HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 07-31 Special MeetingAGENDA
Maplewood City Council
7:00 P.M., Thursday, July 31, 1980
Municipal Administration Building
Meeting 80 -19
f
Vii:" : '�•.. -.. -
MEMORAN
TO.: Ci Manager
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Rezoning
LOCATION: Cope Avenue and Kennard Street
APPLICANT: Multi -P1 ex Developer's, Inc.
OWNER: Reuben and Melinda Ri strom
PROJECT: Maple Park Shores
DATE:. July 2, 1980
Request
Approval of a rezoning from R -1 (single dwelling residence), BC (Business Commercial),
and LBC (Limited Business Commercial) to R -3C (multiple townhouses).
Site Description
Refer to enclosed maps for location and property lines.
Average: 3.7 acres.
Existing Land Use: a drainage pond, single- dwelling house, and two-garages.
Surrounding Land Uses
Northerly: Cope Avenue. North of Cope Avenue is undeveloped land zoned M -1, light
manufacturing and planned for LSC, limited service commercial use.
Easterly: Undeveloped Kennard Street right -of -way. East - -of Kennard Street is undeveloped
land on Cope Avenue zoned LBC and planned for RL , residential lower density use.
North of Lark Avenue are single- dwelling homes.
Southerly: Undeveloped Lark Avenue right -of -way. South of Lark Avenue is undeveloped
land that is under condemnation for park land.
Westerly: A drainage pond known as "Knucklehead Lake . The remainder of the property
is und condemnation for park land.
Proposed Land Use
24 townhouse units. Refer to enclosed site plan.
Dnc+ A^ +;.,
9- 27 -75: The City acquired the easement for "Knucklehead Lake".
8- 30 -62: Council vacated the east -west alley.
2- 15 -73: Council ordered a f e a s i b i l i t y study for the construction of Kennard Street,
between Lark Avenue and Cope Avenue. Council then rezoned the easterly 250 feet of Lot 1,
Block 7, plus the north half of the vacated alley to LBC.
5 -3 -73: The Kennard Street project was found feasible and a hearing was set for June 7.
6-7-73: Council did not order the project.
11- 14 -74: The "Ma0 ewood Municipal Facilities Study" was completed by Tol tz , King,
Duvall, Anderson and Associates, Inc. The study recommends that a 21 acre site at
Hazelwood Avenue and Cope Avenue be the site for a civic center complex, which would
include a city hall and multi- purpose recreation center. A site plan by the consultant
is enclosed. Note that a city hall is shown on the Applicant's site. The consultant
further recommended that the multi- purpose recreation center be constructed at this
location, even if a city hall were located elsewhere.
3-24-75: The Planning Commission made the following recommendation:
A need presently exists for expanded facilities for City administrative, public safety,
and public works facilities. While it is very desirable to establish a s i nql e unified
complex, the commission recommends the following actions listed i n order of priority:
a. Investigate expansion of the present City Hall site by acquisition of additional
.properties
b. Acquire Gladstone School and maintain present City Hall as a public safety building
c. Acquire the Cope /Hazelwood site and maintain present City Hall as a public safety
building
The Commission also expressed concern about the growth and projected municipal personnel
by the year 1995 and recommended that the City Council review these projections with
regard to the need to go from the present ratio of 2.86 per 1000 to the projected
ratio of 4.75 per 1000 population in comparison with the 6 other communities referenced
on page 4 -7 of the Maplewood Municipal Facilities Study report.
4 -3 -75: Council reviewed a recommendation from the Planning Commission on the Municipal
Facilities Study and returned it to the Commission for a more in depth recommendation.
4- 22 -75: The Community Design Review Board recommended to the City Council the Frost
Avenue and English Street site for both Public Works facility and Municipal Administrative
Center. Further, it was recommended that the multi-purpose recreational facility not be
a part of the City development plans at this time, but land should be provided for this
use. The reasons for this site selection are as follows:
1. There is a greater need to develop the neighborhood concept of parks and playgrounds
so that youngsters can use the facilities without ",".10tori zed transportati on. rather
than develop a r,u ti - purpose recreational facility
2. The southwest corner of English and Frost was given too low of a rating. On Page
7 -19 there are four items that account for the difference between the ratings of sites
C and F. They are: centrality, community image, - aesthetics., and the Comprehensive
Plan. All other items of the ratings are the same as the site selected by the consultant
at Cope and Hazelwood. The Board feels that Site F, English and Frost, should be given
about the same rating as Site C. Cope and Hazelwood
3. The existing warehouse buildings on Site F could serve 'as an interim facility for
Public Works maintenance storage facilities
4. It is close to the existing City Hall which is the proposed Public Safety building
5. The Community -wide accessibility is quite good and would be improved if English
Street was extended north beyond Highway 36
5
6.. The s i'te is large enough., flat, and highly developable
7. The site is adjacent to an existing City park which is proposed to be expanded
8. Surrounding land uses are compatible. Use of Site F will stimulate Gladstone
Commercial area
9. It has many existing trees which could be retained
10. The improvement of Frost Avenue and Trunk Highway 61 intersection would aid in the
accessibility of the maintenance equipment to this part of the City
11. By acquiring this site, the City would not be taking land off the tax rolls
because it is the understanding of the Board that Site F is owned by Burlington Northern
who does not pay real estate tax
The Board further recommended that Site C, Cope and Hazelwood be approved as the
alternate location for the Administrative Center and multi-purpose recreation facility
as access would be better for high density traffic. The Public Works garage to be
located at White Bear and County Road B.
The Board recommended the following priorities:
1. Construction of new Public Works facility
2. Construction of Administrative Center
3. Conversion of existing Ci ty Hall to Public Safety Building
5 -5 -75: The Planning Commission made a finding that thiey "fai 1 ed to see the need for
b u i l d i n g a multi-purpose recreational facility, due to the apparent need for a large
number of other i terns which have a higher priority. The Commission felt that the need
for such a facility has not been demonstrated to the Commission's satisfaction in the
Community Facilities report. The Planning Commission does not anticipate construction
of the multi-purpose recreational facility within the next 15 years. If prior to that
time undeveloped land is being acquired for City Hall, it might be advisable to acquire
additional acreage at the site for such a multi'-purpose recreational facility, in the
event such facility should be contemplated in the future.
There is no record of any further action on the Municipal Facilities Study.
Planning
1. Land Use Plan Designation: Rm, residential medium density. This allows a maximum
density of 22 people /net acre
2. Proposed density: 21.4 people /net acre,
3. Existing Zoning: BC, LBC, and R -1 (see enclosed property l i n e map)
4. Proposed Zoning: R -3C, multiple (townhouses)
5. As stated in the "Past Actions" section, this site is part of a larger area planned
for a civic center consisting of a City Hall and multi-purpose recreational facility.
One of the housing objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is' to encourage and plan
9 p
for a wide variety of housing types (p.46). The Plan further suggests the
®
following housing mix:
Maximum Multiple Family Dwelling Units
Maximum Townhouse Dwelling Units .
Maximum Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Minimum Single Family Dwel linq Units
Total housinn. units
Number of Percent of
Dwelling Units Total
At Complete Housing 1979
revel oprnent Units Estimates
4
17%
20%
5
20%
4%
700
3%
5%
15
60
71 %
25
100%
100%
As you can see, only 4% of our present housing stock are townhouse or quad units.
Since 1978, the City has approved or is considering plans for an additional 392
townhouse -quad units in the Beaver Lake area and another 132 units south of
Mai land Road. If all of these units were bui 1 t, the total number of townhouse
or quad units in the City would be only 10% of the total housing units in the
City. This-is only half of the maximum of 20% suggested i n - t h e Land Ilse Plan.
Publi Works
1. Sanitary sewer and water are available,
2. City staff will be requesting additional pondi ng area, as part of the site plan
review process. This would change the proposed site plan and probably reduce the
number of units.
Parks
The Maplewood Park and Open Space Study, done by Bauer and Associated, Inc. in 1974,
proposes that the site be included with surroundin property to form a 20 acre park
called Cope Street Park. This park would include pl ayf i el ds , skating, play structures ,
trails, and picnic areas,
The Park and Recreation Commission has approved an update of the parks plan. This update
has not been approved by the Council yet. This update has dropped the proposed rezoning.
site from the Cope Street Park,
Public Safety
Public Safety. prefers a "flow-through" driveway. If this is not possible, they p refer
access to be limited to Cope Avenue. Two different access points off two different
streets may be confusing for emergency vehicles.
Citizen Comments
Staff conducted a survey of the property owners within 350 feet of the site. Of the
10 replies received, two had no objections, one had no comment, and 7 objected. The
following objections were received:
1. Object to putting Kennard Street through
2. No objection to the townhouses, but object to the site plan, as it precludes the
future extension of Lark Avenue, west of Kennard Street
4
3. Noise and traffic. Kennard and Lark would become "main drags" in and out of the
townhouse project
4. Prefer single-dwelling. "There-would be no limit to the number of townhomes built in
the area"
5. Loss of natural beauty around the pond. Residents would lose access to the pond
area
6. Object to extension of Lark Avenue
7. Prefer two driveways onto Cope Avenue, rather than Lark
8. Object to proposed park
Alternatives
1. Approve the rezoning as requested. This would increase the variety of housing, but
would cause a limited i ncrease in traffic through the neighborhood.
29 Approve the rezoning, with access limited to Cope Avenue: This would increase the
pp • neighborhood. The rezoning
variety of housing and eliminate nate any traffic through the ne q g
would, however, eliminate some commercial development on Cope Avenue.
3. Deny the rezoning: This would restrict development to two s i ngl a -dwel 1 i nn homes
and commercial development nn Cope Avenue : The second house would require the
construction of Kennard Street or Lark Avenue. This does not seem likely.
4. Deny the rezoning and authorize staff to begin negotiati to purchase the site
as part of the adjacent land for a future City Hall .
Recommendation
Approval of the rezoning, with access limited to Cope Avenue. Approval is subject to
Council making the decision that the City will not be acquiring that site.
. - - .
Acs cn by �
Location Map
Property Line Map
Proposed Civic Center Site Plan
Rezoning Petition
Applicant's Justification
Townhouse Site Plan
Ell
► 9011 c �S I
S* 0 Sp
e.
10 11 12
i3
v DI
P'O
ti .0 0 j
.40-dow -NNW
Ob
—AMA.
JIL
Lui
.kill-
Ir or
-Ail dF
Ir E;
or 41
.... ..... .
jo6&W
OY
.110
LARKES AVE.
Oft
dow�
LAURIE ROA D,I %
?.c 7
Z
P ,
<
z
z
uj
V.V
-I TS
PETITIONER multi Developers, Inc
I jnc
REQUEST Zone Change
2. Propert Line Map
PONDING AREA
4
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER
REZONE PETITION �
:1. d, Z g `47 (PETITION
7J
Imo: rNNI
Sr, pousL,
We, the undersigned property owners collectively represent 50% or more of the
• adjoining property owners within :2Q0 feet" of the requested rezone property described
on the' "attached application in accordance with Section 915.010 of the Maplewood
Municipal Code.
We petition the Maplewood City. Council for a change in official zonin classification
on the attached described property from zoning to _ S —C
zoning. �O YYI �GhG l l�l. � U l,.TiQL�
Our names can be verified, as legal constituted land owners, on the certified abstract
(listing owners of land within 350 feet of the requested rezone area) which is required
to be;filed in conjunction with the rezone application and this petition.
The written signature of any person's name on this petition is indication of _that
-person's understandirkg of the proposed zone, the proposed location and an endorse-
ment for approval - •of ., such -.change,
ABSTRACT CERT.
SIGNATURE PRINT ;NAME LIST No.
l 2 i�3 f4 .z
t
PA 0
A"
11
t(0
...........
f,
�j
;C4* d i s Justification outline
Justification for changing existing zoning conform `s with City of
ustifi g � g g
Maplewood's long range land use plan. Developer' feel area can be
best served by a mixture of commercial property and multiple re s idenc ial
property. This can be just ified.by attached petition, signed by over
5 of the certified propery owners*
i
.
r
n
A
C
0
F Multi -Plex Developers, Inc.
TITIONER
E UEST Zone Change
Proposed Site Plan
4'
a
0
B. Rezoning: Cope and Kennard (Multi -plex)
Secretary Olson said the applicant is requesting approval of a
zone change from R -1 BC, and LBC to R -3C0 Staff is recommending that
the Planning Commission table this item until the Council has had an
opportunity to make a decision on the City Hall site.
Commissioner Ki shel moved that the Planning Commission table this
item for two weeks . to give the City Council an opportunity to consider
site locations for a civic site.
Commissioner Whitcomb seconded ayes - all.
One of the housing objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan
is to encourage
and plan
for a wide variety of housing types
(P.46). The Plan
further suggests
the
following housing mix:
Number of
Percent of
Dwelling Units
Total
At Complete
Housing
1979 .
bevel o ment
Units Estimates
Maximum Multiple Family Dwelling Units
4
17%
20%
. Maximum Townhouse Dwelling Units
5
20%
4%
Maximum Mobile Home Dwelling Units
700
3%
5%
Mi nimum ' Si ngle Family Dwel i i nq Units
15,300
60%
71 %
Total housing - units
25 500
100
100
As you can see, only 4% of our present housing stock are townhouse or quad units,
Since 1978, the City has approved or is considering plans for an additional 392
townhouse -quad units in the Beaver Lake area and another 132 units south of
Mai 1 and Road. If all of these units were built, the total number of townhouse
or quad units in the City would be only 10% of the total housing units in the
City. This-is only half of the maximum of 20% suggested in the Land Ilse Plan.
Publi i1orks
1. Sanitary sewer and water are available.
2. City staff will be requesting additional pondi ng area, as part of the site plan
review process. This would change the proposed site plan and probably reduce the
number of units.
Parks
The Maplewood Park and Open Space Study, done by Bauer and Associated, Inc. in 1974,
proposes that the site be included with surrounding property to form a 20 acre park
called Cope Street Park. This park would include pl ayf i el ds , skating, play structures,
trails, and picnic areas,
The Park and Recreation Commission has approved an update of the parks plan. This update
has not been approved by the Council yet. This update has dropped the proposed rezoning
site from the Cope Street Park,
Public Safety
Public Safety prefers a "flow-through" driveway. If this is not possible, they prefer
access to be limited to Cope Avenue. Two different access points off two different
streets may be confusing for emergency vehicles.
Citizen Comments
Staff conducted a survey of the property owners within 350 feet of the site. Of the
10 replies received, two had no objections, one had no comment, and 7 objected. The
following objections were received:
1. Object 'to putting Kennard Street through
2. No objection to the townhouses, but object to the site plan, as it precludes the
future extension of Lark Avenue, west of Kennard Street
3. Noise and traffic. Kennard and Lark would become "main drags" in and out of the
townhouse project
4. Prefer single-dwelling. "There would be no limit to the number of townhomes built in
the area"
5. Loss of natural beauty around the pond. Residents would lose access to the pond
area
6. Object to extension of Lark Avenue
7. Prefer two driveways onto Cope Avenue, rather than Lark
8. Object to proposed park
Alternatives
1. Approve the rezoning as requested. This would increase the variety of housing, but
would cause a limited increase in traffic through the neighborhood.
2. Approve the rezoning, with access limited to Cope Avenue: This would increase the
variety of housing and eliminate any traffic through the neighborhood. The rezoning
would, however, eliminate some commercial development on Cope Avenue.
30 Deny the rezoni Thi would restrict development to two single - dwelling homes
and commercial development on Cope Avenue. The second house would require the
construction of Kennard Street or Lark Avenue. This does not seem likely.
4. Deny the rezoning and authorize staff to begin negotiations to purchase the site
as part of the adjacent land for a future City Hall.
Recommendation
r_ -12 - - - - - - - -
Action by ( Co
Location Map
Property Line Map
Proposed Civic Center Site Plan
Rezoning Petition
Applicant's Justification
Townhouse Site Plan
E I10 o e%7
Y. - 1 i -..-�
Re j ecte
Dat e
5
St O 3 O.
o.
Al-
;0
1 _ t( ,
1'� 1 .2s
v
0.,
12 13
memo
- — — L A R K ■■ A:.V E : .
0
IQ � 7
' , 16 ,
^ 7
•
Sv
v
%J ,.. �.
` C ���.c
..!
t o ♦
�_,
w
- 40-
loom 1�
-E•--
- -
'
Nut
mom
ix
w
V)
'— _. MM
,.
,.
O•
-
Ml ,
� ~Z4 '
,
i
AUL
JA I
Wvf
� MAU
�►Ir
��- _
_JILL �-
_ �
- - ..►�. c
•�
j,�,
.1
/ 1 Yom.
\ �J�
JL
Mul.-
1
; T
L .
t
♦1111 �-•w_.r•�
.J
_�1J it
-
- � - - - ._.s
- �
• -�
WR
Ir
SEPT X175
�
-- -� - - �/
' • •
- — — L A R K ■■ A:.V E : .
0
IQ � 7
' , 16 ,
^ 7
•
Sv
..!
t o ♦
�
C i�� w
w
- 40-
i
-E•--
- -
'
Cr
ix
w
O•
r '
t i�
C4 r
GNW
LAURIE ROAD
P 11% �� j ;•
ro 1.0
X00 z
PETITIONER Plex Developers, Inc
REQUEST Zone Change
2. Property Line Map
PONDING AREA
4
a
.
eat ronuo '
'o
s
665
376 _ _ �._. ` , � � •.� 289
l
w holdtn9 pond • .
��• ti t
C A-
427- '' �' � -I
1S6' • -� '
tS
_ - - - - - -- - lark wV wo Oc
Multi -Plex Developers, Inc.
PETITIONER
REQUEST Zone Change
Proposed Site Plan
4
a
C "
G
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Public Works
DATE: July 28, 1980
SUBJECT: ASSESSMENTS: DISEASED SHADE TREE
CONTROL PROGRAM - PROJECT 79 -6
At the June 19, 1980 meeting, the Council ordered the pre-
paration of the assessment role and established a July 31,
1980, hearing date.
Attached is a summary of the project cost and financing. It
is proposed that the assessments be payable in 5 annual instal-
lments. Installments to bear interest at the rate of eight
(8) percent per annum from the date of the adoption of the
assessment roll.
It is recommended that the assessment rol�..be adopted at
the. July 31, 1980 meeting. This sets August 1, 1980 as the
beginning of the 30 day interest free period and the beginning
of the 30 day appeal period established by State Statutes.
Charges in the assessment roll can be made by specific
resolution after review of hearing comments.
attach.
wLB /mn
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Public works
SUBJECT: Diseased Shade Tree Program, Project 79 -6
Assessment Roll
DATE: June 12, 1980
It is recommended the Council order the preparation of the
assessment roll for this project and establish a public
hearing for July 31, 19800
It is recommended the roll be prepared as follows:
% of total removal cost
Trees removed on private property 50%
Trees removed on boulevards 40%
Grant ineligible properties (income) 100%
The attached provides a comparison of the proposed assessment
with that of the previous two years. The City has received
44% of total project cost in State Aid (50% of eligible cost) .
This percentage is considerably higher than - in previous years.
The proposal calls for less direct City subsidy of the assess-
ments.
Action by Council
Endcrscd
Mo di f i e d�_
Rejected .,.�.,
Date 6 9 6
NOTICE OF HEARING ON ASSESSMENT
NOTICE IS. HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota
will meet in the Council Chambers; in the Municipal Building, at 1380 Frost
Avenue, 7:30 p.m. C.D. S.T. , on July 31, 1980, to hear all persons concerning
the adoption of the assessment roll for Public Improvement Project No. 79 -6,
Shade Tree Disease Control Program, and to adopt the assessment roll as pre-
sented or amended. This hearing is scheduled pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429. The assessment roll as herein described is on file in the office
. of - the City Clerk. '
All persons who wish to be heard, or to object, with reference to
this matter may present their cases at this hearing, either orally or in
writing .
An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to M.S.A.
Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon' the Mayor or City Clerk of
the City of Maplewood within t i r t ( 3 0 ) days of ter the adoption of the assessment
and by f iling such notice with the District Court within ten (10) days of ter
.service upon the Mayor or City Clerk.
DEFERMENT OF ASSESSMENTS: Under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 435.193 to 435.195 the City may, at its discretion, defer the payment
of assessments for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age
or older for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. The procedures
for applying for such deferment are available from the City Clerk.
Area to 'be assessed is within the corporate limits of the City of Maplewood.
Dated this 19 day of June 1980.
Lu ille E. Aurelius City Clerk
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
This hearing is your last opportunity to be heard with regard to this assessment.
If you have any questions regarding your assessment, please call -the Engineering
Department at 770- 4550..
SPECIAL-ASSESSMENT-
FOR
REMOVAL-OF DISEASED SHADE TREES
MAPLEWOOD PROJECT NO. 79 -6
INCHES IN
WORK PERFORMED, NUMBER DIAMETER COST
Trees Removed - Stumps Ground.Out $
Trees Removed - Stumps Debarked
Stumps Removed
Wood Pieces or Piles Hauled Away
TOTAL TREE REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL COST $
City /State Grant -in -Aid
Private Tree @50%
Boulevard Tree @ 60%
YOUR ' TOTAL" ASSESSMENT $
Your assessment may be paid without interest from August 1, 1980 through August 30,
1980 at the Maplewood City Hall, 1380 Frost Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota 55109.
.Th will b the only statement you will receive. Please include the number -at the
lower right of this. on your. check " and correspondence.
PROJECT 79 -
ASSESSMENT ROLL SUMMARY
Total Project Costs
State Aid Revenues
Assessment Revenue
*City Cost
Total
July 28, 1980
$70,975.49
31,109.01
33,282
6, 583.92
$70,975.49
Percent of Total Removal Cost Paid by Property Owner
Tree Removed on Private Property 500
Tree Removed on Boulevard 400
Grant Ineligible Tree (Income
Property) 100%
* Includes cost of removal of trees on,, C� ty owned property
PROJECT 79 -6
COST SUMMARY
Payments to Contractor
Inspection Aid Project Management
Legal Aid Fiscal
Sub Total
Capitalized Interest (5.50)
Total
$37,698.02
28,918.60
6 58.73
$67,275.35
3,700.14
$70,975.49
June 12, 1980
% of Total Removal Cost Paid by Property Owner
Tree Removed on Private Property 50% 52.2% 43.5%
Tree Removed on Boulevard 40% 50 % 43.5%
Inelligible Tree (Income) 100% 100 % 100 %
Removal Cost for Average Tree (18"
on Private Property)
Total Removal Cost 166.79 131.41 93.63
Cost Paid by Property Owners 83.39 68.80 40.72
(1) Includes cost of tree removal on city owned property
(2) Estimate
0,
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
WITH THAT OF PREVIOUS TWO
YEARS
.1979 PROJECT
1978
1977
PROPOSED'
PROJECT
PROJECT
TOTAL PROJECT COST
70,576
116,740
207,486
State Aid Revenues
31,109
33,066
53,817
Assessment Revenues
33,230 (2)
65,380
128,723
City Costs (1)
6,237 (2)
18,294
26,946
Total
70,576
116,
209,486
% of Total Removal Cost Paid by Property Owner
Tree Removed on Private Property 50% 52.2% 43.5%
Tree Removed on Boulevard 40% 50 % 43.5%
Inelligible Tree (Income) 100% 100 % 100 %
Removal Cost for Average Tree (18"
on Private Property)
Total Removal Cost 166.79 131.41 93.63
Cost Paid by Property Owners 83.39 68.80 40.72
(1) Includes cost of tree removal on city owned property
(2) Estimate
0,
e•
ey
9
A
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Public Works
DATE: July 28, 1980
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: DETERRED ASSESSMENTS
A hearing on the deterred assessments for the following pro-
jects has been scheduled for July 31, 19800
WLB /mn
AMOUNT OF DETERRED
PROJECT
ASSESSMENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION
Sanitary Sewer No.
1
D/P
39
12,895.25
Sanitary Sewer No.
2
D/P
45
41,575.34
Sanitary Sewer No.
3
D/P
49
32,626.75
Sanitary Sewer No.
5
D/P
52
1,091040
Sanitary Sewer No.
5 -2
D/P
53
5,591.20
Sanitary Sewer No.
5 -4
D/P
55
12,960.00
Water Improvement
No. 1
D/P
62
960.30
Sanitary Sewer No.
6 -1
D/P
67
1
..Sanitary Sewer No.
6 -2
D/P
68
17,382.75
Sewer /Water No, 1
D/P
70
393.00
Water Improvement
No. 2
D/P
73
933.08
Water Improvement
No. 3
D/P
77
5
Water Improvement
No, 4
D/P
87
42
Water Improvement
No. 5
D/P
95
1
Sanitary Sewer No.
8
D/P
96
2,791.25
Water Improvement
No. 6
D/P
108
712.05
Sanitary Sewer No.
7
D/P
115
2,384.00
Water Improvement
No. 7
D/P
116
1
Water Improvement
68 -2
D/P
130
9
Water Improvement
68 -3
D/P
131
150.00
Sanitary Sewer 68 -1
D/P
144
3,766.78
Sanitary Sewer 68 -2
D/P
145
= •4,972.18
County Road "C"
D/P
158
20,220.15
Cope Utilities
D/P
159
52,704.53
Water Improvement
24
D/P
160
871.00
Cope Street
D/P
161
6.5,065.02
Sanitary Sewer lA
D/P
162
2
Sanitary Sewer 3A
D/P
164
1 1 263.14
Water Improvement
69 -1
D/P
165
1,517.26
Water Improvement
70 -28
D/P
180
7,347.78
Sanitary Sewer 71 -2
D/P
193
8
Water Improvement
73 -1
D/P
218
31,453.82
$ 392,461.73
WLB /mn
NOTICE OF HEARING
FOR DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota, deems
it necessary and expedient that the previously deferred assessments on the following
project now be collected,
NOW, THEREFORE, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota,
will meet in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 1380 Frost Avenue, at 7:30 P.M. on
July 31, 1980, to hear all persons concerning the adoption of the assessment roll in said
deferred assessments and to adopt the assessment roll as presented or amended. This
hearing is scheduled pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. The assessment roll
as herein described is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Deferred assessments are to be collected on the following project:
Code loo.
All perscns who wish to be heard, or to object, with reference to this matter may
present their cases at this hearing either orally or in writing.
An owner may appeal an assessment to District Court pursuant to M.S.A. Section
429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk the City of
Maplewood within thirty (30) days after the adoption of the assessment and by filing
such notice with the District Court within ten (10) days after service upon the Mayor
or City Clerk..
Deferment of Assessments: Under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section
435.193 to 435.195, the City may, at its descretion, defer the payment of assessments
for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older for whom it would
be a hardship to make the payments. The procedures for applying for such deferment are
available from the%City Clerk.
The amount of your previously deferred assessment is $
Dated this 9th day of July, 1980.
Lucille E. Aurelius
City Clerk
City of Maplewood
Your assessment may be paid without interest from August 1, 1980 to September 1,
1980 at the City Hall.
This is an important hearing because this is your last opportunity to be heard on
the matter of this assessment which affects your property. If you have any questions
regarding this assessment, please call the City Clerk's Office at 770 -4521.
MEMORANDUM
TO City Manager
FROM : Finance Director
RE July 31st Public Hearing - Special Deferred Assessments
DATE July 18, 1980
When the Council reviews the special deferments that have been granted in
the past on various improvement project assessment rolls, the financial
implications of continuing these deferments should be carefully considered.
Continuance of the special deferments could eventually result i n extra tax levies that would be needed to replace the speci assessment i nstallments
that would have been collected if the special deferments had . not been
granted. Exactly when these extra tax levies would be needed is impossi
to determine without detailed cash projections for each bond issue and
assessment roll. that would encompass the period over which the bonds and
assessments are payable. However, each year when the City's budget is
prepared cash projections are prepared to determine if extra tax levies
are needed. In recent years, no extra tax levies have been made due to
special deferments on special assessments.
Another .factor that should be considered is that most of these special
deferred assessments are not charged interest. This lost interest revenue
could amount to over $400,000 as indicated in the attached excerpt from
the 1979 audit report. Even if some special deferments are continued, it
is recommended that the Council change the City's policy so that interest
will begin to accrue on these assessments.
Also attached is a copy of Schedule 7 from the 1979 Annual Financial Report
which indicates that the special deferred assessments _ "total $797,974. This
amount is broken down by bond issue. Discontinuance of the special defer-
ments on the assessment rolls for the older bond issues is more important
as the final payments on these bonds are due in the near future.
cc: City Attorney
Public Works Director
City Clerk
�C �
ASSESSMENT HEARING
REQUEST FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: Please fill out this form if you intend to request the City Council to defer, cancel,
or revise your assessment. To allow time for proper evaluation of your request, please submit the
form to the City Engineer, 1380 Frost Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota 55109, as soon as Possible and
no later than August 9, 1980. You may also present your comments in person at the public hearing on
July 31. Your request and /or comments will become a part of the public hearing record.
I wish to apply herewith for (check one):
a. ( ) Deferral of assessment
b. ( ) Cancellation of assessment
C. ( ) Revision of assessment
This request is for the following project (check one):
Sanitary Sewer No. 1
(
) Sanitary Sewer No. 7
( ) Sanitary Sewer No. 2
{
) Water Improvement No. 7
( ) Sanitary Sewer No. 3
(
) Water Improvement No. 68 -2
( ) Sanitary Sewer No. 5
(
) Water Improvement No. 68 -3
{ ) Sanitary Sewer No. 5 -2
(
) Sanitary Sewer 68 -1
( ) Sanitary Sewer No. 5 -4
{
) Sanitary Sewer 68 -2
( ) Water Improvement No. 1
) County Road "C"
( ) Sanitary Sewer No. 6 -1
(
) Cope Utilities
( ) Sanitary Sewer No. 6 -2
(
} Water Improvement 24
Sewer /Water No. 1
{
'� ~ o p
y Cope Street
{ } Water Improvement No. 2
{
) Sanitary Sewer 1A
{ } Water Improvement No. 3
{
) Sanitary Sewer 3A
{ ) Water Improvement No. 4
{
} Water Improvement 69 -1
( } Water Improvement No. 5
(
} stater Improvement 70-28
Sanitary Sewer No. 8
(
) Sanitary Sewer 71 -2
( ) Water Improvement No. 6
{
) Water Improvement 73 -1
May request is for the following described property:
Code No.:
My reason is:
use other side if needed
(Print) Name Date
Address
SPECIAL NOTE: This request does not constitute a formal appeal.
Signature
Telephone
i
MEMORANDUM
TO •
FROM
RE
DATE
City Manager
Finance Director
July 31st Public
July 18, 1980
Hearing - Special Deferred Assessments
When the Council reviews the special deferments that have been granted in
the past on various improvement project assessment rolls, the financial
implications of continuing these deferments should be carefully considered.
Continuance of the special deferments could eventually result in extra tax
levies that would be needed to replace the special assessment installments
that would have been collected if the special deferments had not been
granted. Exactly when these extra tax levies would be needed is impossible
to, determi ne without detailed cash projections for each bond issue and
assessment roll! that would encompass the period over which the bonds and
assessments are payable. However, each year when the City's budget is
prepared cash projections are prepared to determine if extra tax levies
are needed. In recent years, no extra tax levies have been made due to
special deferments on special assessments.
Another factor that should be considered is that most of these special
deferred assessments are not charged interest. This lost interest revenue
could amount to over $400,000 as indicated in the attached excerpt from
the 1979 audit report. Even if some special deferments are continued, it
is recommended that the Council change the City's policy so that interest
will begin to accrue on these assessments.
Also attached is a copy of Schedule 7 from the.1979 Annual Financial Report
which indicates that the special deferred assessments - - . , ,total $797 This
amount is broken down by bond issue. Discontinuance of the special defer-
ments on the assessment rolls for the older bond issues is more important
as the final payments on these bonds are due in the near future.
cc: C i ty Attorney
Public Works Director
City Clerk
a
Co t of Maplewood
Management Report, Page 8
1
J -.
T ferred special assessments represent the balance of assessments
e
col lected over the r 'n ing terms of the var ious assessment s and bond issues.
These assessments increased by $2, 00 or over 'the ast five ears
P Y This
increase is consistent with t I y's increased bon f the same period
I n d i c a t i n g that C i ty i s cont i nu i ng - to adopt these assessment rol l s on a 1
.. Y
ba • and on a bas Is cons i s tent .wi th the var i ous bond resolutions.'
Special deferred assessments represent the cost of r
various improvement or-
. P
,sects assessed against the benefiting properties, but not being certified for
current collection. These special deferments are author i zed b the City t C ouncil
Y y C cii
for a per iod of up to f i ve .years. The C i ty fol 1 ows the genera 1 of is of reviewing
ew i n •
P Y 9
these assessments each five years. The last such review was mad •
e i n i 975 indicating
i ca t i ng
many of these deferments shou again be reviewed in 1980.
Special deferred assessments I nc ' reased b over 200% during n the a
Y o g past four years
due primarily to special deferments authorized in 1978. These assessments have
been levied to finance debt retirement however the •
y a re not currently coll ectible
able
i
nor do they earn interest for the City, If these assessments were to be current 1
Y
collectible at a 7% rate of interest and over fifteen years the would g enera te
Y g to
approximately $x+00,000 in interest earning. Ultimately', this revenue mu •
• must be pro
vided by the general property owners rather than •
P Y the properties assessed, Addit
ally, if these special deferments continue beyond the s ecif is bond
Y P payment schedules,
alternative fJnanci.n will have to be rov•d
9 p � ed to meet the debt retirement payments.
We recommend that the C ty* review its spec, is 1 assessment- def rments 1
. P e . policy to assure
that it 1s not inconsistent with assurances
ces given in the various bond resolutions.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND - DEBT SERVICE ACCOUNTS
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET
December 31 1979
Sanitary.
Conso 1 i da-
G.O.
G.O.
Sewer
G.O.
G.O.
ted
Bonds
Bonds
Refunding,
G.O. Bonds G.O. Bonds'Refunding G.O:
Temporary
Bond s
of 1 7
Bonds
of 1967
Bonds
of 1 8
Debt
Service
of 1972
Series
of 1972
Series
G.O. Bonds Bonds
of 1973 of 1974
of 1977 of'1977 Bonds Bonds
1st Series 2nd Series _ of 1277 of 1 979
Bonds
-of
of 1979 Total
ASSETS
--
--
Cash (Schedule 1)
$ 2
$ 2,331
$ 3
$ - 44
$ 3,464
$ 3,034
$ 16 $ .12,186
$ (104,003)$ 128,023 $ 24,513 s 4,428
S 24 $ 1659955
Cash with paying-agent
4,823
15,110
1,944
2,145
4,069
4,840 .638
33,569
Investments (Schedule 2)
71.547
559922
83
1,067,009
83,094
72,773.
389,944 292,313
45,552 591074 -524v719 64,386
605 ,115 3.946,494
Due from other funds
45 278
45g278
Taxes receivable:
De linquent (Schedule 3)
. , - 273
16
29
1,916
419
841
401 4,042
443 5,281
13,661
Due f rom Ramsey County
: S 1
454
108
160
663
73 1 072
1,68 1
Allowance for estimated
uncoi lectibles
.(273)
(16)
(29)
(1,916)
(419)
(841)
(401) (4,042) (443) (5
(13,661)
Special assessments
. receivable:
Delinquent
2 & 384
59758
3,811
l 6, 367
107,456
30032
31, 304 136,843
159, .17 423 207
934,163
l e err d
DeUe-r
207371 I .`.... ..,....1 ......... ,.
0 929 23.759 2 y2�±
!
496 OS 820 810
....� . ,.
y ., ,,bo 1
_2 098 784 „�,1,� 43"L ..r.l 1.755►. 7.x+ 3.
. 28 1 1 656 797.9
e rom Ramsey County
3
,:.
3.524
�'�
.....�..
2 5�''
�,
, 2 1,'3"0
..,.«,-
2, 319 ,'��30
.^..�..,�
G;
Special assessments to be
,
levied
City of Maplewood share of
1 1
assessment improvement costs
144,048
l9
227
2 6 0�
796 806 832,878
848,451 1,:277,951 2.127,817 1
1.544_ 1 59 8.68T_9t 6
Total assets
44 82
1r� 0
116;Z4
�
14 4 10
• 8 45
$550,000
Li 78 000 2 1 06s
S3,14 4,840 53�666S, 82r 4 460 000 000
S23 .7en.=
LIABILITIES AND
FUND BALANCE
Liabilities:
.
Matured Interest payable
$ 4,823
$ 15
$ 1,944
$ 2
$ 4,069
$ 4,840 $ 638
$ 33.569
Bonds payable (Schedule 4)
Total liabilities
445, 000 ,
2
$1 O00
-1 o00
1 0 110
1,295,000
1
25, 000 ,
tES0
1 .7 2 1 35,000
3,140,000 3. 1 $ 00
$3,420.000 22 8 55, 000
_ 15 1 000
,9 44
827
_ 556,666
J y 78 5 s OO 0 2,139,069
3,144,84 , 0 825,000
3,4 20.000 2 2, 888
Fund balance:
Designated for debt service
27,54
_ 177,966
606 .808 8,12.318
Total liabilities and
fund b alance
S449.82
1 S 000
S197,654
$1.47 4 1�0
L 82Z ,145
ss 5o 000
51.785 ,000 S 2.139,06 2
S3� i 84 0 $3 66S, S4.460 S8 25�
a ARAD 523 . goo. BBT