Loading...
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