280 00 x $2,280 00 x Page 2 Tax Capacity Taxes 35 162% = $801 69 30 12% = $700 23 16695% = $38064 0 0 0 • • • ORDINANCE NO 798 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 56 01 DEFINING URBAN AND RURAL TAXING DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN 1 AMENDING The Stillwater City Code is hereby amended by amending Chapter 56 01 Subd 6 of the Stillwater City Code that shall hereafter read as follows Subd 6 The ratio which exists between the benefits resulting from tax supported municipal service to parcels in the Rural Service Distract to parcels in the Urban Service Distract to parcels in the Urban Service Distnct shall be eighty percent (80%) and in addrtion any municipal property taxes levied for payment of bonds judgements and interest 2 Saving In all other ways Chapter 56 01 shall remain in full force and effect 3 Effective Date This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law Adopted by the City Council this 15th day of November 1994 Attest IY)olL 9 Ca a,,,,,J City Cleric/ Published Stillwater Gazette November 28, 1994 Mayor • • TO Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission FROM David T Magnuson, City Attorney Steve Russell, Community Development Director Klayton Eckles, City Engineer RE Annexation Concerns Relating to Comprehensive Plan Implementation DATE October 23, 1995 The annexation of Township land to the City is controlled by the Statutes of Minnesota and the laws relating to annexation change from time to time and the changes are often brought about by lobbying efforts on behalf of the League of Minnesota Cities and the Minnesota Association of Townships Currently the laws favor the annexation and development of adjacent Township land into a municipality A public policy that is favored by the current law is that development should be concentrated around free- standmg growth centers and this will help prevent urban sprawl INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS A proceeding for the annexation of unincorporated property to an abutting municipality may be initiated by submitting to the Minnesota Municipal Board a Resolution of the Annexing Municipality There are other methods of initiating a proceeding, but a Resolution of the Annexing Municipality seems most appropriate Upon receipt of a Resolution Initiating an Annexation, the Minnesota Municipal Board must set a hearing within 30 to 60 days from receipt of the petition by the Board It is then obligated to make an Order within 1 year of the date of the initial hearing There is some question as to whether this agency of the State is bound to make a decision within 60 days because of a new law effective August 1, 1995 It is possible that this new law could shorten the decision time BOARD'S ORDER After a hearing, the Board may order the Annexation if it finds that the property proposed for annexation is now, or is about to become, urban or suburban in character, or if it finds that municipal government in the area proposed for annexation is required to protect the public health, safety and welfare, or if it finds that the annexation would be in the best interest of the property proposed for annexation The Board may deny the annexation if it appears that annexation of all or part of the property to an adjacent municipality would better serve the interest of the residents of the property, or if the remainder of the Township would suffer undue hardship In arriving at its decision, the law provides that the Board must consider the following factors 1 Population projections 2 The quantity of land and the natural terrain and topography, including watersheds and natural features such as lakes 3 t The degree of contiguity of the boundaries for the present pattern of physical development and land use controls of the annexing municipality and the area proposed for annexation, including the Comprehensive Plans and the Plans and Polices of the Metropolitan Council 4 The present governmental service that are being provided and will be provided by the annexing municipality 5 Existing or potential problems of environmental pollution and the need for additional services to resolve the problems 6 Fiscal data of the annexing municipality and the property proposed for annexation, including net tax capacity and present bonded indebtedness 7 The relationship and affect of the proposed annexation on communities adjacent to the area and on school districts within and adjacent to the area 8 The adequacy of town government to deliver services to the property proposed for annexation and analysis of whether necessary governmental services can best be provided through annexation to an adjacent municipality and if only part of the Town is annexed, the ability of the remainder of the Town to continue STAFF RECOM11IENDATION The staff recommends that if one of the growth options to the Comprehensive Plan is chosen by the Council, that the City immediately initiate the annexation of all of the Township property between Highway 36, Highway 96 and County Road 15 The following is the justification of this recommendation 1 Present Law The law now permits an annexation such as the one recommended without an annexation election Prior to the adoption of laws 1992, Chapter 556, Section 12, an annexation such as the one proposed would not be possible without a Referendum Election held at a place designated by the Municipal Board within the area determined by the Board to be primarily and substantially interested in, or affected by the Board Order Such a referendum requirement made well planned annexations impossible and is a direct cause of much of the urban sprawl that we find adjacent to municipalities The Minnesota Association of Townships and other rural interest groups are working hard to change the law to bring back the referendum requirement It is essential that this annexation be initiated under the present law 2 Plan Protections The annexation of this area is necessary for protection of any City plan that would involve the extension of Urban Services into this area The City would then control, by its own zoning and subdivision regulations the further development of large tracts • e • • • 3 Phased Services If the City controls the entire annexation area, services could be more easily phased and extended to accommodate planned growth This would result in the most rational and economic provision of Urban Services 4 Consistent with Prior Plans Such an annexation would be consistent with both the Town and the City Comprehensive Plans, beginning with the plans submitted m 1980 pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act These plans recognize the intention of the City to extend urban services into the area bounded by Highway 36, County Road 15, and Highway 96 5 Economy of Effort There would be an economy of effort in undertaking one annexation proceedings Since 1978 the City has been involved in 22 separate annexation proceedings, has gone to the District Court 3 times and once to the Supreme Court on annexation related issues Eventually, although procedural road blocks were put before the City by contesting these annexation proceedings, the City has always, in each case, been successful It would make sense however, that one proceeding now be undertaken to avoid the expense and frustration of piecemeal annexation 6 Mitigation of Impact There will be impacts on any property within the Comprehensive Plan area and if islands of property are left within the Town, the City would be unable to properly mitigate impacts, since it would not be possible for the City to undertake road repairs, or to plan or design road improvements within areas in the Town that might need improvements Further, drainage unprovements might be necessary and it would be difficult to administer drainage improvements when islands of the Town would contribute to the same watershed Further, if the property were all within the City, a fair method of allocating both general taxes and assessments could be made by the City Council that would balance the property owner s responsibility to pay a fair share of both taxes and assessments against an unfair burden or impact upon any individual property owner Finally, if the City's plan for the entire area is not implemented, the opportunities would be lost for a comprehensive methodology needed for protecting environmental resources from development impacts 7 Voice in Government It would be imperative that the people impacted by development would be able to come to the City Council to voice concerns and to be heard by representatives that are elected by their neighborhood 8 Prevent Urban Sprawl If the property remains in the Town and can not be developed within the foreseeable future to an urban level, property owners within the Town and within the Comprehensive Plan area have suggested that they will develop their large tracks into 2 1/2 acre lots If this is done, it will seal off any further City growth, since it is unlikely that Urban Services will ever be extended into such an area An adjacent area of 2 1/2 acre parcels, that remain in the Town and yet consume Stillwater Urban Services without paying for them is not in the City's best interest 9 Prominent Physical Barrier A prominent physical barrier such as a river or a highway has long been recognized as an effective boundary that can be identified and respected Highway 36, 15 and 96 make an effective prominent physical barrier 10 Town can Function Presently, the Town could function nicely by administering the property north of Highway 96 This would mean that the Town would control approximately half a Township and be approximately the same size as both Baytown and West Lakeland Townships History has proven that a Town can function nicely with this much territory to administer CONCLUSION If an annexation were undertaken now, under the present law, it would have a good chance to succeed, since when all of the factors are considered upon which the Board must decide, they drive a decision that all of the property is now, or is about to become urban or suburban in character Further, the annexation would make possible the effectuation of a Comprehensive Plan that is well conceived and fiscally sound It would allow the City government to be responsible for mitigating impacts on areas that are not unmediately proposed for development, and it would allow for Urban Services to be extended into the growth area in a fiscally responsible manner It would achieve an economy of effort by having one proceeding rather than piecemeal proceedings and it would be consistent with Comprehensive Plans of both the City, the Town and the Metropolitan Council It would also resolve, for this generation, a series of planning conflicts that have been divisive to the community and draining on public energy and resources Lastly, a prominent physical barrier, such as Highways 36, 15 and 96, would allow for an easily identifiable municipal boundary that can be readily ascertained and observed either by the providers of emergency services, or people who come shopping in this area for land Respectfully submitted, David T Magnuson DTM/jkj • • CITY OF STILLWATER, MINNESOTA PROPOSED EXPANSION STUDY SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 • TA UTGES, REDPA TH & CO , LTD CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater 216 N 4th St Stillwater, MN 55082-4898 This report was requested by the City to assist in the development planning process The most recent draft of the City's Comprehensive Plan contemplates expansion areas, pnmanly targeted for single family development to the west of the existing City limits This report discusses vanous aspects of the fiscal impacts associated with the proposed expansion The analysis contained in this report is based on A. The fiscal impact schedules and text included in the draft of the Comp Plan dated March 30, 1995 Section 3 and 11 of that draft are reproduced in Tab 1 of this report B Engineering construction estimates and proposed cost recovery as provided by SEH, see Tab 3 C Financial statements and related schedules of the City from 1988 to 1994 and 1995 budget data as provided by the City's Finance Director D Parcel information from Washington County which has been imported to a geographic information system for parcel inquiry and report generation E Bond resolutions and assessment workpapers as related to the Oak Glen development as used in prepanng cash flow schedules, see Tab 4 Our summary and recommendations is presented on pages 29 and 30 We are available to discuss the contents of this report with City staff and the City council Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to the City of Stillwater Tautges, Redpath & Co , Ltd September 27, 1995 4810 White Bear Parkway • White Bear Lake Minnesota 55110 • 612/426 7000 • FAX/426 5004 • Member of HLB International To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 2 Impact of Completed Development The proposed development will impact the City in two financial areas as follows 1 The completed development will generate property tax and other revenues These amounts will be available to fund ongoing operating costs of the City such as public safety, public works, and other local government functions Other revenue will also include utility rate charges for water and sewer operations 2 The City will likely be required to finance improvements needed to attract the development These improvements can generally be categorized as follows a Improvements such as streets, lateral water, and lateral sewer are construction costs which directly benefit and can be assessed against specific parcels These type of costs will be referred to as front footage (or unit) assessable improvements throughout this report b Improvements such as water towers, trunk sewer, water mains, lift stations, certain storm sewer systems and other constructions costs which benefit an overall system as opposed to parcel specific improvements These costs will be referred to as area system improvements throughout this report The cost of area system improvements are often recovered through a combination of connection charges, special assessments and other revenue sources such as property taxes or enterpnse fund user rates It is important to distinguish between the anticipated impact of completed development on ongoing operations versus the short-term impact on financing system improvements The draft of the Comprehensive Plan discussed the financial support of the first category above which deals with the funding of ongoing operating costs The result of the method used in that report concluded that the City will have a "net gain" under all scenarios ranging from $1 2 million to $3 8 million per year for Alternative A-2 (which represents full development of the proposed areas totaling 1,457 acres) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 3 The above conclusion was based on an overview method of calculating the ratio of total City operating revenue compared to existing operating revenue This ratio was then applied to estimated new property tax revenue of the proposed development A number of sensitivity analysis were also included in the report The worst case scenano was a net gain of $1 2 million A summary of the "best case" calculation used in the draft of the Comprehensive Plan is as follows Estimated new taxes to City Total revenue impact (taxes x 4) Total anticipated expenditures Net gain to City $2,603,693 $10,414,772 (6,584,994) $3,829,778 The above schedule illustrates that 1) the proposed development will be sufficient to fund increased ongoing operating costs associated with the new development, and 2) that a "net gain" of revenue will be generated from the new development If such a net gain is made available, then the City would have options for its use including a reduction in the property tax burden of the existing and expanded City parcels The fiscal analysis portion of the draft of the Comp Plan concludes that "These results show that based on the kind of development envisioned for both the annexation area and infill properties, the City need not weigh fiscal impacts in pursuing its planning and policy objectives " The following section of this report provides further analysis of this conclusion Revenue Sources Not Dependent on Property Taxes A vanety of revenue items are not dependent on property tax levels or increased population Extending anticipated property tax revenue by a ratio of total revenue may result in significantly overstated revenue projections Additionally, statutory restrictions on uses of certain revenues prohibit general purpose use Each fund type has dedicated purposes which should be considered individually (see Fund Type Analysis) • To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 4 Actual Market Values versus Taxable Values The amount of taxes generated by development is based on statutory formulas applied to Estimated Market Values These values will generally average 90% of the value used for building permit calculations The draft of the Comp Plan addresses this difference and has based property tax projections on the lower value We concur with this approach The estimated construction values however have been provided by landowner and prospective developers of the proposed expansion areas Vanances in the density and average value of the development will impact the tax revenue estimates as presented in the Comp Plan We recommend that the City monitor actual proposed developments as compared to the anticipated development of the Comp Plan In a related matter, certain property, in accordance with current State Statutes, may qualify for Green Acre status This status allows delayed in the collection of special assessments The statute is as follows MS 273 111 Agricultural Property Tax. Subd 3 Real estate consisting of ten acres or more or a nursery or greenhouse qualifying for classification as class lb 2a, or 2b under section 273 13 subdivision 23 paragraph (d) shall be entitled to valuation and tax deferment under this section only if it is actively and exclusively devoted to agncultural use as defined in subdivision 6 and either (1) is the homestead of the owner or of a surviving spouse child or sibling of the owner or is real estate which is farmed with the real estate which contains the homestead property, or (2) has been in possession of the applicant, the applicant's spouse parent, or sibling or any combination thereof for a period of at least seven years prior to application for benefits under the provisions of this section, or is real estate which is farmed with the real estate which qualifies under this clause and is within two townships or cities or combination thereof from the qualifying real estate or (3) is the homestead of a shareholder in a family farm corporation as defined in Section 500 24, notwithstanding the fact that legal title to the real estate may be held in the name of the family farm corporation or (4) is in the possession of a nursery or greenhouse or an entity owned by a propnetor partnership or corporation which also owns the nursery or greenhouse operations on the parcel or parcels Subd 6 Real property shall be considered to be in agncultural use provided that annually (1) at least 33 1/3 percent of the total family income of the owner is derived therefrom or the total production income including rental from the property is $300 plus $10 per tillable acre and (2) it is devoted to the production for sale of agricultural products as defined in Section 273 13 subdivision 23 paragraph (e) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 5 The proposed expansion area has a number of parcels which are classified under green acre deferment status as follows PIN 19-030-20-41-0004 19-030-20-43-0001 19-030-20-42-0003 19-030-20-34-0003 19-030-20-33-0001 19-030-20-33-0002 30-030-20-34-0001 30-030-20-32-0003 30-030-20-31-0003 30-030-20-31-0002 31-030-20-42-0001 31-030-20-34-0001 31-030-20-31-0002 31-030-20-31-0001 31-030-20-32-0001 31-030-20-24-0001 31-030-20-23-0001 31-030-20-21-0001 19-030-20-44-0001 30-030-20-21-0003 Pnmary Owner ABRAMOWICZ HENRY J & SHARON ABRAMOWICZ HENRY J & SHARON ABRAMOWICZ HENRY J & SHARON ABRAMOWICZ HENRY J & SHARON RIVARD BURT H & JO ALICE RIVARD BERT H & JO ALICE NEWMAN REALTY LTD PARTNERSHI NEWMAN REALTY LTD PARTNERSHI NEWMAN REALTY LTD PARTNERSHI KROENING ROBERT H &PAULA J STALOCH JAMES E BERGMANN ALVIN 0 & HELEN STALOCH JAMES E & CECILLO STALOCH JAMES E BERGMANN ALVIN 0 & HELEN STALOCH CECIL ILO GADIENT ROSALIE NEWMAN REALTY LTD PARTNERSHI BOWE WARREN P & JANICE M NEWMAN REALTY LTD PARTNERSHI We recommend that the City anticipate the potential impact of green acre deferments in the proposed development area If core systems are construction and green acre deferments, continue (or increase) the City will develop two potential funding shortages as follows 1 The special assessments anticipated from the core system improvements could be delayed indefinitely The bond payments of debt issued to fund the development will require an alternate funding source (usually City-wide property taxes) 2 The City may be required to extend services to the annexed rural areas without having sufficient property tax base gains if the project does not develop on a timely basis a t To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 6 3 Agncultural property may result in the establishment of a rural service distnct which would reduce the amount of property taxes generated from the expansion area pnor to development Timing of development is an important concept to consider in planrung for the fiscal support of the added property tax base The draft of the Comp Plan has analyzed the impact of developed areas after all of the development has occurred The transition penods could have a less favorable fiscal impact on ongoing operations The City will need to increase personnel and equipment to service the expansion areas at a level comparable to the existing City The increases may not always match the timing of increased property values This situation may cause temporary "net losses" related to the proposed expansion (until adequate levels of development occur) Alternatively, the City could allow lower levels of services until the revenue base justifies adding personnel and equipment To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 7 Washington County has provided market values and other parcel information for properties within the City as well as properties in the proposed expansion area The current values of the areas are as follows Market value Percent of total Existing City $ 751 081 000 96 0% Expansion Area (A2) $ 31 574 500 4 0% Tax capacity Percent of total Existing City $ 11 760 087 96 2% Expansion Area (A2) $ 470,467 3 8% Tax Capacity Values Before Development ii le bi To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 8 If development occurs as anticipated, the valuations will appear as follows after the proposed development Tax capacity Proposed new development Projected tax capacity Percent of total Existing Expansion City Area (A2) $11 760,087 $470,467 1 953 522 5 189 210 13,713 609 5 659,677 708% 292% Tax Capacity Values After Development The above tables indicate that if development occurs as planned, the proposed expansion area will represent approximately 29% of the total tax capacity The preceding analysis illustrates areas of the A-2 plan which includes a section referred to on the engineenng maps as Middle Trunk A Most of this area is currently developed and may not be included in the proposed expansion The analysis of proposed assessments and connection charges as indicated in the "Construction Phases" of this report exclude the extension of services to Middle Trunk A and the related revenue To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 9 The proposed residential development in the expansion area is projected to provide between 1200 and 1400 new residential units with tax capacity of between $4 and $4 7 million This development when compared to the current Oak Glen development is significantly larger The Oak Glen development (as extracted from Washington County data), has 393 parcels with a total tax capacity of $1 1 million Based on this analysis, the proposed expansion area is over three times the size of the Oak Glen development State Aid Reductions Property taxes are now certified to the County on a net basis HACA had been calculated on a formula which included a factor for the amount of taxes levied (i e , greater amounts levied generally resulted in greater HACA) As discussed in the Comp Plan, HACA is frozen and has no relation to the amount of taxes levied Beginning in 1990, the HACA base was established The HACA base was defined as the previous year's certified HACA aid • • • i i i • To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 10 The current HACA formula for each unique taxing jurisdiction equals the HACA base multiplied by the growth adjustment factor, plus net tax capacity adjustment plus fiscal dispanty adjustment This legislation is consistent with state-wide trends starting in 1990 which shifted state aids away from cities A table and graph of this shift for the City of Stillwater is as follows City of Stillwater, Minnesota Local Property Goverment Other State Year Taxes HACA Aid Aids 1987 $1,391,396 $386,858 $1,100,662 $83,606 1988 1 590,592 455,937 1 100 648 80,258 1989 1,785,875 463,998 1,287,810 147,360 1990 2,030,843 614,545 846 763 220,997 1991 2,151,990 628,153 690,211 199,170 1992 2 170 616 750,564 729,078 186 934 1993 2,253,289 828,456 692,056 250,044 1994 1 925 154 994,566 778 969 175,407 1995 - budget 2 061 845 1,005,068 807 755 141,665 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 City of Stillwater $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995B HACA ® LGA = Other State Aids --gm—Property Taxes To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 11 The 1994 increase in HACA primarily relates to allocation differences compared to pnor years Starting in 1994, all HACA is coded to the City's General Fund whereas in pnor years, the HACA was spread to all funds which had a property tax levy A restated graph on a basis consistent with prior years is as follows $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 City of Stillwater $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995B LIFEEIM HACA ® LGA 0 Other State Aids —fa--Property Taxes A continuation of the trend which started in 1990 will result in lower levels of state aid for the City of Stillwater Such reductions have occurred more drastically in other Metro cities While the draft of the Comp Plan addresses the further State Aid Reduction, it is difficult to predict the timing and volume of future aid reductions The general trend to shift the funding of City services to property taxes points to advantages related to an increased property tax base A summary of legislation impacting city finances is presented in Appendix A Tab 2, of this report To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 12 Fund Type Analyses Operating functions are segregated into special fund types because they are not related to property tax funding levels and/or they are intended to be measured separately for other purposes Extending revenue on a City-wide basis will result in global conclusions that may not be supported by a segmented analysis We recommend that the following funds to be considered separately A General and Special Revenue Funds - These funds commonly account for ongoing expenditures such as general government, public works, public safety, culture and recreation These areas represent most of the ongoing, salary intense operations of the City and are usually supported significantly by property taxes The general and special revenue funds of the City of Stillwater have been funded by the following General and Special Revenue Funds Property State Other Year Taxes Aid Revenue Total 1990 $2 031,353 $1 682 305 $889 628 $4,603,286 1991 2 152 150 1 517 534 1 459,703 5 129 387 1992 2,170,663 1 666 576 1 241,501 5,078 740 1993 2,253,287 1,770,556 1 362,386 5,386,229 1994 1,925,171 1 948 942 1 234,105 5 108 218 1995 Budget 2 061,845 1,954 488 1,120,152 5,136 485 e a To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 13 $2 500 000 $2 000 000 $1 500 000 $1 000 000 $500 000 r- 1990 General & Special Revenue Funds 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Budget © Property Taxes U State Aid 0 Other Revenue The above table and graph illustrate the funding sources of ongoing operations over the past several years Expanding the property valuation base of the City through development will most directly and favorably impact the general and special revenue funds based on the following • Quality increases in development will likely pay its share of incremented expenditures Efficiencies in fixed costs result in some lowenng of per capita expenses, however, this savings must be measured in conjunction with increased expenditures to meet increased service demands 4 1 1 1 1 1 i i t 1 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 14 • Representative Minnesota cities with increasing population and a similar mix of commercial/individual/residential development may provide greater insights into revenue and expenditure bases The level of services must also be comparable to make these comparisons valid The City of Woodbury is the fastest growing suburb in the Metro area The Cities of Oakdale, Cottage Grove and Forest Lake are growing Washington County Cities Increased development of these four cities has not drastically decreased or increased per capita property taxes related to funding General and Special Revenue Fund operations from 1990 to 1994 as follows General and Special Revenue Funds City of Woodbury Per Capita Year Population Revenue Taxes Expenditures 1990 20 075 1991 21,200 1992 23 700 1993 23,700 1994 26 900 $320 336 345 382 384 $175 $286 178 264 157 281 173 349 166 348 General and Special Revenue Funds City of Oakdale Per Capita Year Population Revenue Taxes Expenditures 1990 18 126 $239 $76 $194 1991 19 735 216 73 189 1992 20 574 237 78 200 1993 22 192 232 81 210 1994 22 933 239 80 217 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 15 General and Special Revenue Funds City of Cottage Grove Per Capita Year Population Revenue Taxes Expenditures 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 22 935 23,715 24,765 25,500 28 019 $301 292 308 318 287 $122 $290 122 303 123 292 126 326 122 305 General and Special Revenue Funds City of Forest Lake Per Capita Year Population Revenue Taxes Expenditures 1990 5,833 $294 $127 $286 1991 6 007 283 134 276 1992 6,098 311 132 278 1993 6 242 304 126 306 1994 6 397 290 123 347 The above examples indicate that per -capita taxes remain relatively constant even dunng penods of increased development The above tables may be compared to the City of Stillwater over the same penod as follows General and Special Revenue Funds City of Stillwater per Capita Year Population Revenue Taxes Expenditures 1990 13 520 $ - $ - $ - 1991 13 970 367 154 329 1992 14 598 348 149 332 1993 15 001 359 150 342 1994 15 350 333 125 341 1995 - Budget 15,350 335 134 358 co • a To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 16 B Debt Service Funds - Not support by Special Assessments These funds commonly are established to pay the debt service of projects which benefit the City as a whole (ex City Hall expansion, Park acquisition, etc) This type of debt service fund is typically property tax levy supported Projects funded by such general obligation debt are approved individually and independent of population growth An increased tax capacity base will however reduce the overall tax rate impact of debt associated with these types of future projects The draft of the Comp Plan concludes that "based on the kind of development envisioned for both the annexation area and infill properties, the City need not weigh fiscal impacts in pursuing its planning and policy objectives " We agree with this conclusion as it relates to ongoing operations The per capita property taxes for ongoing operations tends to remain constant based on compansons of other growing cities in the previous section This is a favorable indicator because inflation would normally increase the per capita amounts We caution, however, with respect to the costs associated with core systems needed to support the new development (see special assessment supported debt service funds) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 17 C Enterprise Funds - Are funds established to account for operations which are funded pnmanly by user rates The City of Stillwater currently does not set rates at levels sufficient to generate profits which would be available for other City purposes in the form of transfers out This is not an uncommon practice Increased development should not be relied upon to generate excess profits if the rate philosophy of the City continues as it has in the past A companson of rates with other Metro Cities is as follows Residential Quarterly Billing Based on 22 000 Gallons of Usage Effective City Water Sewer Total Year Arden Hills $45 98 $53 95 $99 93 1995 Bloomington 34 10 19 40 53 50 1995 Coon Rapids 21 56 35 00 56 56 1995 Cottage Grove 27 60 43 12 70 72 1995 Eagan 30 00 41 20 71 20 1995 Inver Grove Heights 39 90 45 40 85 30 1995 Little Canada 37 62 47 30 84 92 1995 Mahtomedi 35 29 68 24 103 53 1995 Maplewood 37 06 41 65 78 71 1995 Minnetonka 22 00 33 00 55 00 1995 Mounds View 26 40 44 00 70 40 1995 New Brighton 16 28 42 90 59 18 1995 Oakdale 26 20 55 48 81 68 1995 Shoreview 22 82 37 51 60 33 1995 South St Paul 14 96 59 62 74 58 1995 St Paul 37 06 64 99 102 05 1995 Stillwater 27 50 64 20 9170 1995 Vadnais Heights 23 76 42 00 65 76 1995 White Bear Lake 25 20 52 20 77 40 1995 Woodbury 16 40 44 49 60 89 1995 The expansion of systems may create pressure to increase user rates particularly water and sewer rates to subsidize the core system improvements required for the development area The funding source of these core system improvements has not been finalized The City's consulting Engineer has typically recommended cost recovery plans for such core system improvements (see later section) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 18 D Special Assessment Supported Debt Service Funds - These debt funds are established to collect special assessments from benefiting property owners in project areas Such assessments are planned to be available to pay the debt service of bonds issued to finance the project Anticipated cash flows are scheduled at the time of issuance of the bonds Differences can, and usually do, occur based on future events such as a) delinquent special assessments, b) prepayment of assessment which are invested at interest rates other than the special assessment rate, c) other anticipated collection of revenue occurs at a different pace than expected When such differences occur, the City may expenence favorable or unfavorable vanances which impact the City as a whole An evaluation chart of the status of debt service funds is as follows Condition A Fund balance plus deferred revenue meets or exceeds bonds payable Cautions c1 Is the City experiencing favorable collection rates for special assess ments7 2 Are anticipated investment interest rates eamed on prepayments ade- quate to replace assessment interest? 3 Is the timing of receipts sufficient to meet bonded debt payments as they become due? 4 Are significant portions of assess ments not scheduled for collection (green acres tax forfeit etc )? 5 Is arbitrage or negative arbitrage an issue? The debt service fund is clearly adequately funded Plan for eventual use of surplus Conclusion 1 Condition B Fund balance plus deferred revenue is Tess than bonds payable Questions 1 Are sufficent future assets scheduled (such as property taxes) to meet bonded debt payments? 2 Are cash assets sufficient to generate investment earnings? 3 Are transfers or other funding sources available? 4 Are there future assets to pledge such as assessments MSA allot ments etc ? The debt service fund is clearly not adequately funded Plan for alter native funding (taxes transfers other sources Conclusion 2 Vanables and possible outcomes are too diverse Prepare projections to analyze possible scenarios and opptions Gaza Ivraacl Conclusion 3 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 19 The draft of the Comp Plan refers to infrastructure related to new development as follows Other important findings New development pays for itself in terms of infrastructure (new streets, sewer, water lines) The only cost to the City relates to contnbuting to the upgrade of existing deficient streets and providing a new park and trails We recommend the above conclusion be revisited and that the City proceed cautiously in ordenng core system improvements Some development does not pay for its entire infrastructure costs on a timely basis and in some cases not fully When this condition exists, the City's general tax base may be relied upon to pay for the development in the form of increased property taxes to both new and existing property owners If the area system improvements required in the development area will be paid by developers in cash and in advance of proceeding with the construction, then the City eliminates the nsk associated with financing the development If, on the other hand, area system improvements will be ordered with some uncertainty regarding the amount and timeliness of revenue collection, then the City should consider the nsks associated with ordenng area -wide improvements The City has had a significant development project fail to meet the anticipated timing for collection of special assessment and other related revenues Oak Glen The Oak Glen development was financed by the Improvement Bonds of 1984 That bond issue was structured based on developer commitments and anticipated assessment revenue The anticipated cash flow schedule was not met based on 1 Slower pace of development then anticipated 2 Delinquent and tax forfeit assessments 3 Failed developer guarantees 4 Prepayments of assessments which could not be reinvested at rates comparable to the special assessment rates 1 4 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 20 Although the City successfully resolved the temporary funding shortfalls associated with the Oak Glen development, the City devoted significant administrative efforts including the following a Identifying the revenue shortfall b Pursuing all available collection alternatives c Special state legislature to allow for reassessment of project costs d Issuing a 1994 financing bond issue designed to lower interest costs and establish general property tax support of the restructured debt These scheduled property tax levies total $1 4 million The City's efforts to overcome the difficulties associated with the Oak Glen project are commendable The City has a financing plan in place to assure timely payment of scheduled debt and to minimize the general property tax burden on the City Exhibits 1A to 1C present anticipated cash flows of the $1,055,000 Improvement bond of 1994 A 1994 as follows Schedule 1-A - A cash surplus is anticipated if all schedule property taxes are levied starting with collection year 1997 Schedule 1B - The scheduled property taxes may be partially canceled (approximately 50%) and the fund would continue to have sufficient cash to meet debt obligations Exhibit 1C - The $600,000 Bonds of 1984-B are projected to have a surplus available of $350,000 at December 31, 1995 (see Exhibit 2) This amount may be used at the discretion of the City Council Two options include the following a) transfer the remaining balance to the 1994A Bonds to further reduce required property taxes as presented in Exhibit 1C b) use the remaining balance to pay for core system improvements of the proposed expansion area To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 21 The Oak Glen scheduled property tax levies are spread to all properties within the City This type of property tax requirement occurs when development does not "pay for itself' through special assessments, connection charges and other revenue sources on a timely basis The amount of property taxes actually required is uncertain at this time and the City has canceled the 1995 and 1996 levies Any property taxes required after 1996 (for a project which began in 1981) will, however, be spread on an expanded property tax base The net impact of property taxes needed to pay for the debt associated with those improvements will be spread on the following valuation Oak Glen Rest of City Total Market Values Amount Percent $65,072,100 678 885 400 751 081,000 87% 90 4% 100 0% Oak Glen Rest of City Total Tax Capacity Values Amount Percent $1,092,107 9 3% 10 667 980 907% 11,760,087 100 0% 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 i e To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 22 The amount of proposed property tax levies average $137,000 (before partial cancellations) This levy represents approximately 5% of the total 1994 collectible property tax levy Because Oak Glen represents 9 3% of the total tax capacity value of the City, the added property tax levies required to pay for the Oak Glen improvements do not increase the property tax burden of other City parcels The City's ability to delay required property tax levies until development is substantially complete should not be relied upon for all such developments If property taxes are required pnor to sufficient increases in tax capacity values, then the remaining City property owners may bear the cost of improvements (which do not directly benefit them) through increased property taxes It is an acceptable policy to use property taxes to fund core system improvements Many cities use this funding source because they have determined that the added development benefits the entire City or that the timely availability of adequate revenue from the development area is uncertain When there is uncertainty as to the timing of revenue sources, bond resolutions often include scheduled property tax levies to assure timely availability of resources to make debt service payments These scheduled levies may be canceled in whole or in part annually as revenue is collected The connection charge revenue source is commonly measured and included in the financing plan for the bonds as scheduled property tax levies If connections are made and the resulting revenue used for debt service, then the scheduled property taxes may be canceled If the City's intent is to have development "pay for itself', then that goal may not be achieved if development does not occur on a schedule consistent with scheduled debt service payments i To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 23 Developer Agreements The City may reduce the nsk associated with expanding core systems by negotiating guarantees from developers This approach has the advantage of increasing the collection options available if charges for construction are not received as agreed Developer guarantees are not always effective because 1) The cost of enforcement may not be justified Oak Glen had developer guarantees which ultimately did little to enforce collection 2) Guarantees increase the project costs in the form of up -front legal fees and more importantly, the bonds may not meet the public purpose requirement for tax exempt rates This increases the interest cost of the project Alternatives to developer guarantees include • A thorough study of the value of the improved property If the improved property value significantly exceeds the cost of City improvements, the City improves the likelihood of full collection Do not allocate assessments to unbuildable or undesirable parcels if the assessments will exceed the tax forfeit net proceeds • Phased development reduces the financial exposure of the City if development does not occur as planned Often the reasons for delayed development are outside of the direct control of the developer and the City (such as increases in interest rates which discourages new home buying) e Shift the greater construction project responsibility to developers i 1 1 1 1 I I G To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 24 Construction Phases The City has core system improvement estimates as provided by SEH These cost summanes are presented in Tab 3 The improvement areas require a progression of improvements to accommodate the physical proximity of the proposed improvement areas For example Middle Trunk B could not be completed until Middle Trunk A is completed because "A" extends mains to the `B" starting point This only becomes an important consideration if areas which do not currently abut existing systems are considered preferred development areas because "prerequisite" systems must first be constructed Based on discussion with SEH, the following phases should be considered for core system improvements Phase 1 South Trunk A Phase 2 South Trunk B Middle Trunk A Total Phase 2 Phase 3 Middle Trunk B Phase 4 Middle Trunk A •• Storm Sanitary Sewer* Sewer Easements Watcrmain Sub -total S4 800/acre Total S 587 970 S S 128 740 S 716 710 S 748 320 S 1 465 030 780 0001 57 750 276 260 1 114 010 1 510 560 2,624 570 330 000 1 98 200 428 200 428 200 1 110 000 155 950 276 260 1 542,210 1 510 560 3 052,770 ' 300 000 ' 90 800 360 000 750 800 442,224 1 193 024 200 000 200 000 200 000 Phase 5 North Trunk 430 000 50 000 305 000 785 000 404 064 1 189 064 C R. 15 Loop 435 000 435 000 435 000 Source & Storage 1 500 000 1 500 000 1 500 000 Total Phase 5 430 000 50 000 2,240 000 2,720 000 404 064 3 124 064 Totals S 2,427 970 S 296 750 S 3 205 000 S 5 929 720 S 3 105 168 S 9 034 888 Costs per developed acre S 3 753 S 459 S 4 954 S 9166 S 4 800 S 13 966 Costs per developed acre excluding Source & Storage S 3 753 S 459 S 2,636 S 6 848 S 4 800 S 10 975 • Engineer estimates Storm Water unproveanents between S4 100 and S5 500 per acre. • • May not be required if C R 15 Loop is completed To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 25 Cost recovery charges have been proposed by SEH through a combination of the following 1 Area -wide assessments to residential and commercial/industnal benefited properties 2 Sewer Oversizing Charges (SOC) at the same rate that is currently charged within the Oak Glen Development ($527 32 per connection, increased annually by inflation) 3 Source and Storage costs from the operations of the Water Enterprise Fund The Board of Water has suggested in a memo dated September 7, 1995 that the Water Availability Charge (WAC) would be increased to approximately $400 for connection within the expansion area To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 26 If the City elects to phase the core system projects, the following phases may be considered Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Totals Total estimated construction Costs S 1 465 030 3 052,770 1 193 024 200 000 S3 124 064 S9 034 888 Less Water Source & Storage (1 500 000) (1 500 000) Commercial charges to 70 acres Sanitary Sewer S 6 079 (395 142) (30 396) (425 537) Watamain S 2,636 (171314) (13 178) (184492) Storm Water S 4 800 (312,000) (24 000) (336 000) Net cost to residential units 586 575 2,985 197 1 193 024 200 000 1 624 064 6 588 859 Planned residential Units 60 610 300 300 1 270 Core system costs per unit 9 776 4 894 3 977 5 414 5 188 Improved residential acres 91 310 92 84 577 Core system costs per developed acre 6 453 9 639 12,949 19 293 11 421 Residential units per developed acre 0 66 197 3 26 3 56 220 Preluninary proposed cost recovery Commercial S 878 456 S 67 574 S S S 5946 029 Residential assessment* 937 903 3 195 475 950 595 0 868 567 5 952,540 Sewer Oversize Charge•• 31 639 321 665 158 196 0 158 196 669 696 Total 51 847 998 S3 584 714 51 108 791 S 51026 763 S7 568 265 Estimated construction over (under) proposed cost recovery S382,968 S531944 (S84 233) (S200 000) (5597,301) S33,377 Cummulative surplus (deficit) 382,968 914 912 830 679 630 679 33,377 33,377 • Residential preliminary proposed assessment_ Per Per Residential Acre Unit (2 2 per acre) Sewer 2,882 1 309 Water 2,636 1 197 Storm 4 800 2,180 Total S 10 318 S 4 687 •• Sewer Oversize Charge (SOC) of S527 32 per unit To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 27 The above phases will allow the City to maintain positive revenue streams (in excess of construction costs) if revenue is charged and collected on a timely basis The pnmary advantage of phasing is to reduce the City's nsk of incumng significant core system construction costs without timely collection of matching revenue from development The Storm Water improvement costs were estimated on an overview basis by SEH The estimated range is $4,100 to $5,500 The preceding schedules reflect the mid -point of $4,800 The cost could vary significantly because of environmental issues We recommend that the City pursue improved information regarding the storm water costs and other costs associated with potential environmental issues prior to ordenng improvements Storm water improvements may be partially funded with a utility billing rate charged to all City residents or to residents in the expansion areas of the City The storm water utility charge may be segregated to a separate fund for ongoing costs and improvements to the City's systems The City established a Storm Water Enterpnse Fund in 1994 The rates have not been established, however, the rate system is anticipated to charge residential properties a flat quarterly charge and commercial/industnal projection based on acreage and impervious surface The City may consider establishing a dual rate structure for the expansion area to recover a greater share from the area which will require new core storm water systems 0 0 0 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 28 Connection Charges The City currently charges fees for construction of new facilities within the City These fees are collected upon issuance of the building permit A companson of fees charges by the City of Stillwater is as follows City Water Sewer Connection Connection Total Fee Fee Fees Bayport $450 $400 $850 Cottage Grove 585 195 780 Forest Lake (a) (a) 800 Lake Elmo 265 N/A 265 Mahtomedi 880 300 1,180 Oak Park Heights (b) (b) 1,485 to 2,700 Oakdale 500 400 900 Stillwater - Oak Glen 250 (c) 627 (d) 877 Stillwater - Other 250 100 350 Woodbury 515 250-485 (e) 765 to 1,000 (a) - Forest Lake has a street opening fee of $750, plus a $25 connection fee for sewer and water (b) - Oak Park Heights has a combined connection fee ranging from $1 485 to $ 2,700 on newer developments (c) - Stillwater water connectionalso requires water meter purchase of $225 (d) - Stillwater sewer connection includes S 0 C charge of $527 32 in Oak Glen (e) - Woodbury's sewer connection fees vary by distnct The above companson table suggests that the City is currently very competitive with other Washington County cities with respect to connection charges The City may wish to review connection charge policies and rates to determine if changes are needed 1) to establish a reserve for future expansion or replacement of core system improvements, and 2) to cover the cost of the current proposed expansion with a rate structure unique to the proposed expansion area Additionally, the City may consider a storm water connection charge which would be collectible upon permit issuance similar to the current water and sewer connection charges The City of Cottage Grove currently charges a per square foot storm water connection fee to various areas of the City To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 29 Charging unique connection charges to vanous areas of the City requires adequate underlying systems to assure that the correct charges are assessed at the time that the building permit is issued If the City expands the use of unique charges for specific distncts, we recommend that the system of flagging properties subject to unique connection charges be reviewed Summary and Recommendations We recommend the City consider the following pnor to proceeding with development of the proposed expansion areas 1 Be clear on the distinction between funding ongoing operating costs associated with new development and the cost associated with core system improvements necessary to attract new development 2 Monitor proposed developments to determine if they meet the valuation and density expectations as planned in the draft of the Comp Plan If they vary, measure the probable fiscal impact of the differences Page 1-3 4 3 Anticipate the potential adverse impact of green acre deferments on 4-6 anticipated revenue assumptions 4 Anticipate the transition penods pnor to achieving full development Dunng transition penods, the increase in ongoing operating costs may exceed revenue from new development 5 An increased tax base will likely allow the City to control tax rate increments as the state shifts a greater share of City funding away from state aids 6 9-15 6 Based on comparative analysis with other Cities, quality development 14-15 will pay its share of incremental increases in ongoing operating costs To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 30 7 The City incurs nsk in financing the cost of core system improvements If timely collection of dedicated revenue fails, the City may be required to raise general property tax levies (or provide other funding sources) to meet debt service requirements 8 To control the nsk associated with financing core system improvements, consider phasing the proposed development Consider the financial obligation of the related debt service and the potential general property tax burden if connections are delayed in determining the size and timing of the vanous phases 9 Storm water improvements may have environmental complications and increased costs inside the proposed expansion area Consider resolving these issues pnor to proceeding with the proposed development 10 Consider changes to connection charge rates for both the existing City and the proposed expansion area and review underlying systems to flag unique charges for specific distncts within the City 11 Consider establishing a storm water connection charge in conjunction with the utility charge to fund all or a portion of the operating and improvement costs of storm water systems 18-22 24-27 27 28-29 28 • • • MEMORANDUM TO Planning Commission FR Steve Russell, Community Development Director DA November 9, 1995 RE UPDATE ON COMP PLAN AND PREPARATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 15, 1995 At the City Council/Planning Commission Workshop of October 25, the City Council indicated they would like the Planning Commission to consider a Comprehensive Plan that includes all the land bordered by TH 96, CR 15 and TH 36 west of Stillwater, the URTPA Other plan direction from the workshop include 1 Consider using the rural taxing distract for existing township residents effected by the expansion of the city boundary 2 Review of city assessment and hook-up policy for expansion area residents 3 Change land use designation for area just south of West Orleans from multifamily to industnal Attached to this memo are two memos from the city attorney that describe the rural taxing distract and give an example of its use on a $150,000 residence A second memo describing public sewer and water assessment that will result from the expansion of the city The City of Stillwater has recently extended services in the southeast section of the city The city's policy for extending services in that area is also descnbed in the city attorney's memo I have also attached to this memo a report on annexation concerns regarding the Comprehensive Plan that was presented to the Council at the October 25 meeting and a section of the Fiscal Impact Report that was also presented at that meting At the Monday, November 13, 1995, regular Planning Commission Meeting the Comprehensive Plan document will be handed out and bnefly reviewed Attachments MAGNUSON LAW FIRM • • • LICENSED IN MINNESOTAAND WISCONSIN THE DESCH OFFICE BUILDING 333 NORTH MAIN STREET SUITE #202 PO Box 438 STILLWATER MN 55082 TELEPHONE (612) 439 9464 TELECOPIER (612) 439 5641 DAVID T MAGNUSON MATTHEW A STAEHLING MEMORANDUM TO Steve Russell, City Planner City Planning Commission LEGAL ASSISTANTS MELODIE ARVOLD JODI JANTZ FROM '3 Dave Magnuson DATE November 8, 1995 RE Assessment Issues for Annexation Area There could be three (3) distinctly different assessments that have the potential to burden already developed residential property annexed to the City The first is for core charges for trunk, sewer and water mains, lift stations, water towers and other utilities that benefit a large area The City must establish a policy for the assessment of these core facilities They are normally collected either through an area wide assessment that would be levied by the acre or through collection of hook-up charges that would be paid when anyone hooks into the system The Engineer has estimated a cost of $5,518 per acre for core water and sewer core facilities A second type of assessment could result from drainage or street improvements, since these types of improvements have been assessed on an area basis based upon the square footage of land that an owner contributes to a watershed area or the frontage on a street These systems are available and used by everyone and do not lend themselves to financing through connection charges A policy must be established for the spreading of these kinds of assessments in the annexation area The Engineer has estimated a cost of $4,800 per acre for storm sewer core facilities The third kind of assessment are those that would be spread for the provision of services for both sewer and water These assessments have normally been levied against abutting owners based upon the availability of the utilities In addition to charges for the availability of the system, additional private expenses are required when anyone hooks into the City system That cost is the property owner's responsibility from the property line to the house A policy should be established for the annexation area that would deal with service availability charges and private connection charges since all of these charges could potentially be burdensome to any property owner Page 1 November 8, 1995 The City has had recent experience with providing public sewer and water to a previously developed area In the Southeast area of the City, sewer and water services were installed to approximately 165 property owners Previous to that improvement, the City had a policy that anyone was required to hook into an available sewer system within 90 days of it being available to them Because of the potentially expensive burden of hooking into these systems with short notice, the City Council changed the assessment policy to provide that no property would be required to connect to the City sewer system unless the system failed This policy is embodied in Ordinance Number 797, a copy of which is enclosed This policy would be effective for areas annexed to the City and would allow people with existing systems to operate these systems as long as the public health would not suffer It should be remembered, however, that the assessments for the Southeast area for street, curb and gutter, sewer main, sewer service, water main, water service and storm sewer service was assessed and spread with the taxes even though the people were not required to hook into the system In that project, the City paid one-half of these assessments from the general fund in order to relieve the burden on these homeowners However, even though the City paid one-half of the assessment and did not require immediate hook-up, assessments against individual owners ranged from $6,000 to $11,000 per lot Homeowners in the annexed area could face similar expenses Further, private hook-up charges in the Southeast area have ranged from $1,000 to $4,000 per site depending upon site difficulties and distances The City currently has no provision to assist with these kind of privates charges and any person in the annexation area would be faced with these charges if required to hook up In summary, a policy must be developed for 1 ) payment of the cost of core facilities, 2) for assessments normally paid by the area or unit such as street and storm water assessments that cannot be collected by hook-up charge, and 3) for the payment of assessments for services such as sanitary sewer and water DTM/ds Enclosure Page 2 O 0 0 ORDINANCE NO 797 • • • AN ORDINANCE AMENDING STILLWATER CITY CODE §29 03 "REQUIRED CONNECTION TO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM" THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN Section I Amending The City Code is amended so that §29 03 shall hereafter read as follows '29 03 REQUIRED CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM Subd 1 CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM REOUIRED 1 The owner of all houses, buildings or properties used for human occupancy, emplome'it, recreation or other purposes and abutting on any right of w3} in which there is now located a public sanitary sewer of the city is hereby required to connect its plumbing facilities directly to the City sewer system A permit application and connection shall be made within a period of 90 days of receipt of notification from the Public Works Director The Public Works Director must issue notification in any of the following cases a Surface eruption of sewage b Backup of sewage from the disposal unit into other facilities of the system c Discharge of a tracer dye from the disposal system d Discharge of a flowing stream of raw or partially treated effluent from the treatment units of the system to the environment e Contamination of ground water by treatment or disposal units of the system f Anv part of the system located in an area demonstrated to exhibit fluctuations in the ground water or surface water to within 3 feet vertically of the lowest elevation of the system g Any part of the system located in an area having been designated by the County Soils Atlas or floodplain maps to be subject to seasonal fluctuations of groundwater or surface water elevations which are less than 3 feet in vertical separation from the system h Any conventional onsite disposal system located in an area designated by the County Soils Atlas as having soils typically exhibiting percolation rates slower than 60 mpi 1 Any mounded type of disposal system located in an area designated by the County Soils Atlas as having soils typically exhibiting percolation rates slower than 120 mpi J Any type of disposal system located in an area designated by the County Soils Atlas as having soils typically exhibiting percolation rates faster than 5 mpi k Any type of disposal system located in an area designated as floodplain by the County Soils Atlas or other governmental sponsored publication 1 Any type of disposal system located in an area designated by the County Soils Atlas as having soils which have typically less than four feet of separation from bedrock or other impermeable barrier m Any part of the disposal system located in an area closer than 50 feet to any portion of a public or private water supply n Any system constructed with materials prohibited or of inferior or lesser quality than that required by the City's onsite sewer ordinance o Any system exhibiting an emission of noxious odors discernible from a separated distance of 10 feet p Not later than January 1, 2010 Subd 2 APPEAL The property owner shall be permitted a period of 30 days following receipt of the notification to request a variance from this section from the City Council The Council shall then issue an order suspending or enforcing the Public Works Director's notification within a further period of 30 days Subd 3 IMMEDIATE CONNECTION REOUIRED Any new building built within the City which is on property which has City sewer service available must have its plumbing facilities connected to the City Sewer System upon construction The use of individual sewage disposal systems shall not be allowed In addition, any building in which a municipal water system is being installed shall be connected to the City Sewer at the same time if the Sewer Service is available Subd 4 INSTALLATION OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM No individual sewage disposal system shall be hereafter constructed without a permit issued by the Council In considering a request, the Council shall investigate the feasibility of the extension of the City Sewer System to serve the property for which the permit is requested If it finds extension to be feasible, the Council shall order the extension of facilities in the customary manner Subd 5 PENALTIES AND CONTINUED VIOLATIONS Any person or firm failing to observe the provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to the applicable penalties therefore Each and every day that a violation of this ordinance continues to exist shall constitute a separate violation -2- • • • Section II SAVING In all other ways the City Code shall remain in full force and effect Section III EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 1st day of November 1994 ATTEST Morli jWeldon,(Xts Clerk Published Stillwater Gazette December 5, 1994 -3- Charles M Hooley, Its Mayor MAGNUSON LAW FIRM • • • LICENSED IN MINNESOTAAND WISCONSIN THE DESCH OFFICE BUILDING 333 NORTH MAIN STREET SUITE #202 PO Box 438 STILLWATER MN 55082 TELEPHONE (612) 439 9464 TELECOPIER (612) 439 5641 DAVID T MAGNUSON MATTHEW A STAEHLING LEGAL ASSISTANTS MELODIE ARVOLD JODI JANTZ MEMORANDUM TO Steve Russell, City Planner City Planning Commission FROM Dave Magnuson 1 A DATE November 8, 1995 RE Annexation Tax Capacity Issues Some years ago pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statute Section 272 67, the City established by ordinance Urban and Rural Service Districts The assumption underlying the statute and the ordinance is that within the city, some property has not been developed for commercial, industrial or urban residential purposes and therefore is not benefited to the same degree as other city lands by municipal services financed by general taxes I enclose a copy of Chapter 56 of the City Code and also a recent amendment to Chapter 56 found in Ordinance 798 that establishes the current 80% ratio between urban and rural service districts This ratio does not include the municipal levy for bonds, interests and judgments since these amounts must be paid by any property owner within the City and there is no authority for eliminating responsibility for payment of these charges For the taxable year payable in 1995, the City's percent of tax capacity is 35 162% To arrive at the percent of tax capacity for the Rural Taxing District, we start with a 12 914% of tax capacity since that is the amount attributable to bonds and interest in the City budget The balance is 22 248% of tax capacity The applicable ratio of 80% or 17 798%, when added to the 12 914%, equals 30 712% tax capacity for the Rural Taxing District The ratio between urban and rural taxing districts must be reviewed annually by the City Council and the ratio is subject to change at least annually Further, the Rural Taxing District is created by ordinance and therefore, could be changed by ordinance A future council could decide that there is no justification for the difference in the provision or benefit of municipal services, and therefore, no justification for a Rural Taxing District Page 1 November 8, 1995 RURAL URBAN TAXING DISTRICTS TAX ESTIMATE FOR PAYABLE 1995 Using the Minnesota Property Tax formula for the pay 96 taxes the following comparison of the Municipal Tax levy is made using the different net tax capacity rates Assuming a $150,000 00 property The first $ 72,000 00 x 1% = $ 720 00 Remainder of $ 78,000 00 x 2% = $1,560 00 $ 720 00 + $1,560 00 = $2,280 00 City Urban District City Rural District Stillwater Township Rate DTM/ds $2,280 00 x $2,280 00 x $2,280 00 x Page 2 Tax Capacity Taxes 35 162% = $801 69 30 12% = $700 23 16 695% = $380 64 Q 0 • • • ORDINANCE NO 798 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 56 01, DEFINING URBAN AND RURAL TAXING DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN 1 AMENDING The Stillwater Crty Code is hereby amended by amending Chapter 56 01 Subd 6, of the Stillwater City Code that shall hereafter read as follows Subd 6 The ratio which exists between the benefits resulting from tax supported municipal service to parcels in the Rural Service Distract to parcels in the Urban Service Distnct to parcels in the Urban Service Distnct shall be eighty percent (80%), and in addrtion any municipal property taxes levied for payment of bonds judgements and interest 2 Saving In all other ways Chapter 56 01 shall remain in full force and effect 3 Effective Date This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law Adopted by the Crty Council this 15th day of November 1994 Attest frcs �� City Cler Published Stillwater Gazette November 28, 1994 a_e",7-6, Mayor 77 • • TO Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission FROM David T Magnuson, City Attorney Steve Russell, Community Development Director Klayton Eckles, City Engineer RE Annexation Concerns Relating to Comprehensive Plan Implementation DATE October 23, 1995 The annexation of Township land to the City is controlled by the Statutes of Mumesota and the laws relating to annexation change from time to time and the changes are often brought about by lobbying efforts on behalf of the League of Minnesota Cities and the Minnesota Association of Townships Currently the laws favor the annexation and development of adjacent Township land into a municipality A public policy that is favored by the current law is that development should be concentrated around free- standing growth centers and this will help prevent urban sprawl INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS A proceeding for the annexation of unincorporated property to an abutting municipality may be initiated by submitting to the Minnesota Municipal Board a Resolution of the Annexing Municipality There are other methods of initiating a proceeding, but a Resolution of the Annexing Municipality seems most appropriate Upon receipt of a Resolution Initiating an Annexation, the Minnesota Municipal Board must set a hearing within 30 to 60 days from receipt of the petition by the Board It is then obligated to make an Order within 1 year of the date of the initial hearing There is some question as to whether this agency of the State is bound to make a decision within 60 days because of a new law effective August 1, 1995 It is possible that this new law could shorten the decision time BOARD'S ORDER After a hearing, the Board may order the Annexation if it finds that the property proposed for annexation is now, or is about to become, urban or suburban in character, or if it finds that municipal government in the area proposed for annexation is required to protect the public health, safety and welfare, or if it finds that the annexation would be in the best interest of the property proposed for annexation The Board may deny the annexation if it appears that annexation of all or part of the property to an adjacent municipality would better serve the interest of the residents of the property, or if the remainder of the Township would suffer undue hardship In arriving at its decision, the law provides that the Board must consider the following factors 1 Population projections 2 The quantity of land and the natural terrain and topography, including watersheds and natural features such as lakes 3 The degree of contiguity of the boundaries for the present pattern of physical development and land use controls of the annexing municipality and the area proposed for annexation, including the Comprehensive Plans and the Plans and Polices of the Metropolitan Council 4 The present governmental service that are being provided and will be provided by the annexing municipality 5 Existing or potential problems of environmental pollution and the need for additional services to resolve the problems 6 Fiscal data of the annexing municipality and the property proposed for annexation, including net tax capacity and present bonded indebtedness 7 The relationship and affect of the proposed annexation on communities adjacent to the area and on school districts within and adjacent to the area 8 The adequacy of town government to deliver services to the property proposed for annexation and analysis of whether necessary governmental services can best be provided through annexation to an adjacent municipality and if only part of the Town is annexed, the ability of the remainder of the Town to continue STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that if one of the growth options to the Comprehensive Plan is chosen by the Council, that the City immediately initiate the annexation of all of the Township property between Highway 36, Highway 96 and County Road 15 The following is the justification of this recommendation 1 Present Law The law now permits an annexation such as the one recommended without an annexation election Prior to the adoption of laws 1992, Chapter 556, Section 12, an annexation such as the one proposed would not be possible without a Referendum Election held at a place designated by the Municipal Board within the area determined by the Board to be primarily and substantially interested in, or affected by the Board Order Such a referendum requirement made well planned annexations impossible and is a direct cause of much of the urban sprawl that we find adjacent to municipalities The Minnesota Association of Townships and other rural interest groups are working hard to change the law to bring back the referendum requirement It is essential that this annexation be initiated under the present law 2 Plan Protections The annexation of this area is necessary for protection of any City plan that would involve the extension of Urban Services into this area The City would then control, by its own zoning and subdivision regulations, the further development of large tracts e • • 3 Phased Services If the City controls the entire annexation area, services could be more easily phased and extended to accommodate planned growth This would result in the most rational and economic provision of Urban Services 4 Consistent with Prior Plans Such an annexation would be consistent with both the Town and the City Comprehensive Plans, beginning with the plans submitted in 1980 pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act These plans recognize the intention of the City to extend urban services into the area bounded by Highway 36, County Road 15, and Highway 96 5 Economy of Effort There would be an economy of effort in undertaking one annexation proceedings Since 1978 the City has been involved in 22 separate annexation proceedings, has gone to the District Court 3 times and once to the Supreme Court on annexation related issues Eventually, although procedural road blocks were put before the City by contesting these annexation proceedings, the City has always, in each case, been successful It would make sense however, that one proceeding now be undertaken to avoid the expense and frustration of piecemeal annexation 6 Mitigation of Impact There will be impacts on any property within the Comprehensive Plan area and if islands of property are left within the Town, the City would be unable to properly mitigate impacts, since it would not be possible for the City to undertake road repairs, or to plan or design road improvements within areas in the Town that might need improvements Further, drainage improvements might be necessary and it would be difficult to administer drainage improvements when islands of the Town would contribute to the same watershed Further, if the property were all within the City, a fair method of allocating both general taxes and assessments could be made by the City Council that would balance the property owner's responsibility to pay a fair share of both taxes and assessments against an unfair burden or impact upon any individual property owner Finally, if the City's plan for the entire area is not implemented, the opportunities would be lost for a comprehensive methodology needed for protecting environmental resources from development impacts 7 Voice in Government It would be imperative that the people impacted by development would be able to come to the City Council to voice concerns and to be heard by representatives that are elected by their neighborhood 8 Prevent Urban Sprawl If the property remains in the Town and can not be developed within the foreseeable future to an urban level, property owners within the Town and within the Comprehensive Plan area have suggested that they will develop their large tracks into 2 1/2 acre lots If this is done, it will seal off any further City growth, since it is unlikely that Urban Services will ever be extended into such an area An adjacent area of 2 1/2 acre parcels, that remain in the Town and yet consume Stillwater Urban Services without paying for them is not in the City s best interest 9 Prominent Physical Barrier A prominent physical barrier such as a river or a highway has long been recognized as an effective boundary that can be identified and respected Highway 36, 15 and 96 make an effective prominent physical barrier 10 Town can Function Presently, the Town could function nicely by administering the property north of Highway 96 This would mean that the Town would control approximately half a Township and be approximately the same size as both Baytown and West Lakeland Townships History has proven that a Town can function nicely with this much territory to administer CONCLUSION If an annexation were undertaken now, under the present law, it would have a good chance to succeed, since when all of the factors are considered upon which the Board must decide, they drive a decision that all of the property is now, or is about to become urban or suburban in character Further, the annexation would make possible the effectuation of a Comprehensive Plan that is well conceived and fiscally sound It would allow the City government to be responsible for mitigating impacts on areas that are not immediately proposed for development, and it would allow for Urban Services to be extended into the growth area in a fiscally responsible manner It would achieve an economy of effort by having one proceeding rather than piecemeal proceedings and it would be consistent with Comprehensive Plans of both the City, the Town and the Metropolitan Council It would also resolve, for this generation, a series of planning conflicts that have been divisive to the community and draining on public energy and resources Lastly, a prominent physical barrier, such as Highways 36, 15 and 96, would allow for an easily identifiable municipal boundary that can be readily ascertained and observed either by the providers of emergency services, or people who come shopping in this area for land Respectfully submitted, David T Magnuson DTM/jkj a a a t TA UTGES, REDPATH & CO , LTD CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater 216 N 4th St Stillwater, MN 55082-4898 This report was requested by the City to assist in the development planning process The most recent draft of the City's Comprehensive Plan contemplates expansion areas, pnmanly targeted for single family development, to the west of the existing City limits This report discusses vanous aspects of the fiscal impacts associated with the proposed expansion The analysis contained in this report is based on A. The fiscal impact schedules and text included in the draft of the Comp Plan dated March 30, 1995 Section 3 and 11 of that draft are reproduced in Tab 1 of this report B Engineenng construction estimates and proposed cost recovery as provided by SEH, see Tab 3 C Financial statements and related schedules of the City from 1988 to 1994 and 1995 budget data as provided by the City's Finance Director D Parcel information from Washington County which has been imported to a geographic information system for parcel inquiry and report generation E Bond resolutions and assessment workpapers as related to the Oak Glen development as used in prepanng cash flow schedules, see Tab 4 Our summary and recommendations is presented on pages 29 and 30 We are available to discuss the contents of this report with City staff and the City council Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to the City of Stillwater Tautges, Redpath & Co , Ltd September 27, 1995 1 4810 White Bear Parkway • White Bear Lake Minnesota 55110 • 612/426 7000 • FAX/426 5004 • Member of HLB International at 01 CITY OF STILLWATER, MINNESOTA PROPOSED EXPANSION STUDY SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 • IN im sii • NI ft To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 2 Impact of Completed Development The proposed development will impact the City in two financial areas as follows 1 The completed development will generate property tax and other revenues These amounts will be available to fund ongoing operating costs of the City such as public safety, public works, and other local government functions Other revenue will also include utility rate charges for water and sewer operations 2 The City will likely be required to finance improvements needed to attract the development These improvements can generally be categonzed as follows a Improvements such as streets, lateral water, and lateral sewer are construction costs which directly benefit and can be assessed against specific parcels These type of costs will be referred to as front footage (or unit) assessable improvements throughout this report b Improvements such as water towers, trunk sewer, water mains, lift stations, certain storm sewer systems and other constructions costs which benefit an overall system as opposed to parcel specific improvements These costs will be referred to as area system improvements throughout this report The cost of area system improvements are often recovered through a combination of connection charges, special assessments and other revenue sources such as property taxes or enterpnse fund user rates It is important to distinguish between the anticipated impact of completed development on ongoing operations versus the short-term impact on financing system improvements The draft of the Comprehensive Plan discussed the financial support of the first category above which deals with the funding of ongoing operating costs The result of the method used in that report concluded that the City will have a "net gain" under all scenarios ranging from $1 2 million to $3 8 million per year for Alternative A-2 (which represents full development of the proposed areas totaling 1,457 acres) iii To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 3 The above conclusion was based on an overview method of calculating the ratio of total City operating revenue compared to existing operating revenue This ratio was then applied to estimated new property tax revenue of the proposed development A number of sensitivity analysis were also included in the report The worst case scenano was a net gain of $1 2 million A summary of the "best case" calculation used in the draft of the Comprehensive Plan is as follows Estimated new taxes to City Total revenue impact (taxes x 4) Total anticipated expenditures Net gain to City $2,603,693 $10,414,772 (6,584,994) $3,829,778 The above schedule illustrates that 1) the proposed development will be sufficient to fund increased ongoing operating costs associated with the new development, and 2) that a "net gain" of revenue will be generated from the new development If such a net gain is made available, then the City would have options for its use including a reduction m the property tax burden of the existing and expanded City parcels The fiscal analysis portion of the draft of the Comp Plan concludes that "These results show that based on the kind of development envisioned for both the annexation area and infill properties, the City need not weigh fiscal impacts in pursuing its planning and policy objectives " The following section of this report provides further analysis of this conclusion Revenue Sources Not Dependent on Property Taxes A vanety of revenue items are not dependent on property tax levels or increased population Extending anticipated property tax revenue by a ratio of total revenue may result in significantly overstated revenue projections Additionally, statutory restrictions on uses of certain revenues prohibit general purpose use Each fund type has dedicated purposes which should be considered individually (see Fund Type Analysis) 0 O o To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 4 Actual Market Values versus Taxable Values The amount of taxes generated by development is based on statutory formulas applied to Estimated Market Values These values will generally average 90% of the value used for building permit calculations The draft of the Comp Plan addresses this difference and has based property tax projections on the lower value We concur with this approach The estimated construction values however have been provided by landowner and prospective developers of the proposed expansion areas Vanances in the density and average value of the development will impact the tax revenue estimates as presented in the Comp Plan We recommend that the City monitor actual proposed developments as compared to the anticipated development of the Comp Plan In a related matter, certain property, in accordance with current State Statutes, may qualify for Green Acre status This status allows delayed in the collection of special assessments The statute is as follows MS 273 111 Agricultural Property Tax. Subd 3 Real estate consisting of ten acres or more or a nursery or greenhouse qualifying for classification as class lb 2a, or 2b under section 273 13 subdivision 23 paragraph (d) shall be entitled to valuation and tax deferment under this section only if it is actively and exclusively devoted to agricultural use as defined in subdivision 6 and either (1) is the homestead of the owner or of a surviving spouse child or sibling of the owner or is real estate wluch is farmed with the real estate which contains the homestead property, or (2) has been in possession of the applicant, the applicant's spouse parent, or sibling, or any combination thereof for a penod of at least seven years pnor to application for benefits under the provisions of this section, or is real estate which is farmed with the real estate which qualifies under this clause and is within two townships or cities or combination thereof from the qualifying real estate or (3) is the homestead of a shareholder in a family farm corporation as defined in Section 500 24 notwithstanding the fact that legal title to the real estate may be held in the name of the family farm corporation or (4) is in the possession of a nursery or greenhouse or an entity owned by a proprietor, partnership or corporation which also owns the nursery or greenhouse operations on the parcel or parcels Subd 6 Real property shall be considered to be in agncultural use provided that annually (1) at least 33 1/3 percent of the total family income of the owner is denved therefrom or the total production income including rental from the property is $300 plus $10 per tillable acre and (2) it is devoted to the production for sale of agncultural products as defined in Section 273 13 subdivision 23 paragraph (e) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 5 The proposed expansion area has a number of parcels which are classified under green acre deferment status as follows PIN 19-030-20-41-0004 19-030-20-43-0001 19-030-20-42-0003 19-030-20-34-0003 19-030-20-33-0001 19-030-20-33-0002 30-030 20-34-0001 30-030-20-32-0003 30-030 20-31-0003 30-030-20-31-0002 31-030-20-42-0001 31-030-20-34-0001 31-030-20-31-0002 31-030-20-31-0001 31-030-20-32-0001 31-030-20 24-0001 31-030-20-23-0001 31-030-20-21-0001 19-030-20-44-0001 30-030-20-21-0003 Pnmary Owner ABRAMOWICZ HENRY J & SHARON ABRAMOWICZ HENRY J & SHARON ABRAMOWICZ HENRY J & SHARON ABRAMOWICZ HENRY J & SHARON RIVARD BURT H & JO ALICE RIVARD BERT H & JO ALICE NEWMAN REALTY LTD PARTNERSHI NEWMAN REALTY LTD PARTNERSHI NEWMAN REALTY LTD PARTNERSHI KROENING ROBERT H &PAULA J STALOCH JAMES E BERGMANN ALVIN 0 & HELEN STALOCH JAMES E & CECILLO STALOCH JAMES E BERGMANN ALVIN 0 & HELEN STALOCH CECIL ILO GADIENT ROSALIE NEWMAN REALTY LTD PARTNERSHI BOWE WARREN P & JANICE M NEWMAN REALTY LTD PARTNERSHI We recommend that the City anticipate the potential impact of green acre deferments in the proposed development area If core systems are construction and green acre deferments, continue (or increase) the City will develop two potential funding shortages as follows 1 The special assessments anticipated from the core system improvements could be delayed indefinitely The bond payments of debt issued to fund the development will require an alternate funding source (usually City-wide property taxes) 2 The City may be required to extend services to the annexed rural areas without having sufficient property tax base gains if the project does not develop on a timely basis • 0 4 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 6 3 Agncultural property may result in the establishment of a rural service district which would reduce the amount of property taxes generated from the expansion area pnor to development Timing of development is an important concept to consider in planning for the fiscal support of the added property tax base The draft of the Comp Plan has analyzed the impact of developed areas after all of the development has occurred The transition penods could have a less favorable fiscal impact on ongoing operations The City will need to increase personnel and equipment to service the expansion areas at a level comparable to the existing City The increases may not always match the timing of increased property values This situation may cause temporary "net losses" related to the proposed expansion (until adequate levels of development occur) Alternatively, the City could allow lower levels of services until the revenue base justifies adding personnel and equipment To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 7 Washington County has provided market values and other parcel information for properties within the City as well as properties in the proposed expansion area The current values of the areas are as follows Market value Percent of total Existing City $ 751 081 000 96 0% Expansion Area (A2) $ 31,574 500 4 0% Tax capacity Percent of total Existing City $ 11,760,087 96 2% Expansion Area (A2) $ 470 467 3 8% Tax Capacity Values Before Development To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 8 If development occurs as anticipated, the valuations will appear as follows after the proposed development Tax capacity Proposed new development Projected tax capacity Percent of total Existing Expansion City Area (A2) $11 760 087 $470,467 1 953 522 5 189 210 13 713 609 5,659,677 708% 292% Tax Capacity Values After Development The above tables indicate that if development occurs as planned, the proposed expansion area will represent approximately 29% of the total tax capacity The preceding analysis illustrates areas of the A-2 plan which includes a section referred to on the engineenng maps as Middle Trunk A Most of this area is currently developed and may not be included in the proposed expansion The analysis of proposed assessments and connection charges as indicated in the "Construction Phases" of this report exclude the extension of services to Middle Trunk A and the related revenue To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 9 The proposed residential development in the expansion area is projected to provide between 1200 and 1400 new residential units with tax capacity of between $4 and $4 7 million This development when compared to the current Oak Glen development is significantly larger The Oak Glen development (as extracted from Washington County data), has 393 parcels with a total tax capacity of $1 1 million Based on this analysis, the proposed expansion area is over three times the size of the Oak Glen development State Aid Reductions Property taxes are now certified to the County on a net basis HACA had been calculated on a formula which included a factor for the amount of taxes levied (i e , greater amounts levied generally resulted in greater HACA) As discussed in the Comp Plan, HACA is frozen and has no relation to the amount of taxes levied Beginning in 1990, the HACA base was established The HACA base was defined as the previous year's certified HACA aid to • • To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 10 The current HACA formula for each unique taxing jurisdiction equals the HACA base multiplied by the growth adjustment factor, plus net tax capacity adjustment plus fiscal dispanty adjustment This legislation is consistent with state-wide trends starting in 1990 which shifted state aids away from cities A table and graph of this shift for the City of Stillwater is as follows City of Stillwater, Minnesota Local Property Government Other State Year Taxes HACA Aid Aids 1987 $1,391,396 $386,858 $1,100,662 $83,606 1988 1,590,592 455,937 1,100 648 80 258 1989 1,785,875 463,998 1,287,810 147,360 1990 2,030,843 614,545 846 763 220,997 1991 2 151,990 628,153 690,211 199,170 1992 2 170 616 750,564 729,078 186 934 1993 2,253,289 828,456 692,056 250,044 1994 1 925,154 994,566 778,969 175,407 1995 - budget 2 061,845 1,005,068 807,755 141,665 City of Stillwater $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1 000,000 $500,000 _ _ •n�.; 'i'fiJ:"%""Ji'.iTJ:::>: �?22:?iJti .�i:lfy $O :::::L%i}J:{iib::i:i::<�i't?:.: •:\?j'.;$:;::J�w.:: n�..:.:.iv.v.:•r +,p::..:..... i•.....:. .....l. :n...............« 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995B HACA ® LGA CD Other State Aids -IN- Property Taxes To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 11 The 1994 increase in HACA primanly relates to allocation differences compared to pnor years Starting in 1994, all HACA is coded to the City's General Fund whereas in pnor years, the HACA was spread to all funds which had a property tax levy A restated graph on a basis consistent with pnor years is as follows City of Stillwater $2,500 000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 0 0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995B ME HACA BEE LGA CI Other State Aids --El—Property Taxes A continuation of the trend which started in 1990 will result in lower levels of state aid for the City of Stillwater Such reductions have occurred more drastically in other Metro cities While the draft of the Comp Plan addresses the further State Aid Reduction, it is difficult to predict the timing and volume of future aid reductions The general trend to shift the funding of City services to property taxes points to advantages related to an increased property tax base A summary of legislation impacting city finances is presented in Appendix A Tab 2, of this report 0 1 t ii To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 12 Fund Type Analyses Operating functions are segregated into special fund types because they are not related to property tax funding levels and/or they are intended to be measured separately for other purposes Extending revenue on a City-wide basis will result in global conclusions that may not be supported by a segmented analysis We recommend that the following funds to be considered separately A General and Special Revenue Funds - These funds commonly account for ongoing expenditures such as general government, public works, public safety, culture and recreation These areas represent most of the ongoing, salary intense operations of the City and are usually supported significantly by property taxes The general and special revenue funds of the City of Stillwater have been funded by the following General and Special Revenue Funds Property State Other Year Taxes Aid Revenue Total 1990 $2 031 353 $1 682 305 $889 628 $4,603 286 1991 2 152 150 1 517 534 1 459 703 5 129 387 1992 2,170 663 1 666 576 1 241,501 5,078 740 1993 2 253,287 1,770,556 1,362,386 5,386 229 1994 1,925,171 1 948 942 1 234 105 5 108 218 1995 Budget 2 061,845 1 954 488 1 120 152 5,136,485 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 13 $2 500 000 $2 000 000 $1 500 000 $1 000 000 $500 000 1990 General & Special Revenue Funds 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Budget © Property Taxes ® State Aid 0 Other Revenue The above table and graph illustrate the funding sources of ongoing operations over the past several years Expanding the property valuation base of the City through development will most directly and favorably impact the general and special revenue funds based on the following • Quality increases in development will likely pay its share of incremented expenditures Efficiencies in fixed costs result in some lowenng of per capita expenses, however, this savings must be measured in conjunction with increased expenditures to meet increased service demands To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 14 • Representative Minnesota cities with increasing population and a similar mix of commercial/individuaVresidential development may provide greater insights into revenue and expenditure bases The level of services must also be comparable to make these compansons valid The City of Woodbury is the fastest growing suburb in the Metro area The Cities of Oakdale, Cottage Grove and Forest Lake are growing Washington County Cities Increased development of these four cities has not drastically decreased or increased per capita property taxes related to funding General and Special Revenue Fund operations from 1990 to 1994 as follows General and Special Revenue Funds City of Woodbury Per Capita Year Population Revenue Taxes Expenditures 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 20 075 21 200 23 700 23 700 26 900 $320 336 345 382 384 $175 $286 178 264 157 281 173 349 166 348 General and Special Revenue Funds City of Oakdale Per Capita Year Population Revenue Taxes Expenditures 1990 18 126 $239 $76 $194 1991 19,735 216 73 189 1992 20 574 237 78 200 1993 22 192 232 81 210 1994 22 933 239 80 217 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 15 General and Special Revenue Funds City of Cottage Grove Per Capita Year Population Revenue Taxes Expenditures 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 22 935 23 715 24,765 25 500 28 019 $301 292 308 318 287 $122 122 123 126 122 $290 303 292 326 305 General and Special Revenue Funds City of Forest Lake Per Capita Year Population Revenue Taxes Expenditures 1990 5 833 $294 $127 $286 1991 6,007 283 134 276 1992 6,098 311 132 278 1993 6 242 304 126 306 1994 6 397 290 123 347 The above examples indicate that per -capita taxes remain relatively constant even dunng penods of increased development The above tables may be compared to the City of Stillwater over the same penod as follows General and Special Revenue Funds City of Stillwater per Capita Year Population Revenue Taxes Expenditures 1990 13 520 $ - $ - $ - 1991 13 970 367 154 329 1992 14 598 348 149 332 1993 15 001 359 150 342 1994 15 350 333 125 341 1995 - Budget 15,350 335 134 358 O 0 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 16 B Debt Service Funds - Not support by Special Assessments These funds commonly are established to pay the debt service of projects which benefit the City as a whole (ex City Hall expansion, Park acquisition, etc) This type of debt service fund is typically property tax levy supported Projects funded by such general obligation debt are approved individually and independent of population growth An increased tax capacity base will however reduce the overall tax rate impact of debt associated with these types of future projects The draft of the Comp Plan concludes that "based on the kind of development envisioned for both the annexation area and infill properties, the City need not weigh fiscal impacts in pursuing its planning and policy objectives " We agree with this conclusion as it relates to ongoing operations The per capita property taxes for ongoing operations tends to remain constant based on compansons of other growing cities in the previous section This is a favorable indicator because y inflation would normally increase the per capita amounts We caution, however, (' with respect to the costs associated with core systems needed to support the new development (see special assessment supported debt service funds) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 17 C Enterprise Funds - Are funds established to account for operations which are funded pnmanly by user rates The City of Stillwater currently does not set rates at levels sufficient to generate profits which would be available for other City purposes in the form of transfers out This is not an uncommon practice Increased development should not be relied upon to generate excess profits if the rate philosophy of the City continues as it has in the past A comparison of rates with other Metro Cities is as follows Residential Quarterly Billing Based on 22,000 Gallons of Usage Effective City Water Sewer Total Year Arden Hills $45 98 $53 95 $99 93 1995 Bloomington 34 10 19 40 53 50 1995 Coon Rapids 21 56 35 00 56 56 1995 Cottage Grove 27 60 43 12 70 72 1995 Eagan 30 00 41 20 71 20 1995 Inver Grove Heights 39 90 45 40 85 30 1995 Little Canada 37 62 47 30 84 92 1995 Mahtomedi 35 29 68 24 103 53 1995 Maplewood 37 06 41 65 78 71 1995 Minnetonka 22 00 33 00 55 00 1995 Mounds View 26 40 44 00 70 40 1995 New Bnghton 16 28 42 90 59 18 1995 Oakdale 26 20 55 48 81 68 1995 Shoreview 22 82 37 51 60 33 1995 South St Paul 14 96 59 62 74 58 1995 St Paul 37 06 64 99 102 05 1995 Stillwater 27 50 64 20 91 70 1995 Vadnais Heights 23 76 42 00 65 76 1995 White Bear Lake 25 20 52 20 77 40 1995 Woodbury 16 40 44 49 60 89 1995 The expansion of systems may create pressure to increase user rates particularly water and sewer rates to subsidize the core system improvements required for the development area The funding source of these core system improvements has not been finalized The City's consulting Engineer has typically recommended cost recovery plans for such core system improvements (see later section) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 18 D Special Assessment Supported Debt Service Funds - These debt funds are established to collect special assessments from benefiting property owners in project areas Such assessments are planned to be available to pay the debt service of bonds issued to finance the project Anticipated cash flows are scheduled at the time of issuance of the bonds Differences can, and usually do, occur based on future events such as a) delinquent special assessments, b) prepayment of assessment which are invested at interest rates other than the special assessment rate, c) other anticipated collection of revenue occurs at a different pace than expected When such differences occur, the City may expenence favorable or unfavorable variances which impact the City as a whole An evaluation chart of the status of debt service funds is as follows Condition A Fund balance plus deferred revenue meets or exceeds bonds payable Cautions r1 Is the City expenencing favorable collection rates for special assess ments? 2 Are anticipated investment interest rates eamed on prepayments ade- quate to replace assessment interest? 3 Is the timing of receipts sufficient to meet bonded debt payments as they become due? 4 Are significant portions of assess ments not scheduled for collection (green acres tax forfeit etc )? 5 Is arbitrage or negative arbitrage an issue? The debt service fund is clearly adequately funded Plan for eventual use of surplus Conclusion 1 Condition B Fund balance plus deferred revenue is less than bonds payable Questions 1 Are sufficent future assets scheduled (such as property taxes) to meet bonded debt payments? 2 Are cash assets sufficient to generate investment earnings? 3 Are transfers or other funding sources available? 4 Are there future assets to pledge such as assessments MSA allot ments etc ? The debt service fund is dearly not adequately funded Plan for alter native funding (taxes transfers other sources Conclusion 2 Vanables and possible outcomes are too diverse Prepare projections to analyze possible scenarios and o•tions Conclusion 3 1 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 19 The draft of the Comp Plan refers to infrastructure related to new development as follows Other important findings New development pays for itself in terms of infrastructure (new streets, sewer, water lines) The only cost to the City relates to contnbuting to the upgrade of existing deficient streets and providing a new park and trails We recommend the above conclusion be revisited and that the City proceed cautiously in ordenng core system improvements Some development does not pay for its entire infrastructure costs on a timely basis and in some cases not fully When this condition exists, the City's general tax base may be relied upon to pay for the development in the form of increased property taxes to both new and existing property owners If the area system improvements required in the development area will be paid by developers in cash and in advance of proceeding with the construction, then the City eliminates the nsk associated with financing the development If, on the other hand, area system improvements will be ordered with some uncertainty regarding the amount and timeliness of revenue collection, then the City should consider the risks associated with ordering area -wide improvements The City has had a significant development project fail to meet the anticipated timing for collection of special assessment and other related revenues Oak Glen The Oak Glen development was financed by the Improvement Bonds of 1984 That bond issue was structured based on developer commitments and anticipated assessment revenue The anticipated cash flow schedule was not met based on 1 Slower pace of development then anticipated 2 Delinquent and tax forfeit assessments 3 Failed developer guarantees 4 Prepayments of assessments which could not be reinvested at rates comparable to the special assessment rates 4 1 1 1 1 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 20 Although the City successfully resolved the temporary funding shortfalls associated with the Oak Glen development, the City devoted significant administrative efforts including the following a Identifying the revenue shortfall b Pursuing all available collection alternatives c Special state legislature to allow for reassessment of project costs d Issuing a 1994 financing bond issue designed to lower interest costs and establish general property tax support of the restructured debt These scheduled property tax levies total $1 4 mullion The City's efforts to overcome the difficulties associated with the Oak Glen project are commendable The City has a financing plan in place to assure timely payment of scheduled debt and to minimize the general property tax burden on the City Exhibits lA to 1C present anticipated cash flows of the $1,055,000 Improvement bond of 1994 A 1994 as follows Schedule 1-A - A cash surplus is anticipated if all schedule property taxes are levied starting with collection year 1997 Schedule 1B - The scheduled property taxes may be partially canceled (approximately 50%) and the fund would continue to have sufficient cash to meet debt obligations Exhibit 1C - The $600,000 Bonds of 1984-B are projected to have a surplus available of $350,000 at December 31, 1995 (see Exhibit 2) This amount may be used at the discretion of the City Council Two options include the following a) transfer the remaining balance to the 1994A Bonds to further reduce required property taxes as presented in Exhibit 1C b) use the remaining balance to pay for core system improvements of the proposed expansion area To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 21 The Oak Glen scheduled property tax levies are spread to all properties within the City This type of property tax requirement occurs when development does not "pay for itself' through special assessments, connection charges and other revenue sources on a timely basis The amount of property taxes actually required is uncertain at this time and the City has canceled the 1995 and 1996 levies Any property taxes required after 1996 (for a project which began in 1981) will, however, be spread on an expanded property tax base The net impact of property taxes needed to pay for the debt associated with those improvements will be spread on the following valuation Oak Glen Rest of City Total Market Values Amount Percent $65,072 100 678 885,400 751,081,000 8 7% 90 4% 100 0% Oak Glen Rest of City Total Tax Capacity Values Amount Percent $1,092,107 9 3% 10 667 980 90 7% 11 760,087 100 0% To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 22 The amount of proposed property tax levies average $137,000 (before partial cancellations) This levy represents approximately 5% of the total 1994 collectible property tax levy Because Oak Glen represents 9 3% of the total tax capacity value of the City, the added property tax levies required to pay for the Oak Glen improvements do not increase the property tax burden of other City parcels The City's ability to delay required property tax levies until development is substantially complete should not be relied upon for all such developments If property taxes are required pnor to sufficient increases in tax capacity values, then the remaining City property owners may bear the cost of improvements (which do not directly benefit them) through increased property taxes It is an acceptable policy to use property taxes to fund core system improvements Many cities use this funding source because they have determined that the added development benefits the entire City or that the timely availability of adequate revenue from the development area is uncertain When there is uncertainty as to the timing of revenue sources, bond resolutions often include scheduled property tax levies to assure timely availability of resources to make debt service payments These scheduled levies may be canceled in whole or in part annually as revenue is collected The connection charge revenue source is commonly measured and included in the financing plan for the bonds as scheduled property tax levies If connections are made and the resulting revenue used for debt service, then the scheduled property taxes may be canceled If the City's intent is to have development "pay for itself', then that goal may not be achieved if development does not occur on a schedule consistent with scheduled debt service payments I To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 23 Developer Agreements The City may reduce the nsk associated with expanding core systems by negotiating guarantees from developers This approach has the advantage of increasing the collection options available if charges for construction are not received as agreed Developer guarantees are not always effective because 1) The cost of enforcement may not be justified Oak Glen had developer guarantees which ultimately did little to enforce collection 2) Guarantees increase the project costs in the form of up -front legal fees and more importantly, the bonds may not meet the public purpose requirement for tax exempt rates This increases the interest cost of the project Alternatives to developer guarantees include • A thorough study of the value of the improved property If the improved property value significantly exceeds the cost of City improvements, the City improves the likelihood of full collection Do not allocate assessments to unbuildable or undesirable parcels if the assessments will exceed the tax forfeit net proceeds • Phased development reduces the financial exposure of the City if development does not occur as planned Often the reasons for delayed development are outside of the direct control of the developer and the City (such as increases in interest rates which discourages new home buying) • Shift the greater construction project responsibility to developers IL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e a 1 1 1 1 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 24 Construction Phases The City has core system improvement estimates as provided by SEH These cost summaries are presented in Tab 3 The improvement areas require a progression of improvements to accommodate the physical proximity of the proposed improvement areas For example Middle Trunk B could not be completed until Middle Trunk A is completed because "A" extends mains to the "B" starting point This only becomes an important consideration if areas which do not currently abut existing systems are considered preferred development areas because "prerequisite" systems must first be constructed Based on discussion with SEH, the following phases should be considered for core system improvements Phase 1 South Trunk A Sanitary Sewer* Sewer Easements Watermain Sub -total S4 800/acre Total S 587 970 S S 128 740 S 716 710 S 748 320 S 1 465 030 Phase 2 South Trunk B 780 000 1, 57 750 276 260 1 114 010 1 510 560 2,624 570 Middle Trunk A 330 000 98 200 428 200 428 200 Total Phase 2 1 110 000 155 950 276 260 1 542,210 1 510 560 3 052,770 Phase 3 Middle Trunk B ' 300 000 90 800 360 000 750 800 442,224 1 193 024 Phase 4 Middle Trunk A •• 200 000 200 000 200 000 Phase 5 North Trunk 430 000 50 000 305 000 785 000 404 064 1 189 064 C R. 15 Loop 435 000 435 000 435 000 Source & Storage 1 500 000 1 500 000 1 500 000 Total Phase 5 430 000 50 000 2,240 000 2,720 000 404 064 3 124 064 Totals S 2,427 970 S 296 750 S 3 205 000 S 5 929 720 S 3 105 168 S 9 034 888 Costs per developed acre S 3 753 S 459 S 4 954 S 9 166 S 4 800 S 13 966 Costs per developed acre excluding Source & Storage S 3 753 S 459 S 2,636 S 6 848 S 4 800 S 10 975 • Engineer estimates Storm Watcr improvements between S4 100 and S5 500 per acre •* May not be required if R 15 Loop is completed To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 25 Cost recovery charges have been proposed by SEH through a combination of the following 1 Area -wide assessments to residential and commerctal/tndustnal benefited properties 2 Sewer Oversizing Charges (SOC) at the same rate that is currently charged within the Oak Glen Development ($527 32 per connection, increased annually by inflation) 3 Source and Storage costs from the operations of the Water Enterpnse Fund The Board of Water has suggested in a memo dated September 7, 1995 that the Water Availability Charge (WAC) would be increased to approximately $400 for connection within the expansion area 0 • 0 i 0 • 0 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 26 If the City elects to phase the core system projects, the following phases may be considered Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Totals Total estimated construction Costs S 1 465 030 3 052,770 1 193 024 200 000 S3 124 064 S9 034 888 Less Water Source St. Storage (1 500 000) (1 500 000) Commercial charges to 70 acres Sanitary Sewer S 6 079 (395 142) (30 396) (425 537) Watermain S 2,636 (171 314) (13 178) (184 492) Storm Water S 4 800 (312,000) (24 000) (336 000) Net cost to residential units 586 575 2,985 197 1 193 024 200 000 1 624 064 6 588 859 Planned residential Units 60 610 300 300 1 270 Core system costs per unit 9 776 4 894 3 977 5 414 5 188 Improved residential acres 91 310 92 84 577 Core system costs per developed acre 6 453 9 639 12,949 19 293 11421 Residential units per developed acre 0 66 197 3 26 3 56 220 Preliminary proposed ant recovery - Commercial S 878 456 S 67 574 S S S 5946 029 Residential assessment* 937 903 3 195 475 950 595 0 868 567 5,952,540 Sewer Oversize Charge** 31 639 321 665 158 196 0 158 196 669 696 Total S 1 847 998 S3 584 714 51 108 791 S Sl 026 763 S7 568 265 Estimated construction over (under) proposed cost recovery 5382,968 5531 944 (S84 233) (8200 000) (S597,301) S33,377 Cummulative surplus (deficit) 382,968 914 912 830 679 630 679 33 377 33,377 • Residential preliminary proposed assessment Per Pcr Residential Acre Unit (2 2 per acre) Sewer 2,882 1 309 Water 2,636 1 197 Storm 4 800 2,180 Total S 10 318 S 4 687 • • Sewer Oversize Charge (SOC) of S527 32 per unit To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 27 The above phases will allow the City to maintain positive revenue streams (in excess of construction costs) if revenue is charged and collected on a timely basis The pnmary advantage of phasing is to reduce the City's nsk of incumng sigruficant core system construction costs without timely collection of matching revenue from development The Storm Water improvement costs were estimated on an overview basis by SEH The estimated range is $4,100 to $5,500 The preceding schedules reflect the mid -point of $4,800 The cost could vary significantly because of environmental issues We recommend that the City pursue improved information regarding the storm water costs and other costs associated with potential environmental issues prior to ordering improvements Storm water improvements may be partially funded with a utility billing rate charged to all City residents or to residents in the expansion areas of the City The storm water utility charge may be segregated to a separate fund for ongoing costs and improvements to the City's systems The City established a Storm Water Enterpnse Fund in 1994 The rates have not been established, however, the rate system is anticipated to charge residential properties a flat quarterly charge and commerciallindustnal projection based on acreage and impervious surface The City may consider establishing a dual rate structure for the expansion area to recover a greater share from the area which will require new core storm water systems e • • To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 28 Connection Charges The City currently charges fees for construction of new facilities within the City These fees are collected upon issuance of the building permit A companson of fees charges by the City of Stillwater is as follows City Water Sewer Connection Connection Total Fee Fee Fees Bayport $450 $400 $850 Cottage Grove 585 195 780 Forest Lake (a) (a) 800 Lake Elmo 265 N/A 265 Mahtomedi 880 300 1,180 Oak Park Heights (b) (b) 1,485 to 2,700 Oakdale 500 400 900 Stillwater - Oak Glen 250 (c) 627 (d) 877 Stillwater - Other 250 100 350 Woodbury 515 250-485 (e) 765 to 1,000 (a) - Forest Lake has a street opening fee of $750, plus a $25 connection fee for sewer and water (b) - Oak Park Heights has a combined connection fee ranging from $1,485 to $ 2,700 on newer developments (c) - Stillwater water connectionalso requires water meter purchase of $225 (d) - Stillwater sewer connection includes S 0 C charge of $527 32 in Oak Glen (e) - Woodbury s sewer connection fees vary by distnct The above comparison table suggests that the City is currently very competitive with other Washington County cities with respect to connection charges The City may wish to review connection charge policies and rates to determine if changes are needed 1) to establish a reserve for future expansion or replacement of core system improvements, and 2) to cover the cost of the current proposed expansion with a rate structure unique to the proposed expansion area Additionally, the City may consider a storm water connection charge which would be collectible upon permit issuance similar to the current water and sewer connection charges The City of Cottage Grove currently charges a per square foot storm water connection fee to various areas of the City To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 29 Charging unique connection charges to vanous areas of the City requires adequate underlying systems to assure that the correct charges are assessed at the time that the building permit is issued If the City expands the use of unique charges for specific distncts, we recommend that the system of flagging properties subject to unique connection charges be reviewed Summary and Recommendations We recommend the City consider the following pnor to proceeding with development of the proposed expansion areas 1 Be clear on the distinction between funding ongoing operating costs associated with new development and the cost associated with core system improvements necessary to attract new development Page 1-3 2 Monitor proposed developments to determine if they meet the 4 valuation and density expectations as planned in the draft of the Comp Plan If they vary, measure the probable fiscal impact of the differences 3 Anticipate the potential adverse impact of green acre deferments on 4-6 anticipated revenue assumptions 4 Anticipate the transition penods pnor to achieving full development Dunng transition penods, the increase in ongoing operating costs may exceed revenue from new development 5 An increased tax base will likely allow the City to control tax rate increments as the state shifts a greater share of City funding away from state aids 6 9-15 6 Based on comparative analysis with other Cities, quality development 14-15 will pay its share of incremental increases in ongoing operating costs To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Stillwater Page 30 7 The City incurs nsk in financing the cost of core system improvements If timely collection of dedicated revenue fails, the City may be required to raise general property tax levies (or provide other funding sources) to meet debt service requirements 8 To control the nsk associated with financing core system improvements, consider phasing the proposed development Consider the financial obligation of the related debt service and the potential general property tax burden if connections are delayed in determining the size and timing of the vanous phases 9 Storm water improvements may have environmental complications and increased costs inside the proposed expansion area Consider resolving these issues pnor to proceeding with the proposed development 10 Consider changes to connection charge rates for both the existing City and the proposed expansion area and review underlying systems to flag unique charges for specific distncts within the City 11 Consider establishing a storm water connection charge in conjunction with the utility charge to fund all or a portion of the operating and improvement costs of storm water systems 18-22 24-27 27 28-29 28 A c TONEBRIDGE ELEMENTA ' HOOL Remodeling and Music Center Addition PROJECT TEAM OWNER: ARCHITECT: STILLWATER AREA SCHOOLS ISD #834 1875 South Greely Street Stillwater, MN 55082 612-351-8340 BWBR ARCHITECTS-- 400 Sibley Street, Suite 600 St. Paul, MN 55101 612-222-3701 CONSTRUCTION ADOLFSON AND PETERSON, INC. MANAGER: 6701 West 23rd Street Minneapolis, MN 55426 612-525-2304 CIVIL ENGINEER: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT: HALLING ENGINEERING 3727 255th Street East Webster, MN 66088 612-461-3320 ERICKSEN ROED & ASSOCIATES 300 First Avenue North, Suite 420 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612-342-9210 MICHAUD, COOLEY, ERICKSON 1200 METROPOLITAN CENTRE 333 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 56402 612-339-4941 KVERNSTOEN, KELL & ASSOC. 420 NORTH FIFTH STREET SUITE 1065 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612-333-5136 2 SITE LOCATION STONEBRIDGEV6E W E M ST �ZE ST /STILLWTER 1-6 NORTH 3 GENERAL NOTES L GEE SPECFICATION5 (eECTIL14 01010) FOR ALWIREvIATION6 AID NOTATION STMO.S woo STRUCTURAL, 1ECIWIICAL AND ELECTRICAL AeeREVIATIONS AND ETMISO.b MAY DIFFER RCM ARCHITECTLRAI.. SEE , RESPECTIVE SECTIONS RDIOI DRAWING* FOR DEFe4TIRE. 10. EOJIF E4T WIT DPEN610NS (PLR ALL TRADE$) A4:E FOR PROOIECT DEeCRIPTICN ONLY. VERFT 612E WITH MMIPACTIRER II. ALL INTERIM WOOD BLOCKING SHALL DE FIRE RETARDANT (FRO TREATED, IELE66 NOTED OTNEPELISE. 2. DO NOT SCALE PRNUNGS NOTIFY ARCNIIECT PIED44`.TELY Q ANT DISCREPANCIES U. ALL ROOF WOOD BLOCKIG AND CURDS SHALL BE M016TIFE REIRTANr TREATED, MIMI NOTED 01 ERYME 3. DERIVER OPENERS APE CUT TNRQYfI FIRE RATED PARTITIONS, IT SWILL RE THE Ri6P0161 ILUTT OF TIE COTRACTOR FOR RCM T4E HOLE B CUT TO ',Apo ATIGN6 FOR fE46H C, PATCH APD REPAIR ANY OPENING 10 MOP AN TIE NTFOItl1Y Cc THE DR/4164G6, APEFLOCK ESTACLISTOPFEP FRU1ETEkISTEG DRAESY16ARCNITEC1LLFAL ANDAND FIE pA y DO NO ?DIQNpTE WITH 7H06EOFDECK FMD ON 6N17E e(RRET ARD C43ADR4'. PLAN (?DEFERENT e510* RC6LESlE USED). °31'-4" Al TOP OF 4. ALL CCHTR4CTOR$ TO CHECK I'ECNLWIOAN. NO iAC TR'=+U. DR4YRG6 FOR SRVERANT TGS41 lT101'. N rlITECTIRAI, 4416TIUOM)- DRMIE COICIUa um PIPES AND DUCTS RPM N WILLS, VERFY 67E Aa4. TIOI EFTH MECNANIC.AL / ELECTRICAL COHIRA0?ORS neppl N+eC.ereett a lkr111C11P. ANY OQITRAGTCR PBE1R4116 TPE FREPRDOFNG SMALL BEIMMO TO IMAM HREPFi7OFNG TO THE ORG8Y. CODRTQ4 YD FILE RATED AT IRE CONTRACTOR'S E%PD!_ 6. AT 1ECH4NICA1. AND ELECTRICAL EOUIR E141 RAM PROV? OLs3/4"" FR� PLYWOOD RACING 8EHED ALL SURFACE HUNTED FIXILIRE6 AND EEOWIfiENr, UNLESS °TWINGE NOTED. • NUNSHCEEPNG PADS 6u4LL BE PROVIDED BY MACES *ON RCOIRE MEM SEE PEC4ANICAL 4 ELECb8CAL DRAWT4G6 FOR SIZES AID LOCATIONS. 6. ARP' NEGNT6 AID LOCATIONS Cf ACCE66 PANELS (AP) AND COORDINATE TYPES UN TRADES 1141C14 REWIRE 1NEM. t PROVIDE LINTELS AID FRAMED FOR GRILLES, LOUVERS, AND ROOF ANTS AS WOAD BY MEMINI CAL CONTRACTOR ARP' 488 AID LOCATIOL CODE DATA NEW BUILDING COSTING BUILDING MO) - mewwar II-N s w,sel ROW MP MOO TWO) - mawso, 044 we" MAW ROW ND OW sere- a COMV B / A23 ■-eeL aW OW -so" WA coma, ammo B / M4 Swot oa aeaer WOW Of awh I Nog le VW MS WA w.eel nano I oe-E e. *3 71/// W. rt. We RCM 5584 IF wr.uw40ROW MA ONO TM ROM OD WAD IF .re ammo OM e6 SIMI e00nw MP SAR4 MI IMP MEM WO +ham WA wo OM meewe en WONeu wee WA 4E 'M PAPE mama sew MPS) WA aYwe M aoarl wn.war COMM eeeNe WA "°01A0M X . p aM we` s RE OE Au WNW MS\\Y0J(/ I�� KW O:wwwica Rasa wane NW MP MAW ! \s M ra xu DESIGN LOAD(5) SO SW Co .,,k .r i ... K v " .. illt Ivelnon low wen o USED: UGC city. 23 ADOMONAL INFORMATION well. WOO 4, .r.N, rr o: 1y,ye 0NW k ---rsr. ru. rsI .SF » PO. r31. L® ;; rs PSIMn " BEE 6TR)CT GE34 NOTES. FIRE -RESISTIVE REOUNEMENTS U41DNO ELEMENT RUNG ORS) ZEST E%TERDR WEAK 'MIS N INTERIOR BF/RN6 WALLS N MOOR NON -$FANG WAILS N 51RUCTURAL RAW (CIRLMMS) N STRUCTURAL ME (OUERIL) N STRUCTURAL MALE PERM NUS) N RAROT0N1 - PERWNN7 N STINT ENEMIES I SIR NORM TYPO FLOORS - CEIUNGS/RI.00RS N MOM - COUPES/MOM N EMEROR DOORS NO WOO N 4 S SHEET INDEX 100 TITLE SHEET CIVIL 202 UTILITY AND GRADING PLAN 235 SURvEY, ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN, ROCF PLAN, DETAILS STRUCTURAL 300 GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES AND TYPICAL DETAILS 301 TYPICAL STRUCTURAL DETAILS 302 FOUNDATION AND FLOOR PLAN 303 ROOF FRAMING PLAN 304 STRUCTURAL DETAILS ARCHITECTURAL 400 DEMOLITION FLAN 401 VIB" FLOOR PLAN AND MISCELLANEOUS ENLARGED PLANS 402 MUSIC CENTER FLOOR PLAN AND INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 440 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 460 PARTIAL BUILDING SECTIONS 461 WALL SECTIONS AND DETAILS 410 DETAILS 590 DOOR AND FRAME TYPES, INTERIOR DETAILS 602 MUSIC CENTER REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 640 FINISH PLANS MECHANICAL 100 MECHANICAL SITE PLOW, DRAWING INDEX, SCHEDULES AND DETAILS 101 PARTIAL MECHANICAL FLOOR PLANS 102 MUSIC CENTER FLOOR PLANS 103 AREA 'A' FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 104 AREA 'B' FIRE PROTECTION PLAN �". Y ELECTRICAL 900 ELECTRICAL. DRAWING INDEX, SYMBOLS AND SCHEDULES 9)0 PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR DEMOLITION PLAN - AREA 'A' 9)) PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR DEMOLITION PLAN - AREA 'B' 920 PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLAN - AREA 'A' 921 PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLAN - AREA 'B' 922 PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR MUSIC CLASSROCM PLAN - AREA 'A' 6 STONEBRIDGE ELEMENTARY REMODELING AND MUSIC CENTER " ADDITION D N STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 16Y BWBR ARCHITECTS 400 Sibley Street, Suite 500 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-222-3701 Caneultante 1 h.*r Wi, OE hN -Sn ewoewr rt opal .- -11011 y r4 or 0014 ply Ind ouppolin pal OP 1 on MOWN MAW u.rr a. Ian a a. SLe1. W Y.M. Named, Date *24/11 Req. No. 0366 Issued For Item OA CHECK SET C 2 ISSUE Date UI6/91 IR4/91 Dale JAN 24,1991 Drown RWD Comm. No. 95053D2 Ch.Ddd Sheet Title TITLE SHEET Sheet NA 100 WPM e! moor BENCHMARK Manhole Rim Elev.=926.34 Feet Inv. 4"=920.1 Inv. 12" & 15"=..18:3' Approx. Location Electric Cab/e�ONC Verify Location Prior To Any ExcavaWr Approx. Location TV -Cable Verify Location Prior To A C1- i Fence Corner is 3.5 Feet North And 0.3 Feet East 0f Property Corner 40' 15 RCP O 0.98X MH 1C 920.0 JW 80' 15' RCP 0 0.962915.98 EP ACE SILT FENCE ALONG PROPERTY UNE LLi ^,J co CC CD 40' 15" RCP 0 0.991% Power Pole 4) Chainlink i 0 O 1"Spru Tree 0 00 5 (2) PIPE In �SIY s 0 (Stm. Sw19R)$r dple. r•ae MH TC 924 IW 91' 60.43 • Wall, Hydrant "— Electric Telephone (Underground Location Not Known) Cable TV n ■ UNIT A /// / -^COINCIDES WITH /927.07 BINMIOUS PARKING LOT EXTEND 8" WATERMAN INTO BUILDING ANCOORDIMTTED WITH MECHANICAL CONT' A8OvERACTOR ELEVATION OF 927' 4' ON ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL PLANS. 27.01 9COINCIDES W 1)�ELEVATION OF 925' 0" ON ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL PLANfm OCOURT < O -924.47 t� IE INTO EXISTING STORM Lg3.75 0'6"PVCO2 9238.71 VC Approx. Centerline 70' " P0 20X Existing Corridor nE INTO STORM SEWER SEE MEcsNNICAC 2X TYPICAL CROSS SLOPE ON SIDEWALKS MATCH EXISTING GRADE 0 EXISTING STOOP -Conc. North Inv. 18"=913.35 it South Inv. 18"=912.79 / — Fence rner Power Poles 0.8 FeetoNorthlsAn d 2.2 Feet East 0f Property Corner Note: Contours Were Created From Spot Elevations Taken By FFD & Assoc. December 1996. Datum Is Mean Sea -Level N.G. V.D. 1929 Adjustment MATCH EXISTING GRADE BITUMIOUS WALK CATCH BASIN / MANHOLE SCHEDULE STRUCTURE NO. MH 2 MN 3 4H 4 BARREL SIZE 48' 4488' NEENAH CASTING NO. R-16429 R-15428 R-16428 R-16428 BITU7IOUS PLAY AREA c)� CUT INTO EX 6' WATER INSTALL 6 7K8' TEE & / 6" GATE VALVE x 80X EX CB-. 70P 924.4 1/41 INV 918.5 y- EX 6" WATER 130' 6" DIP IVATERMAIN .�^^- 8' 90 DEGREE BEND EX 9'VCP SANITARY SEWER PATCH BIT. DRIVEWAY AND CONC SIDEWALK AS REQ'D AT NEW WATERLINE LOC. 0 I0 20 4o so Scale in Feet SILT FENCE NO SCALE MY • GO ■ "79 ev e FE4 I LEGEND PROPOSED MANHOLE PROPOSED CATCH BASIN PROPOSED HYDRANT PROPOSED GATE VALVE PROPOSED FLARED END —SO— PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED ELEVATION PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED BITUMINOUS o PROPOSED STORM SEWER w PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER — — — SILT FENCE 0 SOIL BORING --i DRAINAGE ARROW w — EXISTING WATERMA N -- s — EXISTING SANITARY SEWER --ST- EXISTING STORM SEWER --- 0 - EXISTING BURIED GAS LINE -- E EXISTING BURIED ELECTRIC UNE -- r — EXISTING BURIED TELEPHONE UNE ---TV— EXISTING BURIED TELEVISION LINE —98o-- EXISTING CONTOUR 995.50 EXISTING ELEVATION x® STONEBRIDGE ELEMENTARY REMODELING AND A MUSIC CENTER ADDITION STILLWATER, MINNESOTA BWBR ARCHITECTS 400 Sibley Street, Suite 500 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 812-222-3701 COntlton0 Halting Engineering CIVIL ENGINEERS 2737 255th Street East Webster, Minnesota 55088 C Phone 612-481-3320 Fax 612-461-3310 wW/ WWII/ .. 7U, t011t f aim w rewl 7 w tI 114..0 get..11/I0 al Mal we wl.sOaw. MOM yaw Mttw.1SIN .1 WOOG Nom. IO"e„tr dt yr' 1A-7 Oat. t\24\97 Req. No. 12763 owed For 100 Dot. 901. I/24/97 Cantu Na 95053.02 Dim GRH Chocked GRH su.t nu. UTILITY AND GRADING N PLAN 2 924.47 --- Denotes Existing Floor Elevation 3 4 5 6 PROJECT NO.: 98-0001.13 DRAWING PILE: 0001130R.DWG 7 Soot Na 202 G FOLZ, FREEMAN, DUF4i' 4 ASSOCIATES, INC. LAND SURVEYING LAND PLANNING 1815 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 (612) 439-8833 ahlt)LVARK Manhole RIM Elev.-926.34 Feet Inv. 4"-920 1 Inv. 12" i 15'-918.3 - Approx. Location Electric Cable---"' ' Verify Location Prior To My Excavating r4E)C, Lu Approx. Location TV -Coble �Jfcote, ree 1'S ruce I \ee • Il Verify Location Prior To AnKExcovatingi 1 58I88'- --6t- Fence Corner Is-•' 3.5 Feet North And 0.3 Feet East 0f Property Corner csd Power Pas 47 o"l. II Treeei I taphole 18- TO tV NM holes lnvl. 99 7d Env. 15, 915.8 nv. 18v-15.5 Mon • eii� 10, 1 "Spruce( H u Tree 4^ 1Cp Stm. Srr. Wolf, HyQ-opt,. / fr Electric TNeplion* (Underground Location Not Known) / Cable TV { Conc. Manhole Rim Elev.-9462 North Inv. 18-913.35 ‘........South Inv. I8"-912.79 Fence Corner Is • 0.8 Feet North And 2.2 Feet East 0f Property Corner co 0 -(924.47) ..-(24.43) Approx. Centerline Existing Corridor • Note: Contours Were Created From Spot Elevations Taken By FFD et Assoc. December 1996. Datum Is Mean Sea -Level N.G.V.D. 1929 Adjustment (924.47) --- Denotes Existing Floor Elevation Note: THE ABOVE SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY NE LAND SURVEYOR AS NOTED ABOVE. IT IS INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY AS A PART OF BWBR DOCUMENTS. 1 2 MLL TCP 6• W! CONC- TAPER TOP 0 DIA STEEL FIFE MLL UV DRY 6MD TO LIMN S" CF TOP PANT TAPER TOP I:@ VY EXPANSION MATERIAL PAVING • J2- fi. •4 • PIPE BOLLARD 1.0 DIA COO 3l0.1-0• 6E64666 VG NN'NOM WALK SEE CET 1E435 WE. EX6. EL6C LEN N THIS VICINITY, LOCATE MOM OWNS. NATWD TO 1000E0 t'1 oreet, LINE En TI ELEC. (3)PPE EOLLA DS ICE MOP .4 u a� ; A.-, • 0 0 O(p o 0 0 o . o O ,(:)en L7n ,.On � n .,C)n .,C�n � CONCRETE IUALK CJT I VP .11+6D' CJT CONCRETE WALK COMPACTED FILL A6 FED NOTEI WALK CJT SPACED 6'-O• OC UILESS NOTED o1FEIR16E 6E11003 0230105 6Nd-E PLY MR ROCFNS VP CONCRETE. WALK EJT I V2' • 1'-0• imearaPAII ROOF STR40TURE ROOF DRAM ROOF DRAIN DETAIL I VJ'.1'-0' SEE MET 440 FOR W.EVA1ICN1 SEE DET 1Da35 LOCATE SIDINIX aP EOEE Cr E?tl 1TOCP LINK C.ONC STOOP '•f ?ix7.%1Y. tiewa h'S•1314r'inaQit"k'18S',,74ZOW24 .7.X.VO. oP W2GMP.G'ie>'bR2 f.+...h ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN • 36'-o" 605/3 SITE GENERAL NOTES: 1 ALL 617E WOK IS DA6ED ON EXRING MIMEO 4410611E SURVEY, BY 01I6*, EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL v6607 ALL EXISTING SITE CC OITI0N6 PRIOR TO DEMOLITION EXCAVATION M0 CCNSTR4CTIC6 2 SEE CIVL, MECMWIC+L ADD ELECTRICAL POEMS FOR ADDRICTNTL MIMES 460R1ATIQ1 3 6EE me stover (SUPPLED FOR REPEIENGE ONLY) PCR ADDITKTLAL 6tTE NTpt14T101 4 SEE 61RIIGT(RAL DRAIEW.6 A10 GEo TEC6NICM. REPORT FCR ADDIT0ML SITE M1060-E41IFACE Cot0110146. 5 LOCATION OF 1/0914012114D UTLITIES OHM ARE TAKEN FRCT 1 SEC $ OR P61J.D MMQ456 EY UTILITY CCI'IPMUE6. NO EXCAVATION HAS EE4?4 axe TO vERFY LOCATIONS, US.ESS NOTED 011•ERWI6E 3 -1TLNe -- HMINCtM WALK. M. ME W436 6. PRIOR TO EXCAVATIO4, VERIFY YEN mot ANY OVER INITIATED notes CAELNG, ETC. 't 6TOGKPILE 601E N AREAS 6HW11 CR A6 DIt01ED DY OU►ER & SEED DIMMED AREAS OF C0*T1tG1104 1N0 ARE NOT CALLED OUT TO se *CODED, It4E66 NOTED OTVE6NE i PPONDE 610E11,41JKARMQ ELELAIMION JONF6 AT 25'^0• CC (MAX) IALE66 240152 O1ER616E 10. 'moms NDEWARARM'P CCNTROI JOINTS AT V-0. OC (MAXI IL ALL UTILRI66 HORN C14 DEM0.R10 4 PLAN ARE EXIIT6 SEE MECHANICAL AND E ECTRK 7. San f01t MODFICATKNR. 4 JONT F6L@R CCHCIETE WALK CQ1•AC1ED FILL A6 MO NOTEI WALK LIT 61•AOED 25'-CCC GLEN HOED MERLES 11363111113 02301014 JCS SRN=R RAMS AMP LOC 1V MIN PANTED 3/4' EXT FYD SIGN 4x4 SD P0616 arm TO as PANTED W! PROJECT NAME, COO ARCHITECT CONSULTANTS, GC, PECH 4 ELEC COIOIRS. Ter TO EE PROYDED 2x4 VP ERMCE JOS SIGN PROPERTY LINE 0259101A a 1 VP 51TILMNOU6 FEARING COPSE MOOT 23R 171E 41 EI111114OU5 TACK COAT PER MOOT 2351 I OP 511U114216 RIDER COURSE P1100T 2331, TYPE 31 6" C0IPA:TEA CLASS 5 DAME ow% CR164E12) r1DOT 2211 SWERVE c0PIPACIED TO IRA STD PIIOCTOR DENSITY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LIGHT DUTY 6E616T64 566041 CONCRETE DRIVE, AMR 0R WALK JOINT RULER MEMO PANG 5" CL456 MG EASE BITUMINOUS PAVING TO CONCRETE IV? . 1'-0' MEW 022e305 NE OR IRA D. AU. CONTRACTORS RV 011ER N4ALL MANTAN ALL EXISTING B LOM EXITS WRING 0510. IONcCON61RiCTION PATC41 NT.014*61AY AD *NC 1136 4WK A6 MOD AT NEW 111411 LNE LOC. Fital7RtY , - - - - 0. 600 ALL AREAS DEWED UT CON6TRACTICN N MONO CF HEW ADORIC 1.6C0 6RE ACCE 5 DRIVE AT CGTIG.INKN GP COW/LOTION (DATES N ACCO VANCE 6114 IPECNCATONI COWTRICTION MIMI4ER TO COMINAlE 611E ACC6E6 WIN 041ER 14. EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL DE F OP/M1M FOR CONTACT M10 COORDNATION OF WORK ALMA CITY, COMP ASV STATE 114C1cuoiFARE5 INCLUDING, RUT NOT LIMITED TO, CURB CURS 440 WNW UO IR D. EACH CONTRACTOR 8444E RE IE4000446LE FOR Al0REPAIR ALL UI41I14 tl3D DAMAGE AT 10 COST TO OWER :• MI6 CN ELOPED Sit ITT SPLASH ELOCK 1 ROOF DRAIN 4 CNERLCWDOAN SEE 16A35 I110OF101 MICH IWT% SIE MEN ->♦'- EA11A6T PAVE* ON rtNoscao -- MEMPANIE ARROW NDICATE6 004414MD SLOPE Of TAPED N6, V4'lFT MIN ROOF PLAN D E G STONEBRIDGE ELEMENTARY REMODELING AND MUSIC CENTER A ADDITION STILLWATER, MINNESOTA MAO BWBR ARCHITECTS 400 Sibley Street, Suite 500 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-222-3701 Consultants 10.61 e.w, NI SY OW. pale l.e a newt L. 4"/e•4„ e awre,ding 11 ,ea el *Mi e. .e41.W.4 Ma1RCT .e4e iM I... N w. Sit. M lee[30TA Nsma lj., Date 1/241S1 Reg Na LW NOW For Item QA CHECK SET CO ISSUE Date JAN 24,1991 Dram SPA Comm. Na 96053D2 E Nt TAN SURVEY, ARCHITECTURAL URAL SITE PLAN, H ROOF PLAN, DETAILS Shoot No. 235 41146Iles eeYel A S G O44C WEST ELEVATION Ir • r-0' s91C4Wp' -4" 440 NORTH ELEVATION Ir , i'-o' 1 fingtAert447- 6.6 SCUPPER SEE 45/235 4 -$ 2 24.0 2 R00 LOOK 01510C COURSE TO MATCH EXG. BLDG. .::�•xwavio r w .nntt+a>woio, 3 PC O SILL PR6'FN PETAL COPING. 40 MATCH EXG. BLDG. PETALCSC pmek FBI IN FOREGROUND //'' F 5 2 TO BEGIN AT i/ TEEND A r// T !24U- '-4" PPE alb 525'-0' 3 4 F51 F52T05EGSAT YSE AND TO END AT 924.4" PREPS METAL. COPING TO MATCH ENG. BLDG, 520'•6 440 40 SOUTH ELEVATION 1/r , I.0" 63T•V4' EXG.FFE �624'-0" 4Caam EAST ELEVATION I,.a 4 4 gesso 6' P C O PANELS ��� SEWS 5 R011 LOCK PRICK COURSE TO MATCH Ws. BLDG. SCUPPER SEE 45/236 PCC RV PANEL SEE DETAIL 2C/410 W EXISTNGBLDG, VARLET' 3'•4'� SCUPPER SEE 15/410 AIN 5 F0 3. SLOG 11.114414106 S99'•6 4' ssr-ua" 624' 0'� NOTE: ELEVATIONS FOR FINISH FLOOR, TOP OF DECK, ETC., ARE ESTABLISHED FROM EXISTING DRAWINGS AND D0 NOT DIRECTLY COINCIDE WITH THOSE FOUND ON SITE SURVEY AND GRADING FLAN (DIFFERENT BENCH MARKS WERE USED). 9211-4" AT TOP OF RAMP IN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS COINCIDES WITH SURVEYOR'S 921'-.01" PCC VENEER PAM-5 SEE 2C/410 SV NIEGISAL DRIP ►GR ADDMAL N01E6 r•6' •3 3/4" ELEV V41U PLAN YEW 4' 'O FCC PANELS � 1/6' , r-o' 6 1 BOWL PANELS VERFT 551061 0.3 3/4" 5'- 2 c STONEBRIDGE ELEMENTARY REMODELING AND MUSIC CENTER ADDITION STILLWATER, MINNESOTA %%Air BWBR ARCHITECTS 400 Sibley Street, Suite 500 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-222-3701 Coeedtaote I ones a,tlry 5.1 e6 Ma, o.dk.Wn or rood s pe4,4i6 sa n odor my awl aa/aan eH 5e1 I or a ear MOWN *Mot UMW en Was d Oa Sid, of Ha..Na Nome Date V24A1 Reg No. 6366 lewd Fa Item QA CHECK SET P ISSUE G H Date VIS/91 V14/ST Dote JAN14,1991 Dram SPA Comm. No. 9N053/0? Chocked Shet TRW EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Sheet No. 440 a,erMl PO MM.* 4 5 6 7 I a 5 0 0 0 A 8 C 0 FIRE PROTECTION SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA OCCUPANCY HAZARD CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM TYPE DENSITY GPM/SQ.FT. REMOTE AREA FT MAX. AREA SQ.FT./HD, HOSE DEMAND GPM SPRINKLER TEMP. RATING F SPRINKLER HEAD TYPE SPRINKLER HEAD FINISH REMARKS LUJAM R84LLLOUN Lr�A '/wEssENCE •ROO S�•OSERNNG wail WET 0.10 1500 225 100 165 SPEQFSEE 1 ATON5 CHROME p�RO I�V ROOMS. STORAGE, MS. ROM. Sp AREAS. JANITORS CLOSET, KITCHEN, OFFICE, AUDIO VISUAL, ARTS. BAND. MUSIC CLASSROOM. WNNARY OUP 1SPECFlCATIONS NET 0.15 1500 130 250 165 g� CHROME STAGE, GYIJNASIUM GRY RC2 NET 0.20 1000 130 250 165 SPECIFSEE ICATIONS CHROME MISC. EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE UNIT NO. MFR. & MODEL NO. LOCATION AREA SERVED FAN DATA FLOW DATA MOTOR DATA CFM ESP TSP GPM HD LB/HR BTUH BHP RPM V-I-Hz KW 00i-1 Esil LL O11B11,2 VESTIBULE 400 - - - - - 27,304 - 6 KW 1450 206-3-60 Epl-2 BERKO FFCH-RE-556 CCOC106 VESTIBULE 405 - - - - - 17,005 - 5 KW - 206-3-60 EBR-1 O9065006 BAND PRACTICE CI CIO BAND IOACTICE Cf - - - _ 3,413 - 1000 WATTS - 206-3-00 EBR-$3,4 60M0 mom* MUSK CLASS MUSIC CLASS C103 - _ - - - - 5,120 - 1300 WATTS - 206-3-60 EHC-1.2 SE PHANO34 12 SUPPLY DUCT SEE PLAN - - - - _ - - 51,IW - 15 KW - 205-.3-00 -1 4-363-Y - - - - - 400 - - - - 30 - 206-3-60 4:1_1 AUR.14-221199-AS - - - - _ 1.5 - 206-3-00 RTu-1 MANE CD07 -LT. ROOF CLALSSOOM 2250 .75 - - - - - - 1 - 206-7-60 RTU-2 YCO 0775 C3-LA ROOF BM/0 PRACTICE COAT STORAGE 2250 .75 - - - - - - 1 - 206-3-00 Ot PROMOS MTH FRAME I0T FOR RECESSED INSTALLATION AND FRONT INLET FRONT OUTLET. p PROVIDE MSH RED MOUNTING FRAME UNIT TO BE CEILING MOUNTED. 0 4-STAGE. REFER TO SPECMICATEN ON FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMTS. 0UNIT SHALL.BE COMPLETE MOH, ECONOMIZER. ROOF CURB, OAS HEAT (LOW) 120,000 BTUH INPUT, 97,000 BTUH OUTPUT, DX 000UN0 73,900 CNN TOTAL. 51,400 BTUH seisms, 1 HP SUPPLY FAN MOTOR DELIVERING 2.250 CAW SI .75 ESP, MICRO -ELECTRONIC PROGRAMMABLE THERMOSTAT MIN LOOKING COVER, UNIT W00HT MTH ACCESSORIES - 625 LBS. SET 0.A. DANPER MINIMUM TO 450 CEP. 0 0 GRILLE, REGISTER & DIFFUSER SCHEDULE MANUFACTURER: ANEMOSTAT TYPE FUNCTION CONSTRUCTION TYPE MAX. N.C. MODEL NO. NOMINAL SIZE REMARKS 'A' SUPPLY DIFFWER STEEL 25 EPL 24424 LAY -IN BORDER 'B' SUPPLY REOSIER STEEL 25 S2H 204 SURFACE MOUNT BORDER 'C RETURN ORUE STEEL 25 S025 24s24 LAY -IN BORDER PLUMBING FIXTURE SCHEDULE MANUFACTURER: NONE FIXTURE N0. FIXTURE TYPE WASTE VENT CW HW REMARKS 0 ELECTRIC WATER COOLER 114' 114' N' - NONE , 0 F10M GRAN 3' - - - JOSAM F 30003-7A 0 ROOF DRAM r - - - JOSAM F 21500 © OVERFLOW ROOF OWN r - - - JOSAA F 21500 MIN 2' HIGH CLAMPING COLLAR DOWNSPQUT NOZZLE 6' - - - JOSA11 P 25010 EXISTING INIERRUPTABLE CAS METER ---� EXISTING COOuNG TOWER NEW 3/4' OAS TO RTU-1 t 2 240 MOH r- -, I 1 Ha 3/4' GAS UP OUr90E—' WALL TO ROOF SEE 1/700 FOR CONTINUATION EIEL PROVIDE GAS 9WT-OFF AND REGULATOR AT R1U-1 k RTU-2. L/% 00h10E OAS r-I---4 i-EXISTING FIRM -"-i/" OAS METER Ii`'" —EXISTING METER TO BE L--J REVISED BY OAS COMPANY FOR 2/ DISCHARGE PRESSURE 2/ REGULATOR APPROX. SOO MOH 4,..--BUILDING WALL REFRY PIPE SIZES. TWO OAS r,"-; PARTIAL PLAN AT GAS METER NO SCALE OVERSIZED PIPE STRAP - ANCMOR TO REOVAIOD PAD PAD MTH WODO SCREWS BY MECHANICAL OAS PIPE 2' AND SMALLER R00/ 2 X 4 REDWOOD PAD AT 6'-0' 0.C. BY MECHANICAL r LONG MIN. -4X4 REDWOOD BLOMNG BY MECHANICAL (CORN FASTEN TO SPRINKLER ZONE /1 30,566 SQ.FT. -� DOSING MANHOE NEW 3/4' OAS ON ROOF. SEE GAS PM* SUPPORT DETAIL 15' SEEE/7p2 DRAMNCS 2/702 11 3DOGROUND STORM AND FORSEWER PIPING WORK IN THIS AREA. .1. MUSIC CENTER ADDITION EX19TIN° MANHOLE 16• EXISTING 3 SPRINKLER ZONE /2 34,456 SOFT. MECHANICAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESORPTION mod --- GOLD WATER esstasmanne asueolussio BRANCH CONNECTION, TOP DOMESTIC —FS— FIRE SPRINKLER LINE — - - — DOIESTIC 140T WATER —<I) BRANCH CONNECTION, BOTTOM FIRE PROTECTION LNE. ----- — CRCULAI940 HOT WATER —0 ELBOW UP Fp OUTSIDE BUILDING Z ELBOW DOWN • PENDANT SPRINKLER HEAD — 0...-.-.-. CAS ----HWS HOT WATER SUPPLY 1 0 UPRIGHT SPRINKLER HEAD —MARE— HOT WATER RETURN LEE CONNECTION Q SIDEWALL SPRINKLER HEAD —SS— SANITARY GRAN, ABODE GRADE Q 1EE CONNECTION UP SANITARY GRAN, V TEE CONNECTION DOWN --= Fl_R€ OfPM,T11NT CONNECTION, _/ I �' ELBOW ^'- 90• ELBOW IWwf70NNE'C7 ppEE yypqK(E� �59: SEWER BELOW CRAGS • FLOOR DRAIN COI CLEANOUT WURIA M qtY SWITCIVALVE, �{� BU Y VALVE `�' ilvtl/ NSORY siWITGI -.IMPRESS 0- LOW PRESSURE STEAM O� FLOOR CLEANWT (WALL) Ins 1)ERMOSTAT, PNEUMATIC CO I�--- METRO CLEANOUT I (WALL) 1® HUMIDISTAT CO II-ICEILING ClEAl10UT may, SUPPLY MR X PIPE ANCHOR —p --M-- RETURN AIR —li+ EXHAUST AR DIRECTOR OF FLOW SALM ---F— BALL VALVE v FLOW SNITCH S DUCT MIDST (CR VISIBLE SIDE) + 14/12 i —'--MSS-- PIPE GUDE _ BUTTERFLY VALVE '-----i"--. GmVALVE AND DEPTH ~ 4► DUCT DIAMETER POST OF CONNECTION ® SUPPLY AIR DUCT SECTION NEW TO EXISTING Dq GLOBE VALVE 21 RETURN 0R EAUST AR --IF HOSE pee OR WALL HYDRANT WCi SECTION%X MOTORIZED VALVE TER OUTSIDE SSe YOKE VALVE S� 1 4: MANUAL VOLUME DAMPER C 4 SHUTOFF VALVE MOTORED DAMPER Al CAS REGULATOR N 7 1 COMBINATION SMOKE/FIRE DAMPER SEE DETAIL 2/700 FOR CONNECTION TO EXISTING FIRM OAS METER----� 3/4' BLACKTOP PA160Ua LOT A SPRINKLER ZONE #1 BASIN TING CATCH COURT SPRINKLER ZONE #2 0 _.ry— / FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION 1�- FORCE EXISTING 11FT sTATON OLACK1Q PLAY AREA MECHANICAL DRAWING INDEX ORAMINO NO. DRAMS TTELEI 700 MECHANICAL STE PLAN. DRAWING INDEX, SCHEDULES AND DETAILS 701 PARRAL MECHANICAL FLOOR PUNS 702 MUSIC CENTER FLOOR PLANS 703 AREA 'A' FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 704 AREA '9' FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 1. VERIFY ALL VOWING CONDITIONS BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. 2. IF STRUCTURAL MCOIFICA71ON5 ARE REQUIRED N ORDER TO INSTALL ANY PORTION OF THE NEW WORK, NOTIFY THE PROJECT ARCHITECT TO OBTAIN APPROVAL 6EFOR PROCEEDING. VERIFY EXACT LOCATION OF ALL NEW AND EXISTING MECHANICAL EWVIPLRNT IN CONSTRUCTION AREAS. 4. COORDINATE WORK 1111H ALL OTHER BUILDING TRADES ON THE PROJECT. 5. EXECUTE CARE AND CAUTION NOT TO DAMAGE EXISTING EQUIPMENT OR OTHER APNO SYSTEMS, WALLS AND SURFACES NOT RELATED TO THE SCOPE OF THIS WORN. ANY DAMAGE DONE TO SUCH ITEMS 0R EQUIPMENT. PIANO ETC. SHALL BE REPAIRED TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION AT N0 A001110NN. COST TO SHE OVMER BY THIS CONTRACTOR. a PROVIOE ALL CUOMO AND PATCHING AS NECESSARY FOR REQUIRED FLOOR AND WALL OsENINOS RELATED TO THIS RO E, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 7. FELD VERIFY EXACT LOCATION AND ROUTING OF ALL NEW PIPING. INSTALL NEW PIPING TO MISS 00511N0 ELECTRICAL CONDUIT AND EX181010 PIPING SYSTEMS. PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY PIPING OFFSETS, ELBOWS ETC. REWIRED TO AOOOMPUS H THE INSTALLATION. O. COORDINATE LOCATION OF ALL HVAC AND FIRE PROTECTION PIPING MTH PUAIBIN0 AND ELECTRICAL CONDUIT AND LIGHT FIXTURES MINN COLUNO SPACES AND MERE EXPOSED. 1F ANY PORTICO 0f DIE WORK N101FT ES MTN THESE SYSTEMS IT SHALL BE BROUOBT TO THE ATTENTION 3 IIHE PROJECT ARCHITECT MMEDIAIELY FOR A DEO510. S. CORE DRILL AND FIRE SEAL AROUND ALL PIPE PENETRATIONS DROWN FLOOR. EX18TIN0 GAS SERVICE EXISTING 6' WATER SERVICE SS 0- 4 NEW 6' WATER SERVICE FOR BLDG. FIRE PROTECTION BY SITE UTILITIES CONTRACTOR TO INSIDE BUILDING 1'-0' ABOVE TUNNE6 FLOOR. EXISTING Sr VW SANITARY SERVICE p G C STONEBRIDGE ELEMENTARY REMODELING AND MUSIC CENTER A ADDITION STILLWATER, MINNESOTA '11691f BWBR ARCHITECTS 400 Sibley, Street, Suite 500 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 1312-222-3701 Consultants COOLEY ERICKSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1200 METROPOLITAN CENTRE 333 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET MINNEAPOUS, MN 55402 FAX: 612-339-2354 ICU 612-339-4941 COMM, N0. BW3015 I h.My naafi NW WA pm, MIn4w M„ eat w, me.a by OARS Am my end AeAWIm ere WI I a. a 44 UPAeM DOUR mM dw bow o1 Um Tab M R.ISOTA Name 110,44 Date I/24/31 Reg ITo' 12018 Mead Far Item PROGRESS SET Date 12/11/9b QA SET 14/91 CD ISSUE 1/24/91 Date JAN 24, 1991 Drawn ESJL Comm. No. 9505302 Cleck.d JF81 Sheet Tice MECHANICAL SITE PLAN, DRAWING INDEX, SCHEDULES AND DETAILS GAS PiPE SUPPORT DETAIL 3 NO WALE QMECHANICAL SITE PLAN 1' . ED.o' 3 34 NORTH 6 7 Sheet No. 700 4w1W I.I AMID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 bl 1 C R A B C 0 MSC CLASORCCH *CM t 0 t0t0 0 a u u • Irlll�. oa* a etif $me etit $0. 0.41 ,4—b ij t0 40 +0 4T�T t0 +0 Ili 1;3 L, 1 i 11) Q PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR LIGHTING PLAN — MUSIC CLASSROOM • PANELBOARD SCHEDULES Panel Schedule LP-1-1 3 Phase 4 Wire Voltage LL, 208 Voltage LG. 120 OC Devices, MO Day Fans ly, DOLT ON Mounting, MEIN 1 Enclosure, FLUSH Comments, This Rating. 100 Ca lc. Fault Current, AIC Rating, 10000 Ckt Location ion/ Load Remarks Devi co Dry co Remarks Lood Descript l on/ Ckt Na Location Type Amps P Amps P Type Location No 1 3 5 97 11 13 1520 17 19 21 233 227 2299 3335 7 39 41 GENERAL RECEPTACLES COMPUTER RECEPTACLE REC - CLASSRM C103 - CLASSRM C103 REElIC ENO SPSPARE SPARE SPARE SPARE SPAARRE SPARE S1 PARE SPARE WARE SPARE SPARE RC CE RC RC OE 0E Sp SP SP SP SPP SP SSP $8 SP SP SP 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 2020 20 80 20 80 80 20 20 80 A B C A B C A B C 8 C A B C A0 C A C II 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 80 20 20 20 20 20 CO 20 LT LT LT LT LT SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP V SP SP S0 VP EGRESS LIGHTING LIGHTING LIGHTING LIGHTING LIGHTING SPARE SPARE SPARE SPIRE SPARE SPARE SPARE SPARC SPARE SPARE SSPPAARE SPARE SPARE SPPAARE 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 III EC 22 84 28 30 30 3434 36 38 4E Panel Schedule LP-1-2 3 Phase 4 Win Voltage LL, ROO Voltage LG. t20 OC Devices, MLD Doty rani ly. BOLT ON Mounting, NEIM 1 EnClosurr, FLUSH Comments. Sus Rating. 60 Catc, Fault Current, AIC Rating, 10000 Ckt Description/ Load Remarks Device Device Remarks Load Description/ Ckt No Location Typo Ares P e Amps P Type Location No 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 17 21 83 EUR 1 ERR 1 EMI 1 ENt 2,3,4 E0R 2,3,4 ERR 2,3,4 SPARE SPARE SPARE SPARE SPARE SPARE HT HT HT HT NT HT SP SP SSp SP SP 20 X X 20 X X 20 20 20 20 20 3 A B C 3 A B C A I C A C 30 X X 80 X X 80 20 20 20 20 3 3 HT HT HT HT HT HT SP SP SP SP SVP ECH 1 ECH 1 ECH I ECH 2 ECH 2 ECM 2 SPARE SPARE SPARE SPARE SPAARE 2 4 6 I 10 12 14 16 1e 20 8844 DOTS I BID 0 PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR POWER AND SYSTEMS PLAN - MUSIC CLASSROOM FEEDER SCHEDULE e MIA a11112•Hq 0 r c. 352/0 Oi 1 1/r C. 40 0 1"C.401 GENERAL NOTES A. REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND ELEVATION DRAWING FOR COORDINATION OF ALL ELECTRICAL DEVICES. B. FOR EXACT LOCATIONS CF UGHT FIXTURES, REFER TO AND COORDINATE WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL REFLECTED CEIUNO PLAN. C. COORDINATE FIXTURE LOCATIONS WITH STRUCTURAL AND MECHANICAL TRADES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. REFER TO SPECIFICATION SECTION 1601G. O . REFER TO THE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS AND C00R01NATE MTH MOON 15 FOR EXACT LOCATIONS OF MECHANICAL COMMENT. E. INSTALL ALL CONDUIT 1O ROOFTOP EOIEPMINT THROUGH ROOF CURBS TO A1/010 ADDITIONAL ROOF PENE1RAn2145. F. ROUTE ALL CIRCUITS TO NEW PANEL LP-I-1 UNLESS MOMS( NOTED. REY NOTES O COMBINATION DAMPER. MAKE CONTROL CONNECTION FROM DUCT SNORE DETECTOR TO ELECTRIC ACTUATOR CONTROL OF DAMPER. PRINCE TORN /2101 PHOTOCELL FOR CONTROL OF TYPE 'C' WALL PACK FIXTURES ROUTE TO UNDERCARNET UGHT FIXTURE ABOVE SEE DETAIL 1 ON THIS SHEET. PROVIDE JUNCTION 90X IN WALL 11111 1/3' EMPTY CONDUIT INTO CEILING SPACE FOR MINER FURNISHED SPEAKER AND WIRING. PRONOE COVER PLATE MTH 1/2' OPENING. O PROVIDE JUNCTION BOX AT 16' AND AT SO' WITH i' EMPTY CONDUIT BETWEEN BOXES AND 1' EMPTY COIOUIT INTO CEILING SPACE. PROVIDE BLANK COVER PLATE • EXISTING MAW O3 PARTIAL RISER DIAGRAM ,O SCALE PARTIAL RISER DIAGRAM KEY IIiOTE$ 1 PROVIDE 100A SNITCH MTH 700A FUSES FOR FIRE PUMP. MOUNT ADJACENT TO MAIN SWIT0H80ARO. 5 TAP SMTCHBOARD AHEAD OF THE MAIN SNATCH FOR FIRE PUMP FEEDER. *UTUZE 0051110 SPARE 100A SNITCH IN MAIN S$TCHBOARD FOR FEEDER TO NEW PANEL LP-1-2. VREPLACE EM51NU0 SPARE 30A %ITCH IN MAN SMTCHBOARD WITH e0A SWITCH FOR FEEDER TO NEW PANEL LP-1-1. 0 12 0 STONEBRIDGE ELEMENTARY REMODELING AND MUSIC CENTER A ADDITION STILLWATER, MINNESOTA WW1 BWBR ARCHITECTS 400 Sibley Street, Suite 500 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 512-222-3701 CaWtentS MICHAUD COOLEY ERICKSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1200 METIOPOUTAN CENTRE 333 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET MI NNCMOUS. MN 66402 FAX 615-376-6554 TEU 015-336-4641 COMM. N0. BW3015 I ea4Y to* Yeapn Mrea a opal w Rowel I, as ea,M wry *al al eat l fJa ar SOWN blear a,MI,II,e NWr Iwo M limo Nem Date 10411 haled Far 11an QA CHECK SET 1/16,31 Dote PLUME V24/9'1 Date JA114,1591 mom PAZM Comm. Na *663D1 Chocked TAP Wet TAM PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR MUSIC CLASSROOM PLANS - N AREA 'A' B 5 1 T 3 4 5 6 beat Na 922 Owl%MI Awls