HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-23-2011
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 p.m., Monday, May 23, 2011
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 10-11
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order
at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Rossbach.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Will Rossbach, Mayor Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present
James Llanas, Councilmember Present
John Nephew, Councilmember Present
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added to the agenda by councilmembers:
F2. Resolution of Commendation – Mayor Rossbach
N1. Support of Veterans Clinic – Councilmember Koppen, Mr. Antonen
N2. Resident Letter, Teenage Bullying – Councilmember Llanas
N3. National Night Out – Councilmember Juenemann
Councilmember Llanas moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of May 9, 2011, City Council Workshop Minutes
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the May 9, 2011, City Council Workshop Minutes
as submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
2. Approval of May 9, 2011, City Council Meeting Minutes
Amended minutes were provided to the city council at the meeting.
Councilmember Juenemann had a correction to page 30, N1. It should read May 1 not May 8.
May 23, 2011 1
City Council Meeting Minutes
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the May 9, 2011, City Council Meeting Minutes as
amended.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of Local Government Innovation Award for Joint Powers Agreement
Between the City of Maplewood and the City of North St. Paul
a. Parks & Recreation Manager, Audra Robbins gave the presentation.
Mayor Rossbach moved to approve the Innovation Award for Joint Powers Agreement Between
the City of Maplewood and the City of North St. Paul.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
2. Resolution of Commendation
a. Mayor Rossbach introduced Girl Scout, Kirsten Klaver and then presented her with the
resolution of commendation.
b. Kirsten Klaver addressed the council and gave a presentation.
Mayor Rossach moved to approve the resolution of commendation for Kirsten Klaver.
City of Maplewood
Resolution 11-5-573
Commendation for Kirsten Klaver
May 23, 2011
Whereas, the City of Maplewood finds it to be important to recognize the
achievements of its citizens, and
Whereas, our youth are the future leaders of our City, State, and Nation, and
Whereas, the City Council is pleased to learn that Kirsten Klaver chose to pursue
the Girl Scout Gold Award, and
Whereas, Kirsten Klaver is an active member of the Minnesota and Wisconsin
River Valley Girl Scouts, an organization that mentors youth, and
Whereas, the requirements of the Gold Award are only achieved by 5 % of all Girl
Scouts, and
Whereas, Kirsten has completed all the requirements for the Girl Scout Gold
Award, the highest award which can be achieved by a Girl Scout, including planning,
financing and implementing the project, and has committed a large amount of her
personal time, and
May 23, 2011 2
City Council Meeting Minutes
Whereas, the Gold Award develops leadership, responsibility and community
involvement, now therefore
Be it resolved, that the Maplewood City Council does hereby commend Kirsten on
her accomplishments, her leadership, and her community involvement, and
Be it resolved, I Mayor, Will Rossbach, as authorized by the Maplewood City
Council, do extend the city’s appreciation and gratitude for the dedication and hard work
put forth by Kirsten and her example to other young adults and that the City of
Maplewood duly record her accomplishments.
_______________________________
Mayor Will Rossbach
Attest:________________________
Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
G. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve consent agenda items 1-9.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
1. Approval of Claims
Councilmember Nephew moved Approval of Claims.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE:
$ 128,846.83 Checks #84242 thru #84290
Dated 05/04/11 thru 05/10/11
$ 356,246.15 Disbursements via debits to checking account
Dated 04/28/11 thru 05/06/11
$ 242,346.07 Checks #84291 thru #84357
Dated 05/09/11 thru 05/17/11
$ 138,393.53 Disbursements via debits to checking account
Dated 05/06/11 thru 05/13/11
__________________
$ 865,832.58 Total Accounts Payable
May 23, 2011 3
City Council Meeting Minutes
PAYROLL
$ 533,036.90 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 05/13/11
$ 2,883.96 Payroll Deduction check #9984282 thru #9984286
dated 05/13/11
___________________
$ 535,920.86 Total Payroll
GRAND TOTAL
$ 1,401,753.44
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
2. Approval of Ramsey County Fair Temporary Gambling Permit and Fee Waiver Request
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the fee waiver for 3.2 beer and the resolution for a
temporary gambling permit for St. Paul East Parks Lions Club at the Ramsey County Fair, 2020
White Bear Avenue, July 13 through July 17, 2011.
RESOLUTION 11-5-574
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the
temporary permit for lawful gambling is approved for St. Paul East Parks Lions Club to be used at
the Ramsey County Fair, 2020 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, MN from July 13 through July
17, 2011.
FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness
of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute §349.213.
FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control
Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in
compliance with Minnesota Statute §349.213.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of
Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
3. Approval to Accept Grant From Midwest Economic Crime Foundation
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the $900 grant from Midwest Economic Crime
Foundation and use the funds to purchase a laptop computer for use by our retail and financial
crimes investigators.
RESOLUTION 11-5-575
AUTHORIZING GIFT TO CITY
WHEREAS, Maplewood is AUTHORIZED to receive and accept grants, gifts and devices of real
and personal property and maintain the same for the benefit of the citizens and pursuant to the
donor’s terms if so-prescribed, and;
May 23, 2011 4
City Council Meeting Minutes
WHEREAS, Midwest Economic Crime Foundation (MECF) wishes to grant the City of Maplewood
the following: $900, and;
WHEREAS, Midwest Economic Crime Foundation has instructed that the City will be required to
use the aforementioned for: the purchase of a laptop computer to be used by retail and financial
crimes investigators of the Maplewood Police Department, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has agreed to use the subject of this resolution for the
purposes and under the terms prescribed, and;
WHEREAS, the City agrees that it will accept the gift by a super majority of its governing body’s
membership pursuant to Minnesota Statute §465.03;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to Minnesota Statute §465.03, that the
Maplewood City Council approves, receives and accepts the gift aforementioned and under such
terms and conditions as may be requested or required.
The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution by a super majority vote of its membership on
May 23, 2011.
Signed:Signed:Witnessed:
___________________ ____________________ ___________________
(Signature) (Signature) (Signature)
Mayor______________ Chief of Police_________ City Clerk____________
(Title) (Title) (Title)
___________________ _____________________ ____________________
(Date) (Date) (Date)
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
4. Approval of Resolution Requesting the State Legislature and the Governor Maintaining
Ramsey County Within a Single Congressional District
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the resolution requesting the State Legislature and
the Governor maintaining Ramsey County within a single Congressional District.
Resolution 11-5-576
Requesting the State Legislature and the Governor
Maintain Ramsey County within a Single Congressional District that
Includes the Entire City of Maplewood
WHEREAS, Date from the 2010 Census requires the Minnesota Legislature to re-draw
Congressional boundaries into eight districts with 662,991 people in each district; and
WHEREAS, Ramsey County is Minnesota’s second largest county and is the center of
economic development, regional transportation, and unique communities of interest in the East
Metropolitan area; and
WHEREAS, Ramsey County has effectively been in a single Congressional District as a
whole political unit since 1891; and
May 23, 2011 5
City Council Meeting Minutes
WHEREAS, Maintaining Ramsey County as a whole political unit in a single
Congressional District will preserve communities of interest along with their unique cultural,
economic, and historic connections to the County and the East Metropolitan area, and
WHEREAS, The Congressional District redistricting principles used after the 2000 Census
stated that, “The districts will be drawn with attention to county, city, and township boundaries. A
county, city, or township will not be divided into more than one district except as necessary to
meet equal population requirements or to form districts that are composed of convenient,
contiguous, and compact territory. When any county, city, or township must be divided into one or
more districts, it will be divided into as few districts as possible”; and
WHEREAS, Ramsey County seeks to maintain all fifteen municipalities which are entirely
contained within its borders as whole political units within a single Congressional District; Now,
Therefore, Be it
RESOLVED, The City of Maplewood requests the State Legislature and the Governor to
formulate a redistricting plan that maintains Ramsey County as a whole political unit and
preserves the County’s unique communities of interest in a single Congressional District that
includes the City of Maplewood in its entirety.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
5. Consider Approval of Amendment of Conditions for the Gervais Woods Preliminary
Plat, South of LaBore Road, East of Arcade Street.
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the amendments of conditions for the Gervais Woods
Preliminary Plat, South of Labore Road, East of Arcade Street. Amending condition 1.f. of the
March 22, 2010 preliminary plat approval to read (additions are underlined and deletions are
crossed out):
1. Approve the preliminary and final plat for Landmark Development of Minnesota for the
proposed eleven lot Gervais Woods single-family subdivision located south of Labore Road
and East of arcade Street. This subdivision is subject to the following conditions:
f. The proposed homes on lots 4 and 5, block 2 of this subdivision may extend beyond the
municipal boundary line into Maplewood since the City Administrator of the city of Little
Canada has agreed that Little Canada would assume all building permit review and
building inspection responsibilities for these homes, and also, since this poses no problem
with the Ramsey county Assessor’s office. The proposed homes on the southerly four lots
of this subdivision shall be constructed in the footprints shown on the applicant’s plans.
This would require that they be located in the City of Little Canada.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
6. Consider Approval of Resolution Identifying Maplewood’s Commitment to Host a
Minnesota GreenCorps Member
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the resolution identifying Maplewood’s Commitment
to Host a Minnesota GreenCorps Member in the area of Pollution Reduction and Recycling.
May 23, 2011 6
City Council Meeting Minutes
RESOLUTION 11-5-577
CITY OFMAPLEWOOD,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING MAPLEWOOD’S COMMITMENT TO
HOST A MINNESOTA GREENCORPS MEMBER
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has applied to host an AmeriCorps member from the
Minnesota GreenCorps, a program of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), for the
2011-2012 program year; and
WHEREAS, if the MPCA selects the City of Maplewood, the organization is committed
to implementing the proposed project as described in the host site application, and in accordance
with pre-scoped position description; and
WHEREAS, MPCA requires that the City of Maplewood enter into a host site agreement
with MPCA that identifies the terms, conditions, roles and responsibilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Maplewood hereby agrees to
enter into and sign a host site agreement with the MPCA to carry out the member activities
specified therein and to comply with all of the terms, conditions, and matching provisions of the
host site agreement. The Maplewood City Council authorizes and directs Shann Finwall,
Environmental Planner, to sign the grant agreement on its behalf.
rd
Adopted this 23 day of May, 2011.
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Mayor Clerk
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
7. Western Hills Area Street Improvements, City Project 10-14, Approval of Purchase for
Geotechnical Testing Services
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the city engineer enter into a contract for services
with Chosen Valley Testing for $21,964.00 for testing and quality control-services for the Western
Hills Area Street Improvements, City Project 10-14.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
8. Western Hills Area Street Improvements, City Project, 10-14, Approval of Rider to Joint
Powers Agreement With Saint Paul Regional Water Services.
th
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the 4 Rider to the existing July 1961 agreement
between the Board of Water Commissioners and the City of Maplewood. The council directs the
th
Mayor and City Manager to sign the 4 Rider signifying city council approval Minor revisions as
approved by the City Attorney are authorized as needed for the agreement. And authorize the city
engineer to enter into a supplemental agreement with T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc. to add Saint
Paul Regional Water Services as additional insured to the Western Hills Area Street Improvement
project comprehensive insurance policy.
May 23, 2011 7
City Council Meeting Minutes
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
9. NPDES Phase II and MS4 Permit, Call Public Hearing for June 27, 2011, at 7:00 p.m.
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve calling for a public hearing on June 27, 2011, at 7:00
p.m. to meet the NPDES requirement and to solicit feedback on the updated SWPPP.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
H. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Gladstone Area Redevelopment Improvements, Project 04-21
a. Assessment Hearing, 7:00 p.m. – To be Continued to June 27, 2011
i. City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompson gave the report.
Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing.
No one addressed the council.
Mayor Rossbach closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to continue the assessment hearing for the project to the
June 27, 2011, city council meeting. The bid opening will be continued to June 3, 2011, at 10:00
a.m. in council chambers, and the award of bid will be considered by the city council at the June
13, 2011, city council meeting.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Consider Approval of Resolution Adopting the 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan
a. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl gave the presentation.
b. Chairperson, BEDC, Mark Jenkins gave the report from the Business & Economic
Development Commission.
c. Planning Commissioner, Joe Boeser, gave the report from the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the resolution which adopts the 2012 – 2016 Capital
Improvement Plan as proposed.
RESOLUTION 11-5-578
ADOPTING THE 2012 – 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council established city-wide goals for financial sustainability and facility
planning as part of the annual Council – Staff Retreat in February 2011, and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has supervised the Management Staff in preparing the 2012 –
2016 Capital Improvement Plan, and
May 23, 2011 8
City Council Meeting Minutes
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended approval of said 2012 – 2016 Capital
Improvement Plan as being consistent with the City Council goals, and
WHEREAS, the City’s Business and Economic Development Commission; the Park and
Recreation Commission, the Housing Redevelopment Authority; the Environmental and Natural
Resources Commission and the Planning Commission have all recommended adoption of the
proposed 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan without revision, and
WHEREAS, the City’s Planning Commission has duly conducted on May 17, 2011, consistent
with state statute, a Public Hearing regarding the consistency of said 2012 Capital Improvement
Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reported that they have found the 2012 – 2106 Capital
Improvement Plan to be substantially consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MAPLEWOOD, that,
Said 2012 – 2106 Capital Improvement Plan is hereby adopted and approved as proposed and
recommended by the City Manager and shall become a document as part of the 2012 Budget.
rd
Adopted this 23 day of May, 2011.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
2. Western Hills Area Street Improvement Wetland Impacts, City Project 10-14 Approval to
Construct Public Improvements Within Wetland Buffer
(This item was heard out of order
and after I. 3.)
a. Civil Engineer, Steve Kummer gave the report.
Councilmember Llanas moved to approve the wetland buffer waiver for the western hills area
street improvement, city project 10-14.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
3. Western Hills Area Street Improvements, Project 10-14, Resolution Adopting Revised
Assessment Roll
(This item was heard out of order before I. 2. because residents were
present to speak)
a. City Engineer, Public Works Director, Michael Thompson gave the report and answered
questions of the council.
b. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud addressed and answered questions of the council.
c. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl answered questions of the
council.
Mayor Rossbach asked if anyone would like to address the council.
1. Bill Taylor, Maplewood.
2. Eileen Eaves, Maplewood.
3. Mary Kay Skelly, Maplewood.
May 23, 2011 9
City Council Meeting Minutes
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the resolution for adopting the revised assessment
roll for the Western Hills Area Street Improvements, Project10-14.
RESOLUTION 11-5-579
ADOPTING REVISED ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on May 9, 2011, the
assessment roll for the Western Hills Area Street Improvements, City Project 10-14, was
presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, seventy-seven (77) property owners filed objections to their assessments
according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows:
1. Parcel 182922340063 – David Conover; 1702 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Conover is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
2. Parcel 182922340045 – Justin Balar; 1705 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Balar is requesting a revision
to his assessment.
3. Parcel 182922340087 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an
undeveloped property deferral.
4. Parcel 182922340058 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an
undeveloped property deferral.
5. Parcel 182922340059 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an
undeveloped property deferral.
6. Parcel 182922340064 – Don Smieja; 1706 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Smieja is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
7. Parcel 182922340065 – Maiyia Her; 1712 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Her is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
8. Parcel 182922340043 – Gerald Jahnke; 1719 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Jahnke is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
requests a senior citizen, financial hardship, or disability deferral.
9. Parcel 182922340066 – Steve M. Barsness; 1724 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Barsness is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
10. Parcel 182922410026 – Linda Bowman; 1902 Adolphus Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Bowman is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
11. Parcel 182922410027 – Johnnie and Gloria Rudolph; 1912 Adolphus Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Rudolph are
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
the property.
12. Parcel 182922430015 – Nancy Tschida Stephenson; 1706 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Stephenson is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property
and requests a financial hardship deferral.
May 23, 2011 10
City Council Meeting Minutes
13. Parcel 182922430045 – Fred Bauer; 1741 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Bauer is requesting a revision
of assessment and a senior citizen deferral.
14. Parcel 182922430043 – Kristin Ross; 1755 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Ross is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
15. Parcel 182922430038 – Brian and Rebecca Cortez; 1793 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Cortez are objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the
property.
16. Parcel 182922430037 – Jeff Olson; 1799 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Olson is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
17. Parcel 182922420089 – Joy Nellessen; 1800 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Nellessen is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
requests a senior citizen deferral.
18. Parcel 182922420096 – Karen and Jose Diaz; 1805 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Diaz are objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the
property and request a financial hardship deferral.
19. Parcel 182922420085 – John W. Peterson; 1826 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Peterson is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
requests a senior citizen deferral.
20. Parcel 182922420084 – Eileen R. Eaves; 1832 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Eaves is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
requests a senior citizen deferral.
21. Parcel 182922420083 – Paula B. Merth; 1838 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Merth is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
22. Parcel 172922330028 – Daniel Underbakke; 1705 Arkwright Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Underbakke is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
23. Parcel 182922310034 – Mee and Michel Vansoua; 1845 Beaumont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Vansoua are
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
the property.
24. Parcel 182922310012 – Wendy and Charles Dording; 1860 Beaumont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Dording are
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
the property.
25. Parcel 182922310032 – Richard Willey; 1861 Beaumont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Willey is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
26. Parcel 182922310011 – Coleen Hanrahan; 1866 Beaumont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hanrahan is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
27. Parcel 182922310031 – Laureen Sherman; 1867 Beaumont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Sherman is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
28. Parcel 182922310030 – Todd and Laurette Alwin; 1873 Beaumont Street
May 23, 2011 11
City Council Meeting Minutes
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Alwin are objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the
property.
29. Parcel 182922310008 – Jerene Grilz; 1888 Beaumont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Grilz is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
30. Parcel 182922310027 – Tammi Zapata; 1895 Beaumont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Zapata is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
31. Parcel 182922420047 – Dennis and Laurie Littlefield; 104 Bellwood Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Littlefield are
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
the property.
31a. Parcel 182922420017 – Terence and Elizabeth Paulson; 107 Bellwood Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Staff is proposing the
cancellation of assessment until such time when Jackson Street is reconstructed and this
property would be assessed for the improvements to Jackson Street.
32. Parcel 182922420042 – Brenda Murphy; 142 Bellwood Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Murphy is requesting a
financial hardship deferral.
33. Parcel 182922420040 – Mary E. Hackman; 156 Bellwood Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hackman is requesting a
senior citizen deferral.
34. Parcel 182922410029 – Mary and Pat McMonigal; 223 Bellwood Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. McMonigal are
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
the property.
35. Parcel 182922430069 – Yewondwossen Tsegaw; 1733 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Tsegaw is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
36. Parcel 182922430054 – Craig and Michelle Selbitschka; 1766 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Selbitschka are
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
the property.
37. Parcel 182922430055 – Christine Holman-House; 1774 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Holman-House is requesting
a cancellation of assessment or a financial hardship deferral.
38. Parcel 182922430063 – Jose D. Carbajal; 1777 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Carbajal is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
39. Parcel 182922430057 – Paal Salter Carter; 1786 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Salter Carter is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property
and requests a financial hardship deferral.
40. Parcel 182922430061 – Michelle Irwin; 1791 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Irwin is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
41. Parcel 182922420111 – Dick Pierre; 1803 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Pierre is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
42. Parcel 18-29-22-42-0097 – Mary Jane Hawkins; 1808 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hawkins is requesting
deferral of the assessment due to disability status and financial hardship.
May 23, 2011 12
City Council Meeting Minutes
43. Parcel 182922420104 – Jamie Whitwood; 1853 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Whitwood is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
44. Parcel 182922420103 – Ann Athen; 130 East Summer Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Athen is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
45. Parcel 182922420082 – Mary J. Tills; 154 East Summer Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Tills is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
requests a senior citizen deferral.
46. Parcel 182922420057 – Kevin Osmundson; 171 East Summer Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Osmundson is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
47. Parcel 182922420066 – Muriel Paulson; 202 East Summer Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Paulson is requesting a
senior citizen deferral.
48. Parcel 182922420063 – Richard J. Towle; 217 East Summer Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Towle is requesting a
financial hardship or senior citizen deferral.
49. Parcel 172922330016 – Kenneth J. Pfarr; 1695 Edgemont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Pfarr is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
50. Parcel 172922330024 – Patrick Her; 1700 Edgemont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Her is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
51. Parcel 172922330023 – Blong Yang; 1706 Edgemont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Yang is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
requests a financial hardship deferral
52. Parcel 172922330022 – Paula Vang; 1714 Edgemont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Vang is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
requests a financial hardship deferral.
53. Parcel 172922330019 – Thomas Azzone; 1723 Edgemont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Azzone is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
54. Parcel 182922310014 – Richard E. Miller; 63 Fenton Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
55. Parcel 182922310043 – Richard E. Miller; 95 Fenton Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
56. Parcel 182922310044 – Richard E. Miller; 97 Fenton Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
57. Parcel 182922340009 William Taylor; 1765 Gurney Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Taylor is requesting a
cancellation of assessment or a disability deferral.
58. Parcel 182922340022 – Jeff Hupert; 5 Kingston Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Hupert is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
59. Parcel 182922340090 – Kristin R. Borowske; 63 Kingston Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Borowske is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
requests that the assessment be reduced and the interest rate set to zero percent.
May 23, 2011 13
City Council Meeting Minutes
60. Parcel 182922340084 – Jennifer and Bradley Johnson; 76 Kingston Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson are
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
the property.
61. Parcel 182922340014 – John and Doris Slama; 77 Kingston Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Slama are objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the
property and request a senior citizen deferral.
62. Parcel 172922330058 – Katherine L. Graham; 385 Kingston Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Graham is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
63. Parcel 172922330059 – Marvella M. Lackner; 395 Kingston Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Lackner is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
requests a senior citizen or financial hardship deferral.
64. Parcel 182922430104 – Bezaneh Gebremedhin; 191 D Larpenteur Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Bezaneh Gebremedhin is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
the property.
65. Parcel 182922430010 – Timothy and Michelle Cover; 1740 Onacrest Curve
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Cover are objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the
property.
66. Parcel 182922430009 – Allan C. Button; 1744 Onacrest Curve
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Button is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
67. Parcel 182922430007 – Lawrence A. Dittel; 1754 Onacrest Curve
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Dittel is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
68. Parcel 182922430030 – Michael Ziolkowski; 1757 Onacrest Curve
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Ziolkowski is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
69. Parcel 182922430004 – Roger J. Beran; 1770 Onacrest Curve
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Beran is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
70. Parcel 182922430027 – Jack McGee; 1783 Onacrest Curve
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. McGee is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
71. Parcel 182922430026 – Seth Miller; 1793 Onacrest Curve
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
72. Parcel 182922310024 – Clarence Osen; 50 Roselawn Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Osen is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
requests a revision to his assessment due to years of residency and previous assessments and
taxes paid.
73. Parcel 182922340040 – Nicola and James Opine; 1730 Sylvan Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Opine are objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the
property.
74. Parcel 182922340024 – Todd P. Williams; 1754 Sylvan Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Williams is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
May 23, 2011 14
City Council Meeting Minutes
75. Parcel 182922340025 – Michael and Carol Bisson; 1758 Sylvan Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Bisson are objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the
property.
76. Parcel 182922340011 – Marvin Hodgin; 1766 Sylvan Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Hodgin is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
77. Parcel 182922340010 – Christine and David Lehto; 1772 Sylvan Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Lehto are objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the
property and request a cancellation of the assessment or a financial hardship deferral.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA:
A. That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to make the following adjustments to
the assessment roll for the Western Hills Area Street Improvements, Project 10-14:
1. Parcel 182922340063 – David Conover; 1702 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Conover is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
2. Parcel 182922340045 – Justin Balar; 1705 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Balar is requesting a revision
deny
to his assessment. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as
this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not
exceed the benefit to the property.
3. Parcel 182922340087 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an
grant
undeveloped property deferral. Staff recommendation is to an undeveloped property
deferral (15 years) upon approval of necessary paperwork. If the property remains undeveloped
during the entire 15 year deferral time period the assessment will be cancelled. If at any point
during the 15 year deferral period the lot is developed the assessment would become active.
4. Parcel 182922340058 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an
grant
undeveloped property deferral. Staff recommendation is to an undeveloped property
deferral (15 years) upon approval of necessary paperwork. If the property remains undeveloped
during the entire 15 year deferral time period the assessment will be cancelled. If at any point
during the 15 year deferral period the lot is developed the assessment would become active.
5. Parcel 182922340059 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an
grant
undeveloped property deferral. Staff recommendation is to an undeveloped property
deferral (15 years) upon approval of necessary paperwork. If the property remains undeveloped
during the entire 15 year deferral time period the assessment will be cancelled. If at any point
during the 15 year deferral period the lot is developed the assessment would become active.
6. Parcel 182922340064 – Don Smieja; 1706 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Smieja is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
May 23, 2011 15
City Council Meeting Minutes
7. Parcel 182922340065 – Maiyia Her; 1712 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Her is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
8. Parcel 182922340043 – Gerald Jahnke; 1719 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Jahnke is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
deny
requests a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of
assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the
grant
assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to a
senior citizen, financial hardship, or disability deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary
paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with
interest.
9. Parcel 182922340066 – Steve M. Barsness; 1724 Abel Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Barsness is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
10. Parcel 182922410026 – Linda Bowman; 1902 Adolphus Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Bowman is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
11. Parcel 182922410027 – Johnnie and Gloria Rudolph; 1912 Adolphus Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Rudolph are
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
deny
the property. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this
property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not
exceed the benefit to the property.
12. Parcel 182922430015 – Nancy Tschida Stephenson; 1706 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Stephenson is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property
deny
and requests a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to the request for
revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and
grant
the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to a
financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year
deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
13. Parcel 182922430045 – Fred Bauer; 1741 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Bauer is requesting a senior
deny
citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this
property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not
grant
exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to a senior citizen deferral (15
year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the
assessment would become due in total with interest.
14. Parcel 182922430043 – Kristin Ross; 1755 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Ross is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
May 23, 2011 16
City Council Meeting Minutes
15. Parcel 182922430038 – Brian and Rebecca Cortez; 1793 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Cortez are objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the
deny
property. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property
is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the
benefit to the property.
16. Parcel 182922430037 – Jeff Olson; 1799 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Olson is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
17. Parcel 182922420089 – Joy Nellessen; 1800 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Nellessen is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
deny
requests a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of
assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the
grant
assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to a
senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral
time period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
18. Parcel 182922420096 – Karen and Jose Diaz; 1805 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Diaz are objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the
deny
property and request a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to the request
for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy
and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to
grant
a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15
year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
19. Parcel 182922420085 – John W. Peterson; 1826 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Peterson is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
deny
requests a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of
assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the
grant
assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to a
senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral
time period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
20. Parcel 182922420084 – Eileen R. Eaves; 1832 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Eaves is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
deny
requests a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of
assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the
grant
assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to a
senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral
time period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
21. Parcel 182922420083 – Paula B. Merth; 1838 Agate Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Merth is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
22. Parcel 172922330028 – Daniel Underbakke; 1705 Arkwright Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Underbakke is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
deny
Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
May 23, 2011 17
City Council Meeting Minutes
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
23. Parcel 182922310034 – Mee and Michel Vansoua; 1845 Beaumont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Vansoua are
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
deny
the property. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this
property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not
exceed the benefit to the property.
24. Parcel 182922310012 – Wendy and Charles Dording; 1860 Beaumont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Dording are
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
deny
the property. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this
property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not
exceed the benefit to the property.
25. Parcel 182922310032 – Richard Willey; 1861 Beaumont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Willey is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
26. Parcel 182922310011 – Coleen Hanrahan; 1866 Beaumont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hanrahan is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
27. Parcel 182922310031 – Laureen Sherman; 1867 Beaumont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Sherman is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
28. Parcel 182922310030 – Todd and Laurette Alwin; 1873 Beaumont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Alwin are objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the
deny
property. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property
is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the
benefit to the property.
29. Parcel 182922310008 – Jerene Grilz; 1888 Beaumont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Grilz is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
30. Parcel 182922310027 – Tammi Zapata; 1895 Beaumont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Zapata is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
31. Parcel 182922420047 – Dennis and Laurie Littlefield; 104 Bellwood Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Littlefield are
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
grant
the property. Staff recommendation is to a cancellation of assessment as this property’s
May 23, 2011 18
City Council Meeting Minutes
driveway accesses from Jackson Street. At such a time when Jackson Street is reconstructed this
property would be assessed for improvements.
31a. Parcel 182922420017 – Terence and Elizabeth Paulson; 107 Bellwood Avenue
grant
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Staff recommendation is to
a cancellation of assessment as this property’s driveway accesses from Jackson Street. At such
a time when Jackson Street is reconstructed this property would be assessed for the
improvements.
32. Parcel 182922420042 – Brenda Murphy; 142 Bellwood Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Murphy is requesting a
grant
financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to a financial hardship deferral (15
year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the
assessment would become due in total with interest.
33. Parcel 182922420040 – Mary E. Hackman; 156 Bellwood Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hackman is requesting a
grant
senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon
approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would
become due in total with interest.
34. Parcel 182922410029 – Mary and Pat McMonigal; 223 Bellwood Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. McMonigal are
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
deny
the property. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this
property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not
exceed the benefit to the property.
35. Parcel 182922430069 – Yewondwossen Tsegaw; 1733 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Tsegaw is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
36. Parcel 182922430054 – Craig and Michelle Selbitschka; 1766 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Selbitschka are
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
deny
the property. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this
property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not
exceed the benefit to the property.
37. Parcel 182922430055 – Christine Holman-House; 1774 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Holman-House is requesting
deny
a cancellation of assessment or a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to
the request for cancellation of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s
assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff
grant
recommendation is to a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary
paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with
interest.
38. Parcel 182922430063 – Jose D. Carbajal; 1777 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Carbajal is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
39. Parcel 182922430057 – Paal Salter Carter; 1786 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Salter Carter is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property
deny
and requests a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to the request for
revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and
grant
the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to a
May 23, 2011 19
City Council Meeting Minutes
financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year
deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
40. Parcel 182922430061 – Michelle Irwin; 1791 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Irwin is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
41. Parcel 182922420111 – Dick Pierre; 1803 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Pierre is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
42. Parcel 18-29-22-42-0097 – Mary Jane Hawkins; 1808 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hawkins is requesting
deferral of the assessment due to disability status and financial hardship. Staff recommendation
grant
is to a financial hardship or disability deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary
paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with
interest.
43. Parcel 182922420104 – Jamie Whitwood; 1853 City Heights Drive
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Whitwood is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
44. Parcel 182922420103 – Ann Athen; 130 East Summer Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Athen is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
45. Parcel 182922420082 – Mary J. Tills; 154 East Summer Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Tills is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
deny
requests a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of
assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the
grant
assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to a
senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral
time period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
46. Parcel 182922420057 – Kevin Osmundson; 171 East Summer Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Osmundson is objecting to
the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property.
deny
Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
47. Parcel 182922420066 – Muriel Paulson; 202 East Summer Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Paulson is requesting a
grant
senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon
approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would
become due in total with interest.
48. Parcel 182922420063 – Richard J. Towle; 217 East Summer Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Towle is requesting a
grant
financial hardship or senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to a senior citizen or
May 23, 2011 20
City Council Meeting Minutes
financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year
deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
49. Parcel 172922330016 – Kenneth J. Pfarr; 1695 Edgemont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Pfarr is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
50. Parcel 172922330024 – Patrick Her; 1700 Edgemont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Her is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
51. Parcel 172922330023 – Blong Yang; 1706 Edgemont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Yang is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
deny
requests a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of
assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the
grant
assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to a
financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year
deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
52. Parcel 172922330022 – Paula Vang; 1714 Edgemont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Vang is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
deny
requests a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of
assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the
grant
assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to a
financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year
deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
53. Parcel 172922330019 – Thomas Azzone; 1723 Edgemont Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Azzone is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
54. Parcel 182922310014 – Richard E. Miller; 63 Fenton Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
55. Parcel 182922310043 – Richard E. Miller; 95 Fenton Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
56. Parcel 182922310044 – Richard E. Miller; 97 Fenton Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
May 23, 2011 21
City Council Meeting Minutes
57. Parcel 182922340009 William Taylor; 1765 Gurney Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Taylor is requesting a
deny
cancellation of assessment or a disability deferral. Staff recommendation is to the request
for cancellation of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment
policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is
grant
to a disability deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year
deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
58. Parcel 182922340022 – Jeff Hupert; 5 Kingston Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Hupert is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
59. Parcel 182922340090 – Kristin R. Borowske; 63 Kingston Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Borowske is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
requests that the assessment be reduced and the interest rate set to zero percent. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
60. Parcel 182922340084 – Jennifer and Bradley Johnson; 76 Kingston Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson are
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
deny
the property. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this
property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not
exceed the benefit to the property.
61. Parcel 182922340014 – John and Doris Slama; 77 Kingston Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Slama are objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the
deny
property and request a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to the request for
revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and
grant
the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to a
senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral
time period the assessment would become due in total with interest.
62. Parcel 172922330058 – Katherine L. Graham; 385 Kingston Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Graham is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
63. Parcel 172922330059 – Marvella M. Lackner; 395 Kingston Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Lackner is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
deny
requests a senior citizen or financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to the
request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment
policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is
grant
toa senior citizen or financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary
paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with
interest.
64. Parcel 182922430104 – Bezaneh Gebremedhin; 191 D Larpenteur Avenue East
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Bezaneh Gebremedhin is
objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to
deny
the property. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this
property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not
exceed the benefit to the property.
May 23, 2011 22
City Council Meeting Minutes
65. Parcel 182922430010 – Timothy and Michelle Cover; 1740 Onacrest Curve
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Cover are objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the
deny
property. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property
is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the
benefit to the property.
66. Parcel 182922430009 – Allan C. Button; 1744 Onacrest Curve
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Button is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
67. Parcel 182922430007 – Lawrence A. Dittel; 1754 Onacrest Curve
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Dittel is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
68. Parcel 182922430030 – Michael Ziolkowski; 1757 Onacrest Curve
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Ziolkowski is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
69. Parcel 182922430004 – Roger J. Beran; 1770 Onacrest Curve
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Beran is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
70. Parcel 182922430027 – Jack McGee; 1783 Onacrest Curve
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. McGee is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
71. Parcel 182922430026 – Seth Miller; 1793 Onacrest Curve
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
72. Parcel 182922310024 – Clarence Osen; 50 Roselawn Avenue
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Osen is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and
requests a revision to his assessment due to years of residency and previous assessments and
deny
taxes paid. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this
property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not
exceed the benefit to the property.
73. Parcel 182922340040 – Nicola and James Opine; 1730 Sylvan Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Opine are objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the
deny
property. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property
May 23, 2011 23
City Council Meeting Minutes
is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the
benefit to the property.
74. Parcel 182922340024 – Todd P. Williams; 1754 Sylvan Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Williams is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
75. Parcel 182922340025 – Michael and Carol Bisson; 1758 Sylvan Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Bisson are objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the
deny
property. Staff recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property
is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the
benefit to the property.
76. Parcel 182922340011 – Marvin Hodgin; 1766 Sylvan Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Hodgin is objecting to the
assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision of assessment as this property is being
assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to
the property.
77. Parcel 182922340010 – Christine and David Lehto; 1772 Sylvan Street
It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Lehto are objecting
to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the
property and request a cancellation of the assessment or a financial hardship deferral. Staff
deny
recommendation is to the request for revision or cancellation of assessment as this property
is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the
grant
benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to a financial hardship deferral (15 year)
upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment
would become due in total with interest.
B. The assessment roll for the Western Hills Area Street Improvements as amended, is hereby
accepted, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Said assessment roll shall
constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein
included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the
assessment levied against it.
C. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15
years for residential properties and 8 years for commercial properties, the first installments to be
payable on or before the first Monday in January 2012 and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.0
percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first
installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until
December 31, 2011. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one
year on all unpaid installments.
D. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment
to the county auditor, but no later than November 15, 2011, pay the whole of the assessment on
such property, with interest accrued to the date of the payment, to the city clerk, except that no
interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this
resolution; and they may, at any time after November 15, 2011, pay to the county auditor the
entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the
year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or
interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year.
May 23, 2011 24
City Council Meeting Minutes
E. The city engineer and city clerk shall forthwith after November 15, 2011, but no later than
November 16, 2011, transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be
extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid
over the same manner as other municipal taxes.
rd
Adopted by the council on this 23 day of May 2011.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
J. NEW BUSINESS
1. Approval of On-Sale Wine and 3.2% Beer Licenses for India Gate Restaurant
a. City Clerk, Director Citizen Services, Karen Guilfoile gave a brief report.
b. Co-Owners of India Gate Restaurant, Saiyid Noorul Husain Rizvi and Zulfiquarali Sherali
Punjani addressed the council.
Mayor Rossbach moved to approve the on-sale wine and 3.2% beer license for India Gate
Restaurant at 27 Century Avenue North.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
2. Acceptance of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report – 2010
a. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl gave a brief report.
Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for 2010.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
3. Authorization to Form Living Streets Task Force
a. City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompson gave the report.
Councilmember Llanas moved to authorize the creation of a Living Street Task Force in order to
further refine the focus of a policy and work collaboratively with stakeholders in providing more
detailed feedback for the staff to move forwarded with the creation of a Maplewood Living Streets
Policy.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Councilmember Koppen moved to appoint Councilmember Llanas and Councilmember
Juenemann to serve on the Living Street Task Force.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
May 23, 2011 25
City Council Meeting Minutes
K. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
1. Tim Kinley, Maplewood. Mr. Kinley discussed the topic of organized trash collection.
2. Bob Zick, North St. Paul, addressed the council.
3. Paul Pearson, Maplewood, addressed the council.
L. AWARD OF BIDS
None.
M. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
None.
N. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1. Support of Veterans Clinic –
Mr. Antonen stated the Ramsey County Veterans
Administration is considering relocating out of the Hazelwood Professional Building. The City
of Maplewood would like to keep this business in Maplewood. Mr. Antonen stated he would
be happy to write a letter of support for the city council regarding the city’s support of a new
10,000 square foot building potentially located behind the new Walgreen’s building at Beam
and White Bear Avenue. Mr. Dan Regan with Air Lake Development addressed the council
regarding this future proposal.
2. Resident Letter, Teenage Bullying – Councilmember Llanas
Councilmember Llanas gave a presentation and read a letter from a Maplewood resident
regarding teen bullying in the schools.
3. National Night Out – Councilmember Juenemann
Councilmember Juenemann stated National Night Out is Tuesday, August 2, 2011. More
information is available on the city website.
O. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rossbach adjourned the meeting at 9:44 p.m.
May 23, 2011 26
City Council Meeting Minutes