HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/11/2003LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARC2003
CITY H .00 P.M. s .
V
The City Council is meeting as a legislative body to conduct the business of the City according to
ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND THE STANDING RULES OF ORDER AND
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Unless so ordered by the Mayor, citizen participation is
limited to the times indicated and always within the prescribed rules of conduct for public input at
meetings.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AT 7:00 P. M.
2. ROLL: E I UA6
Councilmembers:
McCloskey Christensen
Gill -Gerbig Giannetti _
Mayor Dains
Staff: Administrator Getschow
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
4. APPROVAL
A. Approval of minutes of 2/25/03 City Council Meeting
B. Approval of claims totaling $62,561.90
5. OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON
THE AGENDA
Any member of the public may speak at this time on any item NOT on the agenda. In
consideration of the public attending the meeting for specific items on the agenda, this portion of
the meeting will be limited to fifteen (15) minutes. Individuals are requested to limit their
comments to four (4) minutes or less. If the majority of the Council determines that additional
time on a specific issue is warranted, then discussion on that issue shall be continued under
Additional Items at the end of the agenda. Before addressing the City Council, members of the
public are asked to step up to the microphone, give their name, address and state the subject to be
discussed. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any member
thereof. No person other than members of the Council and the person having the floor shall be
permitted to enter any discussion without permission of the presiding officer. Your participation,
as prescribed by the Council's ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND THE STANDING RULES
OF ORDER AND BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, is welcomed and your cooperation is
greatly appreciated.
City of Lauderdale Council Agenda
March 11, 2003
Page 2
6. CONSENT
7. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ CITIZENS
ADDRESSING STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
8. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS
A. State Senator John Marty and State Representative Mindy Greiling-
2003 Legislative Session
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public hearings are conducted so that the public affected by a proposal may have input
into the decision. During hearings, all affected residents will be given an opportunity to
speak pursuant to the ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND THE STANDING RULES
OF ORDER AND BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
10. ACTION
A. Approval of Final Costs for the 1997 Ramsey County Larpenteur Avenue
Reconstruction Project
11. REPORTS
A. Refuse Collection Task Force Meeting Update (no memorandum)
12. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
13. ADDITIONAL ITEMS
14. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING
15. WORK SESSION DISCUSSION
A. Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment
B. 2003 Improvements
16. ADJOURNMENT
2
3.
5
Lauderdale City Council
Meeting Minutes
February 25, 2003
Meeting called to order at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL
Council present: Giannetti, McCloskey, Gill -Gerbig and Mayor Dains
Council absent: Christensen
Staff present: Administrator Getschow
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
A. Approval of Agenda. Motion by McCloskey, second by Gill -Gerbig to
approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL
A. Approval of Minutes. Motion by Giannetti, second by Gill -Gerbig to
approve the minutes of the February 11, 2003 City Council meeting. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. Approval of Claims totaling $49,230.92. Motion by McCloskey, second
by Gill -Gerbig to approve the claims totaling $49,230.92. Motion carried
unanimously.
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS ITEMS NOT ON THE
AGENDA
6. CONSENT
Lauderdale City Council
Meeting Minutes, February 25, 2003
Page 2
7. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
8. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. REPORTS
A. Governor's Budget Plan - State Aid Reductions. The City Administrator
reported on the potential state aid cuts to Lauderdale stemming from the
governor's 2004-2005 budget proposal. Even though there has been discussion
that these cuts average 5% of a city's revenue and cuts to a city budget need not
exceed that amount, the fact remains that cities will lose approximately 29% of
their aid in 2003 and over 30% of their aid in 2004. The 5% number is not
necessarily applicable because several components of a city budget, such as the
debt service funds, do not have flexibility for cuts or reductions.
In providing information on the budget proposal and its several components that
affect local government aid (LGA), the Administrator stated that the potential aid
cuts have been planned and partially budgeted for by the city already.
Fortunately, under the current proposal there should not be the need for major
budget cuts or service reductions in the City of Lauderdale.
The proposed 2003 cut is approximately $75,000. This will be covered by
budgeting part of the loss in 2003 and using excess dollars retained from 2002.
The 2004 cuts, proposed to be approximately $47,000, is lower than most other
communities because the formula used by the Governor in calculating this cut has
elements and variables that are not as detrimental to Lauderdale as other
communities that have relied on more "grandfathered" aid.
Another important point that was made is that this proposal is just that — a
proposal. The Legislature has yet to take action on governor's initiative. As a
result of this, the Mayor stated that the attendance of the Lauderdale state
legislators at a future City Council meeting is important.
Lauderdale City Council
Meeting Minutes, February 25, 2003
Page 3
11. ACTION
A. Approval of Hiring for the Deputy Clerk Position. The City Administrator
presented the position description, proposed pay scale, and draft advertisement for
the vacant Deputy Clerk position.
Motion by Gill -Gerbig, second by McCloskey to approve the job announcement
and job description for the Deputy Clerk position and to direct the City
Administrator to advertise to fill the position. Roll: Yes: all. Motion carried.
B. Approval of Resolution 022503A: A Resolution Authorizing Application
for CDBG Funds for the 2003 Utility Infrastructure Improvements. The City
Administrator stated that Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
are available for 2003 from Ramsey County through the federal government on a
competitive application basis once again this year. The City previously received
$80,000 in funds for the 2000 and 2002 Street and Utility Improvements.
This year's application once again would request $80,000 in grant funds from
Ramsey County that would be earmarked for the utility portion of the overall
2003 improvement project. The street reconstruction portion of the project is not
eligible for CDBG funds due to the fact that assessable improvements are not
eligible for these funds.
Motion by McCloskey, second by Giannetti to approve Resolution 022503A: A
Resolution Authorizing Application for CDBG Funds for the 2003 Utility
Infrastructure Improvements. Roll: Yes: all. Motion carried.
C. City Code Revision to Title 1, Chapter 5, Section 2- Council Meeting
Bylaws -Regular Meetings. The Administrator brought forward a city code
revision that changes the start time of City Council meetings from 7:30 p.m. to
7:00 p.m. based upon earlier discussion by the Council to move to an earlier start
time.
Motion by Gill -Gerbig, second by McCloskey to approve the revised City Code
Title 1, Chapter 5, Section 2- Council Meeting Bylaws -Regular Meetings. Roll:
Yes: all. Motion carried.
Lauderdale City Council
Meeting Minutes, February 25, 2003
Page 4
12. DISCUSSION
A. Potential Hazardous Building at 1728 Malvern Street. The City
Administrator stated that in 2001, the City Council discussed the potential
nuisance property at 1728 Malvern that has been vacant. At that time the City
Council received a letter signed by a number of residents on Malvern Street
between Larpenteur Avenue and Ione Street regarding the condition of a
potentially vacant house at 1728 Malvern Street. The Council indicated that they
would like to pursue dealing with this building as potentially hazardous under the
Hazardous Building Act (State Statute Chapter 463).
The Administrator then reported that before the City initiated any proceedings, the
owner of the property passed away and a surviving member of the family was
planning on seeking a demolition permit to remove the house. This has not
happened and the property has continued to sell and be listed for sale as a contact -
for -deed property.
The Council was concerned about the property and indicated that they intend to
address this issue once again under the Hazardous Building Act.
Motion by Gill -Gerbig, second by McCloskey to direct city staff to begin to go
through the proper stages of the Hazardous Building Act for the property at 1728
Malvern Street. Roll: Yes: all. Motion carried.
B. Falcon Heights Nature Area DNR Trail Grant Application. The
Administrator stated that he was approached by the City of Falcon Heights to be a
partner in a DNR trails grant application for the main trail that goes through the
Nature Area in Lauderdale and Falcon Heights from Lauderdale Hollows to
Coffinan Avenue. The grant would call for grading paving the trial for better use
and access.
The Mayor stated that he has concerns with paving the trail. The Lauderdale
portion of the trail has some steep slopes that could be a potential hazard for
bikers and roller-bladers that may use a paved trail. Also, there could be further
erosion on the slopes of the trial with additional paved surface. He felt that it was
important to partner with Falcon Heights- and this gesture is very much
appreciated- but the preference is for the Council to focus on the condition of the
other paths in the Nature Area at this time.
Lauderdale City Council
Meeting Minutes, February 25, 2003
Page 5
13. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
13. ADDITIONAL ITEMS
14. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING
1. State Legislator's Presentation
2. Larpenteur Avenue 1997 Project Pay Requests
3. Work Session: Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment
15. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by McCloskey, second by Gill -Gerbig to adjourn at 8:27 P.M. Ayes: All.
CITY OF LAUDERDALE
Claims for Approval
March 11, 2003 City Council Meeting
Payroll
02/28/03 Payroll:
02/28/03 Payroll:
02/28/03 Payroll:
02/28/03 Payroll:
Feb '03 Payroll:
(Vendor Claims
Check # 7328-7339
EFT: Federal Withholding Taxes/FICA
EFT: PERA
EFT: ICMA Retirement Fund
EFT: State Withholding Taxes
103/11/03 Claims: Check # 16220-16237
Subtotal of Claims From Above
$8,365.06
$3,068.71
$903.89
$1,211.58
$889.98
$48,122.681
$62,561.90
Total Claims for Approval $62,561.90
CITY OF LAUDERDALE 02/27/03 9:23 AM
Page 1
Paid Register
Check
Employee
Pay
Pay Group
Check
Check
Numbe
Number
Employee Name
Period
Description
Amount
Date
Status
007328
000000101
DUBORD, ANDREW
5
BI -WEEKLY
$109.16
2/28/03
Outstanding
007329
000000011
BOWNIK, JAMES
5
BI -WEEKLY
$1,001.77
2/28/03
Outstanding
007330
000000014
CHRISTENSEN, CLAY
5
BI -WEEKLY
$496.89
2/28/03
Outstanding
007331
000000010
DAINS, JEFFREY
5
BI -WEEKLY
$718.37
2/28/03
Outstanding
007332
000000003
GETSCHOW, RICK
5
BI -WEEKLY
$1,802.99
2/28/03
Outstanding
007333
000000015
GIANNETTI, MOOSE
5
BI -WEEKLY
$462.13
2/28/03
Outstanding
007334
000000016
GILL-GERBIG, KAREN
5
BI -WEEKLY
$496.89
2/28/03
Outstanding
007335
000000002
HINRICHS, DAVID C
5
BI -WEEKLY
$1,216.36
2/28/03
Outstanding
007336
000000005
HUGHES, JOSEPH A
5
BI -WEEKLY
$1,226.08
2/28/03
Outstanding
007337
000000102
McCLOSKEY, JEFF
5
BI -WEEKLY
$496.89
2/28/03
Outstanding
007338
000000055
HAWKINSON, LUKE
5
BI -WEEKLY
$208.01
2/28/03
Outstanding
007339
000000056
HINRICHS, RICHARD
5
BI -WEEKLY
$129.52
2/28/03
Outstanding
007327
VOID
5
$0.00
2/28/03
Void
$8,365.06
CITY OF LAUDERDALE
Vendor Transactions
CHECK Check Batch
Nbr Date Name Invoice Amount Comments
Search Name AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING
016220 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03 $217.80 soil testing '02 st/util improvements
Search Name AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING $217.80
Search Name BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK
016221
3/11/03
031103claims 95754
016221
3/11/03
031103claims 95755
016221
3/11/03
031103claims 95756
016221
3/11/03
031103claims 95757
Search Name BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK
Search Name CINTAS
016222
3/11/03
031103claims 3/11/03
Search Name CINTAS
Search Name CITY OF ROSEVILLE
016223 3/11/03 031103claims 4003
Search Name CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Search Name GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD
016224 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03
Search Name GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD
Search Name HOME DEPOT CRC
016225 3/11/03 031103claims 9121730
Search Name HOME DEPOT CRC
Search Name HUGHES & COSTELLO
016226 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03
016226 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03
Search Name HUGHES & COSTELLO
Search Name KENNEDY & GRAVEN
016227 3/11/03 031103claims 55193
016227 3/11/03 031103claims 55193
Search Name KENNEDY & GRAVEN
Search Name MINNESOTA AFSCME
016228 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03
Search Name MINNESOTA AFSCME
Search Name NORTH STAR BANK, PETTY
016229 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03
016229 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03
016229 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03
016229 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03
016229 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03
016229 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03
Search Name NORTH STAR BANK, PETTY
Search Name OFFICE MAX
016230 3/11/03 031103claims 5241j028
$194.00 01/03 general engineering
$3,643.86 01/03'02 st/util improvements
$1,073.86 01/03'03 st/util improvements
$5,740.00 01/03 npdes phase2 ms4 permit
$10,651.72
$74.46 2/24, 3/3 pw uniforms
$74.46
$328.16 jan, feb '02 jnt powers technical services
$328.16
$32.34 2/28 water delivery
$32.34
$75.57 cleaning/maintenance supplies
$75.57
$850.00 03/03 legal services
$70.25 03/03 print/process
$920.25
$41.23 01/03 print/process
$317.50 01/03 general legal
$358.73
$52.64 02/03 union dues
$52.64
$5.34 certified mail
$53.95 mileage, parking dave
$3.50 truck wash
$14.00 pcic pizza, pop
$6.84 mileage james
$44.28 mileage rick
$127.91
$44.56 general office supplies
03/06/03 3:27 PM
Page 1
CITY OF LAUDERDALE
Vendor Transactions
CHECK Check Batch
Nbr Date Name Invoice Amount Comments
Search Name OFFICE MAX $44.56
Search Name PARK HARDWARE HANK
016231 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03
Search Name PARK HARDWARE HANK
Search Name PARK SERVICE
016232 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03
016232 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03
Search Name PARK SERVICE
Search Name RAMSEY COUNTY, PROP REC & REV
016233 3/11/03 031103claims pubw003082
016233 3/11/03 031103claims pubw003082
Search Name RAMSEY COUNTY, PROP REC & REV
Search Name ST PAUL POSTMASTER
016234 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03
Search Name ST PAUL POSTMASTER
Search Name WAGERS BUSINESS SYSTEMS
016235 3/11/03 031103claims cnin005456
Search Name WAGERS BUSINESS SYSTEMS
Search Name XCEL ENERGY
016236
3/11/03
031103claims 3/11/03
016236
3/11/03
031103claims 3/11/03
016236
3/11/03
031103claims 3/11/03
016236
3/11/03
031103claims 3/11/03
016236
3/11/03
031103claims 3/11/03
016236
3/11/03
031103claims 3/11/03
016236
3/11/03
031103claims 3/11/03
016236
3/11/03
031103claims 3/11/03
016236
3/11/03
031103claims 3/11/03
016236
3/11/03
031103claims 3/11/03
016236
3/11/03
031103claims 3/11/03
Search Name XCEL ENERGY
$20.74 cleaning/maintenance supplies
$20.74
$78.71 02/03 truck fuel
$78.71 02/03 truck fuel
$157.42
$1,188.43 larp ave reconstruction final
$31,516.15 larp ave reconstruction final
$32,704.58
$250.00 2g03 newsletter postage
$250.00
$240.75 2g03 copier maintenance
$240.75
$44.86 02/03 city hall electric
$422.10 02/03 street lighting
$101.30 02/03 park electric
$241.88 02/03 park gas
$9.68 02/03 garage electric
$9.67 02/03 garage electric
$88.67 02/03 garage gas
$461.41 02/03 city hall gas
$134.59 02/03 city hall electric
$153.80 02/03 city hall gas
$88.67 02/03 garage gas
$1,756.63
Search Name XCEL ENERGY, LIFT STATIONS
016237 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03 $92.68 02/03 malvern lift station electric
016237 3/11/03 031103claims 3/11/03 $15.74 02/03 malvern lift station gas
Search Name XCEL ENERGY, LIFT STATIONS $108.42
Grand Total $48,122.68
03/06/03 3:27 PM
Page 2
Lauderdale City Council Memorandum
Council Meeting Date: March 11, 2003
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Getschow, City Administrator
Agenda Item: 2003 Legislative Session- State Legislators
BACKGROUND:
Senator Marty and Representative Greiling will be in attendance at the
March 11th meeting.
As everyone is aware, THE preeminent issue is the state budget deficit and the proposed
state aids cuts for 2003 and 2004. I have included in the packet some different
background information on the issue, including an e-mail that was sent to a research aide,
and copied to Representative Greiling, on the state aid issue.
I have also enclosed information about the legislation that Senator Marty and
Representative Greiling have recently authored or co-authored, along with some
biographical information.
ENCLOSURES:
1. Information form the Governor's Proposal on State Aid Cuts
2. E-mail regarding LGA Reform
3. Legislative Information on Senator Marty and Representative Greiling
Feb 21 2883 16:50:21 Via Fax -> 651+631+2866 Administrator
-FridayFax-
A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities
When is 91/2 percent equal to 40%'?
City officials and others who have tried to
digest the governor's budget proposal for aid
reductions have been confronted with a wide
array of seemingly contradictory statistics.
Depending upon how you measure it, the
governor's proposal could appear to be either
modest or dramatic.
In the governor's budget proposal, he portrays
the cuts as a 5 percent reduction for cities in
calendar- year 2003 and a 9.5 percent reduction
in calendar year 2004. The governor
characterized these cuts as reasonable when he
recently stated "If you're on a city council or a
city manager and you can't manage a 5 -percent
reduction in your total revenues without
reducing police or fire services, you should be
fired."
Elsewhere in his budget, he indicates that the
cuts are 22 percent of aids and in other sections
the cuts are described as 29 percent, 18.9
percent and 38.5 percent.
So which numbers are correct? As you might
guess, all of the figures are, in their proper
context, accurate.
Starting with the governor's 5% and 9.5%
figures—he compares his proposed cuts to total
city revenues. The problem is that total city
revenues include revenues to all governmental
funds including the general fund, debt service
funds, special revenue funds and capital
projects funds. In fact, about the only things
excluded are enterprise fund revenues and
proceeds from bond sales. By using such a
broad number, the cut appears to be modest.
However, most of the funds outside the general
fund are not available for general government
operations nor can they necessarily be reduced
to cover state aid reductions.
Page 881 Of OR
February 21, 2003
Page 1
The 22 percent figure refers to the city and
county cuts as a percentage of total property
tax aids and credits. This category is
commonly used in state financial reports.
However, property tax aids and credits include
programs that do not fund cities or counties. In
fact, programs like the circuit breaker, the
renters' refund and the targeting program—all
programs that provide direct payments to
individuals based on their property tax
burdens—are included in this broad category,
These latter direct taxpayer programs are not
cut under the governor's proposal and therefore
including them results in the appearance of a
smaller cut.
The 29 percent, 18.9 percent and 38.5 percent
figures all are related to cuts in aids paid only
to cities. The total cut over the two-year period
is 29 percent of ALL city aids. All city aids
include several specific programs such as aid to
police and fire and PERA aid as well as LGA
and market value homestead credit. The first
year cut—for 2003 aids—is actually 18.9
percent while the second -year permanent cut is
38.5 percent. The 29 percent is roughly an
average of the two annual cuts.
To really make your head spin, the League
would like to suggest two additional
statistics -20.9 percent and 40.8 percent. These
are the reductions in city LGA and market
value homestead credit for calendar year 2003
and 2004 respectively.
In the end, none of these measures accurately
portrays the actual impact of the Governor's
proposal on individual city's budgets. Perhaps
the most accurate way to analyze the impact is
to look at a cities' cut as a percent of their
general operating budget, that is, the portion of
their budget which includes the spending from
which cuts would have to be made.
...ted
For more information on city legislative issues, contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team.
651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122
rrrrrr-r-rr-rr-r-r-rr-rrrrr-r- rr- r-TTTTTTTTTTT
D D D D D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D D D--- m m m m m
C(nu)rn7ZZZ�TTTTTTTTTTTTTTT-n0ZZZ�r-m { O�ZZ
O -{ D X O m O O M m rn m m m rn m m m m m m m rn m D� z o m m x w -A
�CmX��mDWXzZm��I=Drm����W mumu-�i�Dz�mOOpZ i
O� mmOr �r r -r rZ� <�pZ in Orn �T
r O XOmwOOOXm7\z�Ooo Z--imm Z m n
m = Z O D p z z
O X r z
X co
m m
C/) D
T
0
r, a
N c
W W J W (O J N CO J N O P — N J Cn CD CT — cn
O O N O -A Co O W cn Cn Cn N W A W CO cn Co W Cn O 4i " N -+ CO N Cn A M J O M N O
-A co Co Co N W O Cn O" Cn O A CO O CO M J— O N A N O CO "" (D O) Wo O J 4A J O
N
O
-• O
Cl)
_ NW _ co _ N j N -� J -> J N N Cn _ -� N -010,r.
Cn -.i O Un V W W W N N �N- . W N J CWO V m V v N --� PIN O W J W W o Gi
Cn W O A W A J �_ N N W M O_ W (O W O IV W N N W A Co (o -� W O Cn W O W W O +A D
4 W O W COO N N J Co W co� v V M COn O M O� Cn(DCWO W O M W J 00 O O Co A A Cfl " rA }
"' --' -� W CO W J N N A
N
O
a i i a O
W a N Cn W Cn N co a CD a i W
U1 -� tb 00
:4 ()l -� CO 00 W A a a a CD CD A a N a
W a O A fD V V A W V W IV N W W N M W W IV CD i s" O V ? C a C
W N A W O O W V 00 Cn O) T A CAD W coW CD 0 M N V O 000 A W O COSI '�
M D) A A V W N O W A O W W O W a a a O A W Cn V A O V Ut N
D N
N N N O a CO O N ---� W (0 -� N O < r N 0
O V p W p Co — .Pp A Cn N Cn Wo p = D N O
W N J O CO O IV O W J J (O M O — O O .A Co -i .p Co Co A Cn W N W -� W W Co cn n
\ \ \ a \ \ \ \ \ \ \° \ \ \ o \ \ \ \ o \ \ \ o \ + 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o o
MO
CO < m O
C,o N W Co Cn ? CO CO -? Co Cn Cn A CO J W Cn M Co A W CO CO A Cn Co .P A Cn 6)(fl N O Cn A co W (n (D
N Ut W O -Po O W W w O W m w A -,l Co A W Ut O W W -� V O U
U1 -ri 1 CO W -+ W O coW N) :P. + C o
\ \ \ \ \ \ o \ \ \ 0 0 0 \ \ o \ \ o o \ \ \ \ \ \ o \ \° o \ (D
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 N N
O
<
Cn W W W W W W W W A N (n W Cn W W W N N Cn Cn W W W Cn W W W W O W N W W CJ7 W 0
W
O m Cn m Cn Cn 6 " Cn O m O Cn ZD O Cn Cn U) " Cfl O O Cn Ui O M C77 U7 Cn W Ul .Fn Un O CUn - o n
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
i O
N i N W N i O
A A O N A O A i A A N W 3 00 i co N W N co N
V N N N N U1 Co CD a W Cn V a N A W Cft Cn -� -+ a A N V aD W a ao W Cn to i W N N Ci
V 0 W --� N V � " W N W O) N J A W Cn V W N O U1 W W N V i CTC Cn i T O O CO W -4 A
N Cn 00 i W i A Cn W N N A V N O W N O 0) N" CO Cl CO 00 V N O W CD Cn m m Cn a O
W i Cn N W W W 00 O J N O O CD CD V Ut O O 00 A CD N A 0 O W W CD A O W Cn
D N
r � o
W Cn Cn O a N J O N W W i .A N 0) o) N -+ W i G 'n w cD
.p
O (0 CP O C7) CO V J O Cn O p S D n
00 .p N -4 3 N O W J 0 0 .A W J N O W W Ut O -A w (D W (J w (O W co CD w m — CO co co W C7 t 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO C(D CD O
N G N
Cr O N(O O P OW NW #2J J
o C7
W W IJ co (o P -> Co 0 C
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-i DN
m 0 cn o
m
W W W W Wo W O CO ao .A N O CO W J W (p (b (A N Cfl O W 90 OD Cfl 00 W Co p -+ Co (o Cb CO O. D
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M Cn O CJ U7 -A O C7 -1 (O Cn Cn 0 0 0 M CD 0 CD --I -1 0 0 0 0 Cn C C7 n
oI
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \° \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o`G —
Getschow, Rick
From: Getschow, Rick
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 3:16 PM
To: 'Mwtraynor@aol.com'
Cc: Mindy Greiling (E-mail); Karen Gill -Gerbig (E-mail 3)
Subject: LGA
Mark:
Thank you for your e-mail. Here are my responses to your questions:
1) What are your general thoughts about changing the LGA formula to better
account for the needs of a city?
Currently, approximately 20% of LGA funding is "needs -based". I am assuming that you are
researching if this percentage needs to be increased to be fully "needs -based". Even
though I feel that the current "need" factors apply well to our City, until I see how a
major change in the formula affects our City, I could not comment on the change.
I believe that the four factors (population, % population decline, % pre -1940 housing, and
% tax base that is commercial or industrial) that are used to assess need have been
thoughtfully considered and have merit. I would always be open to discussing additional or
replacement variables, but I have not yet considered what those would be.
However, the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) has raised a concern with the pre -1940
housing variable. The concern is not necessarily with the variable itself, but with how
it is collected or reported. It seems that for some cities the census statistic appears
to fluctuate significantly and the actual age of the housing is not being accurately
estimated. They have recommended that a replacement source for the data to measure the
amount of housing be identified.
2) From your city's perspective, are there any variables -- current or
potential -- that are better or worse in measuring the LGA needs of a city?
As I stated above, I believe the variables used have merit. But in Lauderdale, the % of
commercial/industrial (C/I) property variable may be the most important. Lower
percentages of C/I property usually means a lower tax capacity. This lower tax capacity
can then translate to a higher tax rate from a smaller tax base to fund essential
services.
3) Are there any particular concerns about "needs -based" or "means -tested"
LGA that you think our elected officials should be aware of?
Each city has unique and individual circumstances. Fully developed, residential
communities with an older housing stock in the metro area such as Lauderdale have certain
characteristics and "needs" that are different than out state cities with declining
populations and an equal residential and commercial mix, but that also has great "need"
from possessing a low tax capacity. Therefore, it is important to understand that there
are only a few certain variables that can be used in the LGA formula that show correlation
with the need, overburden, or ability to pay of a community.
Other Thoughts:
Lauderdale would oppose major cuts to aid, regardless of formula reform, that:
• Would jeopardize city credit ratings;
• Would shift tax increases from state tax sources to property tax sources; and
• Include levy limits;
Finally, Lauderdale has a population of 2,364. Some early proposals.have discussed not
applying the aid cuts to cities under 2,500 since it has been shown that these cities
receive less than 15% of all aid and are more dependent on the aid. This is similar to
the'current levy limit requirements that also exempt these small cities. The City would
obviously support such proposals that do not include smaller cities.
Please feel free to follow-up for any further information.
I look forward to seeing the information and research is collected.
Sincerely,
Rick Getschow
City Administrator
City of Lauderdale
2
Mindy Greiling and John Marty confer on legislation.
How serious is the
budget deficit?
The budget shortfall is estimated to total $356 million for the fiscal year that ends next June. For
the following two-year budget period, the deficit is projected to total $4.2 billion. If inflation is
factored in for expenditures as it is for revenues, the total deficit is over $5 billion.
To put the size of this problem in perspective, if the state eliminated all employee costs (salary,
benefits and pensions) for all employees on the state payroll through the General Fund, we
would not have eliminated even half of the deficit!
Obviously, it is not realistically possible to do this -- laying offjudges, court employees, the Gover-
nor and his employees, the Legislature, prison guards, the employees in state agencies -- but even
if it could be done, it would not be sufficient to solve the deficit.
In addition, the latest forecast is based on national economic figures which do not take into ac-
count the impact of a war with Iraq. However, the budget forecasters mention the possibility and
state that a war would cause a significant increase in the size of the budget problem
Environment
John Marty has been selected as the Chair of the Senate Environment and Natural
Resources Committee.
"Senator Marty has an outstanding record of leadership on environmental policy," Representative
Greiling said. "Minnesota's record as an environmental state has faded in recent years. We are
fortunate to get such a strong advocate for environmental protection in this important position."
Education
Bundy Greiling has been appointed to serve as the lead minority
member of the Education Finance Committee in the House of Rep-
resentatives during the 2003-04 Session.
"Representative Greiling's commitment to education and her expertise on
education issues is widely recognized. 1 am pleased that she will be serv-
ing in this important position," Sen. Marty said. "Our schools continue to
face difficult budget times, and her strong advocacy for quality schools is
much needed."
Campaign Reform
During the recent political campaign season, almost everyone was fired of
the mud -slinging ads flying back and forth bebveen candidates, the parties
and special-interest groups. In some of the Congressional races, the ads
were particularly nasty. Many of the negative attacks were misleading,
and did not provide useful information to voters. The continual mudslinging
alienates people, turning them off to the point that they do not even vote.
Sen. Marty and Rep.Greiling are working on a Clean Campaign Code
designed to reduce this growing problem. They are also continuing their
reform efforts to increase financial disclosure, as well as their efforts to
stop the flow of special-interest money.
— — — — — — Cut here, fold in thirds with questions on the inside, tape, stamp and return — — — — — —
PRSRT STD
U.S. Postage
PAID
Pcrmit No. 3227
St. Peui, MN
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Cut here, fold in thirds with questions on the inside, tape, stamp and return — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sen. John Marty & Rep. Mindy Greiling — 2003 Legislative Survey
A recent non-partisan analysis of statewide property
taxes indicates that the average homeowner will see a
property tax increase averaging over 13% in 2003, 25
times the rate of increase for most business property.
Do you favor treasures that would reduce or eliminate
this shift of property taxes from business to residential
property?
— Yes — No
2. Should the state provide public funding for the con-
struction of professional sports stadiums?
Yes _ No
What do you consider to be the biggest environmental
problems in Minnesota? (check all that apply):
Contaminated air quality
— Polluted lakes, streams and rivers
_ Loss of wildlife habitat to development and urban
sprawl
— Pollution from pesticides and animal feedlots
— bnpact of motorized recreation vehicles on public
lands
Energy consumption and global warming
On an average night, shelters for the homeless provide
bed space for about 7,000 Minnesotans, almost half of
whom are children With the current level of funding
from government, churches, and non-profit housing
groups, about 1,000 people are turned away each night.
Last year, an estimated 100 homeless Minnesotans died
on the streets and in health care centers from exposure,
illness and violence. Should state funding for shelters
be cut as part of the budget -balancing package?
— The state should provide more funding for home-
less shelters and affordable housing
— Affordable housing funds should be cut as part
of the budget -balancing measures
Should Minnesota state law be changed to make it easier
for people to get a permit to carry a handgun in public
places?
Yes No
There is a proposal for the state to begin borrowing
money to build roads. Do you favor paying for roads
when they are constructed, or borrowing money and
paying back the bonds over a period of years?
_ Pay up front
_ Borrow money and pay it back over time with
interest
_ Don't make road improvements at this time
In the tobacco lawsuit settlement in 1998, the state used
approximately three quarters of the money for general
budget purposes, but set aside one-quarter in an en-
dowment to be paid out over many years for efforts to
reduce smoking and improve health care. Should the
state use the money in the tobacco endowment to bal-
ance the budget, or keep the endowment for smoking
prevention and health care?
— Use up the tobacco endowment money to balance
the budget now
— Keep the tobacco endowment for smoking
prevention and health care
8. As a result of school budget shortages, many teachers
have been laid off, and many school districts are asking
voters to pass levy referendums using property taxes to
pay for schools. When state funding for local schools
is considered during the upcoming session, should the
level of funding be:
Increased — Decreased
Kept the same with inflation adjustment
— Kept the same with no inflation adjustment
9. With the state facing a $5 billion budget shortfall, how
do you think the deficit should be addressed? Please
check all the items you would support:
Reduce state aid to schools
_ Reduce state funding and raise tuition for higher
education
_ Reduce government subsidies to private
businesses
— Reduce folding for nursing homes and other
health and human services
Reduce transportation funding
Make across-the-board cuts
— Undo recent tax cuts (Specify):
Income tax
— Residential property tax
— Commercial & Industrial property tax
— License tab fees for higber-valued cars
Expand sales tax to more goods and services
— Increase gasoline tax
— Shift tax burden to local government property
taxes by reducing state aid to local governments
Other (specify):
10. If taxes go up next year, would you rather have local
property taxes increase, or prefer to have the state handle
the problem with state taxes such as sales and income
taxes, or fees.
_ Local property taxes
State taxes
Other issues or concerns: (use additional paper if necessary)
Biography of Senator John Marty
Page 1 of 2
-- General Info T r--- Senate Offices- - 2d- -Schedules -2 - --Publications - -
Senator John Marty (DFL)
District 54
Bills Chief Authored
Bills Co -Authored
District Map
Town Hall Meetings and Press Releases
Capitol address: *323 State Capitol
St. Paul, MN 55155
Capitol phone: (651) 296-5645
E-mail: sen.john.marty@senate.mn
Home: Roseville
2478 Lydia Ave W 55113
Home phone: (651) 633-8934
Born: 11/1/56
Married: Spouse Connie, 2 children.
Occupation: Writer.
Education: St. Olaf College.
Elected: 1986, re-elected 1990, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2002.
Term: 6th.
Special legislative concerns: Education, environment, ethics, criminal justice.
Committees: Environment and Natural Resources, chair; Judiciary; Rules and Administration;
Taxes.
*prefers interim mail at this address.
Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation to
your Senator or House Member.
If you are not sure who represents you click here.
Comments regarding this site: Questions? Comments?
http://www.senate.leg.state.nm.us/members/sendis54.htm 3/6/2003
Senate Bill Status Summary Display Documents 1 to 20 of 20
MEN e' .,
I�w11w
Em -
Senate Bill Status Summary Display Documents 1 to 20 of 20
Page 1 of 2
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us:8181/SEARCH/BASIS/sstat/public/www/SDF?ls_year=83&FILE SEAR... 3/6/2003
Status
Full
Text
Short Description
Bill
SF0005
Text
Election clean campaign council, pledge and advertising code
Bill
SF0006
Text
Election campaign finance provisions modifications
Bill
SF0007
Text
Absentee voting procedures simplification
Bill
SF0008
Text
Election campaign contributions acceptance as conflict of interest
Bill
SF0009
Text
Legislative open meeting law expansion
Bill
S170010
Text
Lobbyist reporting requirements expansion
Bill
SF0011
Text
Election campaign independent expenditures regulation modifications
Bill
SF0012
Text
Legislative political party caucuses election campaign contribution and spending limits
Bill
SF0013
Text
Lobbying restriction
Bill
SF0077
Text
Ramsey county Edgerton street bridge reconstruction bond issue and appropriation
—
Bill
SF0148
Text
Election campaign contributions and expenditures reporting requirements expansion
I,
Bill
SF0149
Text
Tribal governments tribal state compacts revision negotiation request
Bill
SF0240
Text
Telephone solicitations regulation expansion
Bill
SF0316
Text
Open meeting law violations administrative remedy
-
SF0317
711Government
data practices act violations administrative remedies
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us:8181/SEARCH/BASIS/sstat/public/www/SDF?ls_year=83&FILE SEAR... 3/6/2003
Senate Bill Status Summary Display Documents 1 to 20 of 20
Text
Page 2 of 2
SF045311 Bill Cigarettes fire retardant standards
Text
SF0648 Bill Resolution to apologize to persons with mental illness and developmental and other disabilities for
Text wrongful commitment to state institutions
SF0649 Bill Workers compensation coverage for personal injury caused by mental stress
Text
SF0650
Bill
Text
Civil remedy for employer willful or repeated occupational safety violations causing serious injury
or death
SF0705 Bill City and county election districts redrawing options and council and board membership election
Text requirements following redistricting
L� ti
s
5eat�l aun ark Es antl ►gad a rtn A V to n E VH
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us:8181/SEARCHBASIS/sstat/public/www/SDF?ls_year=83&FILE SEAR... 3/6/2003
Mindy Greiling (DFL) 54A - Minnesota House of Representatives
Pagel of 2
Generallnformation : (Departments Schedules Publications`
Bill number e. . hf1)
cn,."
Legislation
Committee Information
Member Information
House Leadership
Who represents you?
House Members ]
News & Views i.;
Audio & Video
Caucus Sites
Career Opportunities
House Rules
Temporary Rules
Joint Rules
Statistics
Session 1995 - 1996
Session 1997 - 1998
Session 1999 - 2000
Session 2001 - 2002
rintable version
Assistant Minority Leader
Mindy Greiling (DFL) 54A
* 259 State Office Building
Saint Paul,Minnesota 55155
(651) 296-5387
E-mail: rep.mindy.greiling(a house.mn
* Prefers interim mail at this address.
Bills Chief Authored
Bills Coauthored
District Map (pdf)
News and Views
Town Hall Meetings
Legislative Assistant: Krysta Niedernhofer 296-7173
C
Committees: Education Finance; Education Policv; Rules and Legislative Administration.
Recent News Items
DESPITE GOVERNOR'S CLAIMS. K-12 EDUCATION WILL BE HARMED BY BUDGET CUTS - (Posted: 2/27/2003)
DRIVER'S LICENSE BILL WRONG APPROACH TO SECURITY CONCERNS - (Posted: 2/5/2003)
2003 Session Preview - (Posted: 1/27/2003)
Biographical Information
Home: Roseville;2495 Marion St.,55113;(651) 490-0013
Born: 2/48
Family: Married: spouse Roger, 2 children
Occupation: Legislator/Homemaker/Community Volunteer
Education: BA, education, Gustavus Adolphus College; MA, education, University of
Minnesota
Elected: 1992
Term: 6th
Additional Biographical Information
Rep. Greiling is a former elementary school teacher and mother of two. She graduated from
Gustavus Adolphus College with a B.A. in education and earned a master's degree in
education from the University of Minnesota. Active in several community groups, Greiling
kicked off her political career as a state action coordinator for the League of Women Voters.
She served for two terms on her local Girl Scout Council and two terms on the Roseville Area
School Board before running for the Legislature. Greiling has served in the Minnesota House
of Representatives since 1992. This biennium, she is the lead minority member of the
Education Finance Committee and an assistant minority leader to the DFL caucus.
As a former educator, Greiling has focused her legislative work on school policy and funding.
She has passed legislation to streamline K-12 special education regulations in order to free
up more time for teachers to spend with students. She has supported school choice initiatives
such as charter schools and open enrollments, and she has worked for increased funding to
address the needs of gifted students. When her son developed schizophrenia, Greiling added
mental health to her legislative agenda. In the last two years, she has received five awards
for her work on mental health issues.
Recognition:
Legislator of the Year Award, the St. Paul Business and Professional Women's Organization,
2003
Readers' Choice Award, Lillie Suburban Newspaper Readers, 2002
http://ww3.house.leg.state.nm.us/members/members.asp?district=54A 3/6/2003
Mindy Greiling (DFL) 54A - Minnesota House of Representatives
Page 2 of 2
Outstanding Service to Youth Award, Northwest Youth & Family Services, 2002
MN School Psychologists' Association Legislative Award, 2002
Outstanding Legislator Award, National Alliance for the Mentally III - MN, 2001
People Incorporated Service Award, 2001
Community Service Award, MN Psychiatric Society, 2001
Hanson -Henn ingson Award, MN AIDS Project, 2000
Hahn-Stuhler Political Courage Award, 1998
Friend of the Gifted Award, 1998
Environmental Leadership Award, MN League of Conservation Voters, 1998 and 1996
Best Politician, Roseville Review readers, 1997
Common Cause Ethics Award, 1995
Women's Consortium Recognition Award, 1995
MN State University Student Association Legislator of the Year, 1995
Individual School Board Member Recognition Award, MN School Boards Assoc., 1990
Outstanding Girl Scout Leader Award, 1988
Friend of Education Award, MN Coalition for Public Education, 1987
Outstanding Leadership Award, North Suburban Gavel Association, 1985
Rose Award, League of Women Voters of Roseville, 1981
Involvement:
League of Women Voters
National Alliance for the Mentally III (Minnesota), board member
Ramsey County Friends of the Library
Roseville Friends of the Parks
Roseville Historical Society
Sierra Club
Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation
to your House Member or State Senator.
Send comments regarding this site to:
webmaster aahouse.Ieg.state.mn.us
For General Information please call (651) 296-2146 , (800) 657-3550 or TTY (651) 296-9896
http://ww3.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/members.asp?district=54A 3/6/2003
House Bill Status Summary Display Documents 1 to 10 of 10
11
��
Search Sutier fK and A
'igr
Tse ll urn Et+itam fi llel
House Bill Status Summary Display Documents 1 to 10 of 10
Page 1 of 1
HF0766
Bill
Summary
Arden Hills, Blaine, Circle Pines, Mounds View, New Brighton, Roseville, and
Status
Full
Summary
Short Description
Text
Bill
HF0766
Bill
Summary
Arden Hills, Blaine, Circle Pines, Mounds View, New Brighton, Roseville, and
HF0747
Text
Shoreview multicity housing authority established.
Pupil fair dismissal law compliance by nonpublic schools required in certain instances.
z
5eaehurar' Eri'antl [ 'r g
{rut��r� °=3ti rAn
l4ttp://www,revisor.le,g.state.mn.us; 8181/SEARCH/BASIS/hstat/public/www/SDF?SESSION_NUMBER=O&... 3/6/2003
Bill
HF0747
Text
Summary
Pupil fair dismissal law compliance by nonpublic schools required in certain instances.
Bill
Nonpublic school compliance with state high school graduation requirements required
HF0743
Text
Summary
under certain conditions.
Bill
HIV/STI education in schools regional training site funding provided, and money
HF0715
Text
Summalti
appropriated.
BillText
HF0345
Summary
Do -not -call list loopholes closed.
Campaign contribution and spending limits imposed on caucuses participating in the
HF0152
Bill
Text
Sulmnary
political contribution refund program, multicandidate expenditures limited, and
-
maximum political contribution refund increased.
Bill
HF0148
Text
Summary
Conflict of interest based on campaign contributions defined, and penalty imposed.
Bill
Campaign finance and reform bill providing for clean money campaigns; campaign
H_ F0133
Text
Summer
finance reporting requirements; contribution, spending, and independent expenditure
limits; public subsidies; and appropriating money.
Bill
Voluntary clean campaign council, pledge, and advertising code established; and
HF0128
Text
Summary
campaign expenditures definitions and disclaimers provisions clarified.
HF4118
Bill
Text
Sunmiary
Open meeting law expanded to include caucuses and conference committee
negotiations.
—
z
5eaehurar' Eri'antl [ 'r g
{rut��r� °=3ti rAn
l4ttp://www,revisor.le,g.state.mn.us; 8181/SEARCH/BASIS/hstat/public/www/SDF?SESSION_NUMBER=O&... 3/6/2003
Pressrelease - Minnesota House of Representatives
Legislature Horne I Search I Help I Links to the World
Minnesota
House of Representatives
State Representative Mindy Greiling
259 State Office Building
100 Constitution Ave., St. Paul, MN 55155
(651) 296-5387
For Immediate Release
1/2/2003
Page 1 of 1
For more information contact:
Virgil McDill (651-296-8873)
PRESS RELEASE
STATE REPRESENTATIVE MINDY GREILING ELECTED ASSISTANT MINORITY LEADER
State Representative Mindy Greiling of Roseville was elected this past weekend as an Assistant Minority
Leader for the DFL Caucus in the Minnesota House of Representatives. Greiling was unanimously
elected to the position by her fellow DFL representatives.
"I am honored to be elected to this important leadership position," Greiling said. "This is an extremely
critical time for the state of Minnesota, and I will use my position as Assistant Minority Leader to make
sure that we are protecting the quality of life people in Minnesota have come to expect."
Greiling, elected to her sixth term in the legislature in November, serves as the Lead Democrat on the K-
12 Education Finance Committee and is a leading advocate at the Capitol for adequate education
funding. On health care, she has authored legislation to improve family intervention standards for
persons with mental illness, and she has also been an outspoken proponent of improving our
transportation system.
Greiling said she will make sure the issues important to people in Minnesota are represented as the
state faces the current $4.56 billion budget deficit.
"During the current budget debate, we have to balance the very real need to reduce government
spending with protecting the quality of life here in Minnesota. As assistant minority leader, I want to help
identify areas of state government that can be cut, while also making sure that the costs of important
state services like transportation, health care or education aren't simply shifted to local homeowners,"
Greiling said. "I want to use my position as assistant minority leader to make sure the concerns of the
hard-working people in our area are being heard and that their interests are protected."
Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation
to your House Member or State Senator.
Send comments regarding this site to:
webmaster house, leg. state. mn.us
For General Information please call (651) 296-2146 , (800) 657-3550 or TTY (651) 296-9896
http://ww3.ho,4se,leg,state, , s/members/prQssrelease.asp?district=54A&pressid=196&party=l 3/6/2003
Lauderdale City Council Memorandum
Council Meeting Date: March 11, 2003
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Getschow, City Administrator
Agenda Item: 1997 Larpenteur Avenue Reconstruction Project -Final Costs
BACKGROUND:
At the end of 2002, Ramsey County closed the 1997 Larpenteur Avenue improvement
project. The County has recently sent an invoice for $32,704.58 that the City owes based
on $31,526.33 worth of construction engineering on the project that was not covered by
the dollar amounts paid upfront by the City in 1996. In 1996, and prior to the start of the
project, the City paid to the County $26,104.51 in our share of preliminary engineering
and $214,819.61 in our city share of construction costs. Of this approximate $240,000
city cost, $125,000 of CDBG funds were received and applied as part of that cost. I
have included two spreadsheets related to the Larpenteur project that illustrates the city
cost share for the project.
The agreement between the city and Ramsey County on this project specifies that the city
shall pay any remaining amounts due following the completion and closing out of the
project. The final payment for this project would come from the Street Improvement
Fund (401), which is a general capital improvement fund used to cover these types of
expenses. The portion of the agreement that addresses this issue is included in the
packet.
There are also Saint Paul Water Utility invoices that were a part of this project. Since the
Water had not yet assumed control of the city water operations in 1997, Lauderdale is
still responsible for certain water -related construction costs undertaken as part of this
project. Even though this request deals only with the Ramsey County invoice, there
could be Water Utility invoices that may need to be paid in the near future. These costs
would be funded form the Water Improvement Fund (409) and possibly include din
future claim requests.
ENCLOSURES:
1. Preliminary Cost Breakdown on the Larpenteur Avenue Reconstruction
Project Based on the Project Bid
2. Final Cost Breakdown on the Larpenteur Avenue Reconstruction Project
3. Paragraph 27 of the Ramsey County Cooperative Agreement with the City
of Lauderdale for the Larpenteur Avenue Reconstruction
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve the final costs, and in this instance, the final invoice in the amount of
$32,704.58 to Ramsey County for the Larpenteur Avenue Reconstruction Project.
Xz
75
-P
00I
ca
O
IJ
n+
b
o
C
v
ro
------
M�2
C
C
�
77
ro
ro
'o
OrVO
03 LA w
.n r"-1<L--�
b ,b
N O `FJ' O 00 N .ja O, -] po p p ro '0 �-- U 00 -V N w
cQ mz� h7o 09 0 �O [mi7o404 �o 040 moo �Oo
� /* H rZ° .r.mbyo
C �C ;u aav m dam ,y n� ° r r n r o
rh C7 C z rlc> rd a aam dam Or
z z n z�C zOdxmm znm zr rxd Cd�a
H a aOm 7a� a0 C] zC) m zC7m ZaC
O -Ga n �GzdCm �zr �O �zCy ami azd
z
h H Z H mrxn�dm tn[rf hK7x tnm�d„r tTj K U
z 7ry� O Z Om zx3m�in 7a titerx Gz amz m
V
yI0
ot
t-
-P
00I
O
IJ
b
------
------
M�2
00
OrVO
INS
ON
yI0
ot
t-
-P
00I
O
IJ
b
------
------
M�2
00
OrVO
I
ao
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
69
V
V
Q\
O�
W
W
V
V
V
V
O
O
W
V
W
69
69
O
W
A
07
W
OW
bo
?
m
w
CD
yI0
ot
t-
il
.Ja 0 O z z O O
A --I D — m 0-00 D D
D r z z 0 �o z r r
2r O m c) Zmm T m
o(oco(ncD(flZ m 2c ;Q m �K- Z �
CD
(OD MOD co 4 M U1 z ; z C D S cn
m
m 0z m cc =1�m c
Z " m m z D m m
O f m 0 0 n X y m -0 m m
G
En En En H9 69 En cn T -�-1 m N
O Z
NV0Vco
CD
AO D •• D (n
J W -• N A W J s
W A U7 U) O) Co
N !'� m W
WG0 O V 0) V W W
N 1
o m (D A m A 0)
EA En En En EA En (n
N _
N Ln CO m O J
W cn V W W (D A
OD O J 00 V W
N N N O QD W W
O (D N W Ow W
69169 En En En En 69 A En En En En En EA En
J W N
0 W r
j
N
j N
A A
ODNJNO W O
N
0
m
W
O
A W
Oo N A (D A W
V
cn
N
U7 —
?
N O
N A 00 W N V --+
O
N
C7
O
O
00
O
(D W W N d) W
A
O)
A
a) A
0O
(D W
W N U7 N A OD co
Un
(3) O
N J N W OD W
co
(J7
69
(n
W-
— A
69169 69 69 69 69 cn
A
CD — A -' (O m W
oowrncn(nJo
w(norn�w�
v Cn OD M (D (D M
Un O O J w N W
69 En 69 69 69 69
69
A
N OD
V N O O W O)
o) J (il Co co N w
O (n M m N V W W
NONCO V ON (D
mcn((DDO(ADOD V N
69169 69 69 I n 69 En
O I -� (77 W O V
(0I'm 0)(D(DAw
A (n WO J (P
(O Jm w OD— W
CIO w A U7 W w
V (D W NAAN
69 <A 1460) En En En En En
O O W W V O A
(DON OoA )O)
U7 U) W W O A N O
w W m w J W Ln N
OD O p A O) p W
(D O O N N J N A
A A W W O (D 0 W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B
C C C C C C C C C Z
T -O -OT TTS -0-00
(D W J W U) A W N —
En 69 En 69 69 N T
m
0
w w W co —0 x
cn C:) �rn Nw� rD-
A N W O CO
D) 6 W N A W
(D co A — CO —
69
En
En 69
°�
N
D -
—j
O)
0
cn
o (/moi
O
J
m
m
o
N
?
co
co
W
co
V 0)
O
N
C7
Oo
A
U) O
0
m
cn W
c:
V
V
W w
Z
fn
69
En 69 69
O
O
C)
D 0
O
W
J
0 T
N
000
N (D N
0
m
m
O w j
D
0
0 °)
r
N
rn
m
N
O 1 U7
(D
Ln N OD
,.,1 69 c 0
0 0 D
r
rn rn Z z
Z �
m
r
b9 69 fA En 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 0
W N �
-i
D
�O _o
Cl) N J N O (D A w
r
m N CD O W m N 0
OO s O (n O) O
, J (D W A W O. O.
A (D ONN wN(n52
m (D N w O 0 N A
-Ti N ;7 T
z -u m c
r N 0 0
O o O
U) N C C
0 <
T
D
A
m
z
-i
m
c
<
m
z
C
m
0
r
m
m
D
z
0
O
D
r
m
z
69
En
D -
—j
0
ou
J
m 0 0
o
DZT
o
(n
N
Ej m
m
A
in
O
2
69
69
O
C)
J
r O 0
W
J
Z T
000
cn
m
m
U7
A
A
N
A
co
_
--1
cn
^ r-
,.,1 69 c 0
0 0 D
r
rn rn Z z
Z �
m
r
b9 69 fA En 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 0
W N �
-i
D
�O _o
Cl) N J N O (D A w
r
m N CD O W m N 0
OO s O (n O) O
, J (D W A W O. O.
A (D ONN wN(n52
m (D N w O 0 N A
-Ti N ;7 T
z -u m c
r N 0 0
O o O
U) N C C
0 <
T
D
A
m
z
-i
m
c
<
m
z
C
m
0
r
m
m
D
z
0
O
D
r
m
z
_gall not assess or otherwise recover any portion of
-nis project through levy on County -owned property.
26. The County shall, when a construction contract is proposed to
be awarded, prepare a revised estimate and cost participation breakdown
based on construction contract unit prices and submit a copy to the
City. Upon concurrence to award a construction contract, the City
agrees to advance to the Treasurer of Ramsey County an amount equal to
the City total construction cost share. MN/DOT shall then be paid by
the County.
27. Upon substantial completion of the work, the County shall
prepare' a revised estimate of cost participation breakdown based upon
the contract unit prices and the actual units of work estimated to have
been performed and submit a copy to the City. The construction'
engineering costs to be paid the County by the City shall be based on
this estimated final construction cost. The County shall add to the
City's estimated final construction costs the construction engineering;
costs, make necessary adjustments for liquidated damages, if any, and
deduct City funds previously advanced for the project by the City. The
City agrees to pay to the County any amounts due. In the event the
calculations show that the City has advanced funds in greater *amount;
than is due the County, the County shall refund the amount to the City
without interest.
28. The City and County agree to indemnify each other and hold
each other harmless from any and all claims, causes of action,
lawsuits, judgments, charges, demands,. costs, and expenses, including,
but not limited to, interest involved therein and attorneys' fees and
costs and expenses connected therewith, arising out of or resulting
from the failure of either party to satisfy the provisions of this
Agreement or for damages caused to fourth parties as a result of the
manner in which the City or the County perform or fail to perform
duties imposed on each party by the terms of this Agreement. Nothing
herein shall constitute a waiver by either party of the limits or
liability provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or other
applicable law.
29. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until
terminated by mutual agreement of the City and the County.
30. Preliminary plans reviewed at the City public hearing and
final plans and specifications are hereby in all things approved.
96018-5
Lauderdale City Council Memorandum
Council Meeting Date: March 11, 2003
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Getschow, City Administrator
Agenda Item: Work Session Discussion Items
The following are the items for discussion at the work session that follows the regular
meeting:
1. 2003 Improvements. I would like to briefly discuss the schedule for the 2003
Improvements.
2. Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment. A goal for 2003 was to discuss the future
redevelopment of Larpenteur Avenue and the possible formation of a task force to study
the issue. Even though this is the first discussion on this topic in 2003, I have included
some information from a prior City Council discussion at a meeting in 2000.
ENCLOSURES:
1. August 8, 2000 City Administrator Memorandum regarding Larpenteur
Avenue Redevelopment
City Council Memorandum
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Getschow
Council Meeting Date: August 8, 2000
Agenda Item: Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment
BACKGROUND:
As a goal for 2000, the Council wishes to address the redevelopment of Larpenteur Avenue. At
the May 23, 2000 meeting the Council discussed different approaches to analyzing and acting on
this issue. The launching point of discussion was within the Lauderdale Comprehensive Plan
itself. Some of those materials from the Comp Plan are again included in the packet for your
review. I have highlighted and shaded those areas that pertain specifically to the Larpenteur
Avenue redevelopment.
The focus of overall Council action is on the attached and highlighted pages 28 and 29 of the
Comprehensive Plan. These pages delineate a future land use plan for the area that includes the
establishment of a commercial corridor directly fronting both sides of Larpenteur Avenue. The
rezoning of this plan area is one of the first steps in the overall redevelopment. In the Housing
section on page 44, the discussion goes beyond rezoning and deals with possibly acquiring
certain multi -family parcels in the Larpentuer Corridor that are not in good condition.
At the last meeting, the Council displayed an interest in researching the Larpenteur Avenue
redevelopment issue further. But the desire of the Council was to limit the discussion of the
redevelopment efforts at this time to the apartment buildings that border Eustis Street, Carl
Street, and Idaho Avenue. An enclosed map highlights this area.
At the meeting I recommended that I be allowed to conduct some research relating to current
market values and potential costs before the Council considers hiring a specialized consultant.
One of the main concerns dealt with the possibility that the costs outweigh the benefits of direct
city involvement in redeveloping multiple -family property to commercial property. Issues such
as relocation, demolition, and marketing costs could make an aggressive redevelopment
campaign too costly and not advisable. Below are the beginnings of this research and analysis.
Larpentuer Avenue Market Analysis
I have conducted a preliminary analysis on the Larpenteur Avenue property that is
enclosed in the packet. This analysis is strictly based on comparing current and potential
tax base scenarios of development at this site based on property tax data and formulas that
exist in 2000. I felt that this preliminary analysis should be undertaken prior to a more
detailed discussion of redevelopment. Some of the other factors to consider in
redevelopment are listed following this analysis overview on the next page.
Sheet A
The first spreadsheet delineates the market values of the property at this time including the
changes in values that have occurred over the past five years. As you can see, the 2000 market
value (for 2001 taxes payable) is $5,898,100 for the entire apartment area. The average annual
increase in market value over the past five years has been 3.88% per year.
Sheet B
The second spreadsheets takes those market values and calculates tax capacity and payable
property taxes for the current apartment development that exists. The calculation of these
figures becomes a little complex because a percentage of these buildings are classified as both
low income and market rate for tax purposes. This results in these two classifications possessing
different state class rates and different figures for the same building that need to be added
together. The figures illustrate that in 2001, the total taxes payable by the apartment property
will be $136,427.
Sheet C
The third spreadsheet compares the current market values and taxes paid by the apartment
property with that of a potential commercial development on the site. Project A uses the same
value that currently exists on the site for commercial development. This equal value, but
different use, provides an additional $30,000 in tax capacity or $52,000 in additional annual
payable taxes.
The other projects listed illustrate the tax base increase and additional taxes generated (possibly
more than twice the current status) from higher valued developments. In the case of a
$10,000,000 development in Project D, the taxes generated on an annual basis ($322,000) could
be more than twice the amount that are currently generated at the site.
But there are many issues that are not covered in this analysis. One can not assume that this
redevelopment would occur naturally, even with a rezoning. The other tangible and intangible
costs associated with redevelopment could be more than the amount of increased annual tax
receipts over a twenty- (20) year period (i.e., $3,720,000 on a $10,000,000 development).
Other Important Factors to Consider
There are many other factors to consider in a redevelopment effort in conjunction with the tax
base analysis presented here.
These issues include, but are not limited, to:
• Land and demolition costs;
• Relocation costs of displaced residents;
• State class rate changes in apartment property and commercial property in the future. Both
of these classes of property have been targeted by the state for reform;
• Market values of different properties have different changes. For example, the current
apartment buildings that exist on the site have increased in value by approximately 4% a
year, while both commercial and single-family residential property in Lauderdale have
market values that are increasing by approximately 7-10% annually;
City Budget general operating costs (e.g., police services, fire services, etc.) associated with
the current development on the site as compared to the potential development on the site; and
To what extent would redevelopment at this site be spurred privately? In essence, how much
city expense and city involvement would be necessary in this potential effort?
The goal of this meeting is to discuss some of the preliminary research that I have conducted
before considering further action that may include either more research or the retention of a
specialized consultant. Some possible strategies are presented for your consideration and
discussion.
STRATEGIES:
Continue moving forward on the redevelopment of these properties. This is either
through more research and discussion and/or the retention of a consultant.
2. Another strategy is to begin the process of undertaking the rezoning of the property that
is part of the recommendations in the Lauderdale Comprehensive Plan without any other
action. This could allow the redevelopment to occur without direct city involvement over
the next several years and decades - if at all.
3. The last strategy is to do nothing. If the Council feels that the tax base generated from
the current development is adequate and seems stable into the future, and there are not
any other major city issues surrounding the desire to redevelop besides tax base issues,
the do nothing option is one to consider.
ENCLOSURES:
1. Lauderdale Comprehensive Plan; pages 16, 17, 18, 22, 28, 29, 44, 45
2. Map of the Apartment Area on Larpenteur Avenue
3. Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Tax Base Analysis
Ye
LAND USE & TAXLASE
Land Use & Tax Base Issue Questions
el What can the City do to increase its tax base?
How can the City increase its tax base without increasing the burden on residential
x
properties?
�7
Can the City receive more revenue from tax exempt properties for City services? Y
o What can the City do to ensure the best possible use of its remaining commercial and '
. . art
industrial areas? 1
• Where does the City need to correct land use inconsistencies.
4TH.
;fin_
Goals, Policies, and Action Stepsr
GOAL I. EXPAND THE CITY'S REVENUE AND TAX BASE.
1. Encourage development and/or redevelopment of commercial and industrial
properties.. r+
• Use tax increment financing, and other mechanisms where applicable, to encourage the
clean-up and development of polluted sites.
• Create a plan for the best utilization of available property in the Commercial and .
4
Industrial zoning districts.
• Develop alternatives for encouraging economic development, such as creating an
i
Economic Development Authority.
• Create redeyelo met lan f r the City's commercial area along Larpenteur Avenue;
p:. rte- ��.�z.-.�.s�'�.-.'s .
Sew � f ,
• Study the potentiaLfor eommerciatd eve opmentalong Larpenteur ¢venue ni the Single
.re�
lFarruly and Multiple Family Areas (Plan a 1) y
• Allow tivhat is left of the Goodwill/Easter Seal site after the Highway 280
reconstruction to be used for commercial/industrial development.
2. Ensure that commercial/industrial development within the City does not
have a negative impact on residential areas..:.
• Revise zoning ordinances regarding setbacks, signs, and screenings to ensure an 1
adequate buffer between residential and commerciaVindustrial areas.
• Rewrite zoning ordinances to include performance standards that encourage businesses
that would not significantly increase traffic and noise, but would contribute to the
City's tax base.
• Survey residents to see what types of businesses would be most desired.
Page 16
Lauderdale Comprehensive Plan -Land Use & Tax Base
3. Fairly distribute the City's expenses among all benefiting properties,
including those not currently paying property taxes.
• Assess non-profit organizations for infrastructure improvements adjacent to their
properties according to the City Assessment Policy.
• Research other methods for distributing the costs of providing City services, such as
user fees for storm water and street lighting.
4. Maintain and/or increase property values.
.• Create reasonable housing maintenance code options for single family housing.
• Enforce multi -family housing maintenance codes.
• Develop ways to encourage property owners to remodel and maintain their homes, such
as providing remodeling ideas through a Remodeling Fair at City Hall or facilitating the
availability of federal and state grants to Lauderdale residents.
• Encourage and facilitate the development of higher -valued housing in compliance with
the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act.
• Encourage infrastructure improvements that will add value to Lauderdale properties.
GOAL II. CREATE LAND USE LAWS & CITY ORDINANCES
THAT ARE EASY TO INTERPRET AND CONSISTENT WITH
LAUDERDALE'S GOALS.
• Review City ordinances to ensure they are easy to interpret and consistent with the
goals and policies herein.
• Combine ordinances that duplicate regulations on the same or similar issues.
Eliminate ordinances that are redundant, no longer used, or no longer enforced.
e Develop alternatives for regulating non -conforming uses and structures.
1. Correct inconsistencies between the current zoning ordinance, existing land
use and the land use plan. x
• Study the implications of changing the Business (B-1) area north of Larpenteur to a
Neighborhood Business Zone that would not allow light industrial uses.
2. Establish effective and reasonable criteria_ for land use within each zoning
district.
• Develop requirements for landscaping and beautification in commercial and industrial
areas:
• Develop performance standards that encourage uses the City desires and discourage
uses the City does not desire.
• Evaluate the zoning criteria for each district to establish what is effective and
reasonable within each zoning district.
• Reevaluate setback requirements in all districts.
• Re-evaluate conditional uses in each district and create criteria for determining
conditional use requirements.
iud% sale Comprehensive Plan -Land Use & Tax Base . Page 17
3. Maintain sufficient open space around homes and businesses to allow for
adequate air, access by emergency vehicles, sunlight, and drainage.
• Study the implications of maintaining the current side yard setbacks.
• Consider setback alternatives that increase open space.
4. Eliminate, where possible, the need for variances.
• Change ordinances to accommodate fences in the side yard to the front of a house.
• Address setback requirements for corner lots.
1 • Create alternatives for simplifying lot combinations.
• Review setback requirements for garages on alleys.
5. Specify lot requirements that accommodate a large variety of lot sizes and
situations.
Revise setbacks requirements for corner lots.
• Explore different setbacks and lot coverage requirements for different sized lots.
6. Minimize the impact of adjacent and distinct land uses.
• Enforce home occupation requirements
• Study the potential for red velopmg the zesidential areas along Barpenteu Avenue 4
create a buffet between the.Single and Multi paiiiily areas and;larpenteur Avenue
7. Reducetheencroachment of structures, plantings and fences.on public
property.
• . Develop new criteria for allowable plantings on City Boulevards.
• Develop a plan for removal of unauthorized structures, plantings, and fences in the
public property right of way.
GOAL III. - MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE THE CHARACTER AND
QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
1. Limit the expansion of any non-residential use into the Single Family
Residential (R-1) districts.
• Create standards in R-1 areas that limit the expansion of non-residential uses.
• Preserve existing R-1 areas.
2. Encourage the redevelopment of housing.
• Hold a remodeling fair at City Hall.
• Provide incentives for those who increase their residential property values..
• Create and enforce a Housing Maintenance Code.
• Provide information to residents about housing programs, such as the "This Old
House" law.
• Research alternative methods for encouraging housing redevelopment, such as "truth in
housing" requirements or additional point of sale requirements..: .
Lauderdale Comprehensive Plan -Land Use & Tax Base
Page 18
'urrent and Proposed band Use - By Section
® Address ordinance issues affecting the upgrading and redevelopment of the housing stock.
® Minimize storm water run-off problems by addressing issues such as setback requirements,
restrictions on fences, and limits on amount of impervious surface.
® Address other ordinance issues, such as off- and on- street parking.
South of Larpenteur
The section of Lauderdale south of Larpenteur Avenue has a fairly diverse make-up of existing
land uses. There are 42 condominiums, 371 apartment units and 142 dormitory units within
9% of Lauderdale's total land area. Hence, this is Lauderdale's most densely populated area.
This high concentration of population and limited open space prompted the City Council, in the
previous Comprehensive Plan, to zone a portion of the remaining area east of Eustis and south
of the Rosehill condominiums as C-1 conservation. This area, owned primarily by the
Seminary, is used to take care of storm water run-off and to preserve a small nature area for
residents to enjoy. On the west side of Eustis is an area currently zoned B-1 and I-1. This area
houses NewMech Companies, a large commercial/industrial company, and the Children's
Home Society, a large non-profit social service organization. In 1986, a portion of this area
was zoned I-1 to accommodate the expansion of NewMech. Implementation of this plan will
address the need to further clarify the future zoning and development of this area.
' Larpentieur eomime . l Area
This area is a subsection of the areas north and south of Larpenteur between Highway 280 and'
Eustis Street. Recently, the City Council added light manufacturing to the B-1 area along this
stretch to accommodate anexisting use and additional development. Further definition of this
area is needed. There is some desire to reduce any heavy use that would directly abut the R-1
area to the north. This could mean eliminating light manufacturing as an option as well as.
other conditional uses. On the south side of Larpenteur, west of Eustis; there is greater .
opportunity for a wide range of uses. This section could continue to allow light manufacturing
and is the City's best alternative for significant commercial development.
West of Trunk Highway 280
This area is Lauderdale's only industrial area. Currently this area is made up of 39% non-
taxable commercial and industrial property, 31% taxable commercial industrial and 30%
taxable utility- Goodwill and the former U of M computing center make up the non -tax
a
producing areand Twin City Die Casting, Bolger Publishing, Midwest Editions, Rapit Print
and NSP make up the remainder of the area. There still is potential for additional commercial/
industrial development south of Broadway Drive and north of the NSP power sub -station. An
additional opportunity for development or redevelopment may be the Goodwill/Easterseal
(G/E) site if the property is sold. However, much of this property is proposed to be taken with
the reconstruction of Trunk Highway The after tity he recon
struction traction of Trunk Highway
efully monitor this. issue to
ensure that land will be available fordevelopment
280.
Dl�n _r anti Tice & Tax Base Wage 22
Table 7
Future Growth Within the Existing Urban
Service Area
Forecasted
Households
Projected
Household Density
household/acre
Acres - Vacant
Developable Land
Acres -Infill,
Redevelopment
2000
4.0/acre
&
.24
2010
4.0/acre
0
0
2020
4.0/acre
0
0
Forecasted
Employment
Projected
Employment Density
(employee/acre)
Acres - Vacant
Developable Land
Acres -Infill,
Redevelopment
2000
18/acre
0
7.74
2010
14/acre
0
0
2020
14/acre
0
0
Future Land Use -`tarn Ptan
t
timelines. The following numbers correspond to the numbers on Map #4.-
4. Redevelop this former University of Minnesota property and Brownfield
site to a light industrial use.
Lauderdale Comprehensive Plan -Land Use & Tax Base Page 28
By the vear 2010;
5. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will reconstruct Trunk
Highway 280. This reconstruction will include the taking of a portion of the
Goodwill/ Easter Seal site at 2543 Como Avenue as well as the possible taking of
land on the north end of Walnut Street. Any land left at the north end of Walnut
Street after the highway reconstruction would be developed as a park/open space.
By the year 2015•
6. Rezone these properties north of Larpenteur,Avenue from, a residential
zoning district to a commercial zoning -district that does not include light industrial.
1 7 Rezone these properties south of Larpenteur Avenue from a residential
zoning district to a commercial zoning district that does not include light industrial.
8. Redevelop the properties at 1769 and 1771 Walnut Street from vacant land
to a park/open space use.
By the year 2020•
9. Redevelop the properties south of 1738 Ione Street from vacant land to a
park/open space use.
10.
Redevelop the properties west of Walsh Lake from vacant land to a
park/open space use.
HistOPle Preservation
The City acknowledges the importance of maintaining historic integrity. For this reason, the
City will look at relative historic importance of properties within the city on a case bycase
basis. At present, no properties within the city are listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
Tax Base Analysis
Lauderdale has a strong interest in
remaining an independent City. To
do this, Lauderdale needs to
maintain a tax base that can
support City services without
increasing the burden on residential
properties. Many tax base issues
are directly linked to the land use
issues presented in the first part of
this section. This linkage
demonstrates that many issues and
goals in this Comprehensive Plan
are interconnected.
Table 9
City Property
Tax Distribution
1980* Tax % of
1990 Tax
% of
Distribution Total
Distribution
Total
Residential
$32,352 36%
$133,932
46%
Commercial
$6,691 8%
$29,442
10%
Industrial
$7,356 8%
$8,497
3%
Apartments
$16,041 18%
$51,832
18%
Other"
$26,338 30%
$64,385
22%
City Le
$88,778 100%
$288,088
100%
*1980 Taxes were
reduced by 23.385 for HACA & ac, credits
** Railroad, Public Utilities(NSP) & Personal Property
source: Ramsey Count Dept. of PTperty PropertyRecords and Revenue
Lauderdale Comprehensive Plan -Land Use & Tax Base Page 29
t 6 y
II. MAINTAIN ANIS IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF EXISTING
RENTAL HOUSING UNITS.
1. Discourage any future expansion of rental property or turnover of non -rental
property into rental.
• Create a licensing procedure for residential rental property.
• Research the limitation of allowable conditional uses in R-1 areas.
2. Encourage rental owners to maintain rental units in good condition.
• Better enforce the multi -family maintenance code.
• Create a licensing procedure for all rental property.
3. Improve the quality and appearance of rental housing units.
• Require additional landscaping and better parking facilities for multi -family properties.
• Facilitate the creation of park areas in the high density apartment area.
4. ' Minimize the impact or reduce the number of high-density aparEmerit`
complexes south of La penteurR
• Work wlth.property owners to
create more landscaping and recreational facilities.
91 Research the possibility of ac4nu7ng apartment buildings In poor condltlons for
demohUori or rehab111tation
Housing Inventory_
From 1980 to 1990, the total
number of housing units increased
by 394 units. This included 104
units from the Brandychase
condominium development, 42
units from Rosehill Townhomes,
84 units from the City Gables
Apartments, and 142 units from
the Seminary Dorms. From 1980
to 1990, there was a significant
Table 14
Housing Inventory: 1980 to 1990
1980
% of
Total
1990
% of
Total
Occupied
Vacant :-
809
19
97.7%
2.3% '
1,166
56
95.4%
4.6%
: Total Housing Units
828
100%
1,222
100%
Owner -Occupied _ , :
Renter -Occupied
437
372
54%
46%
.564
602
48.4%
51.6%
Total Occupied Units
809
100%
1,166
100%
Source: 1980 & 1990 caws -
increase in vacant homes, due to a
number of vacant rental units. Lauderdale Renter -Occupied property nearly doubled over the
past ten years. Renter-Occu ied units make u P half of the total units in the City: Issues
p
concerning Lauderdale's large renter population may need to be addressed during the Next ten
Lauderdale Comprehensive Plan - Housing
Page 44
As shown in Table 14, Lauderdale has 48.4 % Owner -Occupied and 51.6% Renter -Occupied
housing units. Based on the total occupied units, the metro average is 67.8 %Owner -
Table 15 OccuPied, 32.2% Renter Occupied
Housing units by type; 1980 to 1990 housing units.
One -Unit Detached
lyaV 199U % inc.
8 Lauderdale is considered i'ully � .
466;1220
One -Unit Attached
7% ,.
52 940% developed by_the Metropolitan Council,
2 Units
3 to 4 Units
29 21 % and a significant chars` e tri the riuiiiber
11 0 ,. .
91 /o o <housmg units
5 or more Units
is no expec;t8a during
314 96% tie next ten years.The
Total
Source 1980 & 1990 Census
825 48 /o
° h ever, concerned about tfie
L
IN
Q� �}. �y�a Thi`
I-AtG�il and 1 daho, °
e Apartment bulldnngs b� -�
AVui 5
especiallv if families bebit to ri,aiA
Housing Conditions'
This has been a topic addressed in each of the previous
Comprehensive Plans. In 1973, a housing survey was
Table 16
conducted showing considerable need for improving the
-Age of Housing Units in 1990
overall condition of the housing stock. In 1978, another
Year Built Lauderdale
survey was conducted which showed significant of
1939 or earlier 19%
1940 to
improvement in the housing stock. According to Table 16
43 % of the housing is 35 These
1960 to 1979 24%
1980
years or older. older
homes will be in need of significant upkeep and rep airTotal
to 1999
0: o
100%
during the next decade. Table 16 reflects Lauderdale's
s°um:1980 & 1990 Census .
Peak growth during the 1960s and 1970s. These homes as well willneed additional upkeep
during the next decade.
Housing Cost
During the 1980s, Lauderdale
encouraged the development of lower- toFel
Housin Invento : 1980 to 1990moderate-income housing. As a result ofthis, there was a relative drop in the valuehly $ 228 $ 363 $ 424
of owner -occupied housing, as illustrated Contract Rent
M
in Table 17. For comparison, the Metro Median Value of $ 52,700 $ 83,793 $ 74,700
Owner-Occu ied Housing
median average housing value in 1990 h4)urce:1980 & 1990 eer,,us _ P.V. = the present value in 1990 dollars
was $89,211; in Falcon Heights, 1990 median home value was $104,500. The Metro median
monthly rent was $447. The City is also a participant in the Metropolitan Council's
Metropolitan Livable Communities Program. This program establishes goals for the City in
the area of affordability, types of life -cycle housing available, and housing density.
Lauderdale's goals for this program are shown in Table 18:
Lauderdale Comprehensive Plan - Housing
Page 45
O
O
O
N
M
r
7,
(S
.D
to
L
.0
r
�z
Y
,C
0
N
O j
N
j
N
0
n
CL Y
L
zi
z
Z
W L?
13
CL N
0
W CO
W
0
W
w
W j
Z)
Z it
W
Q
W
1—
Z Z
W a
a
w
1
o
0
0
0 0 0
o o
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
N
N
N
- 00
O
N N N
N
N O
00
00
00
00
OA
O
0> o> 0)
0)
N Cl
00
00'
O O
0000
O O M
O
M M M
M
M O
m
a
�
�—
�—
O
O
O
O
O
O O O
LO
0
0 0
0
000
C
000
000
O
' NCY)
000 000
�h
(=,
00
C\
C\
�� `—
N N cN
C,
t
00
N?
6q
ea
Ce) Ce)
6y
604
6N9
QMl
Ofl
660 r
U)
N
CO
'IT
LO
69
69
(0
69
00
0)
O
O
M I-
O
O
O
O
O
O O
0 0 0
0
0
Cl
N
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
It It
N
M (D
Ofl
00
C7
O
O
O
O O
O
O O LO�
O
O
O
LO��
O
O
� r- N
M
N
N
O
N
64
�
�
Gq
MOA Gq
�
6pt64
N
6N?
N N
Gl9 —
Gq
669
co
M
co
M
M
M
M
co
co
M
M M
d4
O
N
N
N qt I-
N
O ti M
0
N
N
Ii
CA
I-
ti
N
r
I�
`— N
� -
i
Ofl N Uy
CA
0)
CA
(fl
CO
aD
00 CA
6
N LO
qt
6
CO
Cn
6 O
N
N
0
N
N
N
N
C
E3
I-
h
ti
N
,
,
O
ti
ti
00
00'
O O
0000
o
ti
a
�
�—
�—
N W
0
-�
W
0
v
�
C9
U)
N
CO
'IT
LO
00
O
(0
ti
00
0)
O
N
M I-
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
M
co
M
co
M
co
M
M
M
M
co
co
M
M M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
O
0)
CA
CA
0)
CA
CA
6
CA
O
6
&
Cn
6 O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
N
N
N
N
C
C
(a
h
N
N
N
ca
n
w
0) cu
W
W
J
J
J
U
U
U
U
W
W
W
U
U U
N
It
O
N
V
M
h
r
O
00
00
N
N N
d'
co
O
CA
00
N
N
M
M
M
N
r-
N
N N
O
O
d
M
Co
(o
O
O
O
00
(0
O
Co
Ofl (D
�-
N
C
E3
m
o
°-
a
o
a
�
o
0
-�
0
v
�
C9
LARPENTEUR AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT
CURRENT:
MULTIPLE -FAMILY
Crossroads Apartments
Low Income $319,176 1.00% $3,192
Market Value $499,224 2.40% $11,981
TOTAL $818,400 $15,173
135.00% $4,308.88
135.00% $16,174.86
$20,483.73
Rosehill Apartments
Low Income $891,680 1.00% $8,917 135.00% $12,037.68
Market Value $1,337,520 2.40% $32,100 135.00% $43,335.65
TOTAL $2,229,200 $41,017 $55,373.33
Lauderdale Hollows
Low Income $1,681,795 1.00% $16,818 135.00% $22,704.23
Market Value $1,168,705 2.40% $28,049 135.00% $37,866.04
TOTAL $2,850,500 $44,867 $60,570.27
GRAND TOTAL $5,898,100
SHEET B
$101,057
$136,427.34
Pay 2001
Market Value
Class Rates
Tax Capacity
Total Tax Rate
Property Taxes
CURRENT:
MULTIPLE -FAMILY
Crossroads Apartments
Low Income $319,176 1.00% $3,192
Market Value $499,224 2.40% $11,981
TOTAL $818,400 $15,173
135.00% $4,308.88
135.00% $16,174.86
$20,483.73
Rosehill Apartments
Low Income $891,680 1.00% $8,917 135.00% $12,037.68
Market Value $1,337,520 2.40% $32,100 135.00% $43,335.65
TOTAL $2,229,200 $41,017 $55,373.33
Lauderdale Hollows
Low Income $1,681,795 1.00% $16,818 135.00% $22,704.23
Market Value $1,168,705 2.40% $28,049 135.00% $37,866.04
TOTAL $2,850,500 $44,867 $60,570.27
GRAND TOTAL $5,898,100
SHEET B
$101,057
$136,427.34
LARPENTEUR AVENEUE REDEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL:
COMMERCIAL
REDEVELOPMENT
Project A $150,000 1.40% $2,100 135.00% $2,835.00
$5,748,100 2.40% $137,954 135.00% $186,238.44
TOTAL $5,898,100 $140,054 $189,073.44
Note: This is the same as the current market value at the site
Project B $150,000 1.40% $2,100 135.00% $2,835.00
$6,850,000 2.40% $164,400 135.00% $221,940.00
TOTAL $7,000,000 $166,500 $224,775.00
Project C $150,000 1.40% $2,100 135.00% $2,835.00
$8,850,000 2.40% $212,400 135.00% $286,740.00
TOTAL $9,000,000 $214,500 $289,575.00
Project D $150,000 1.40% $2,100 135.00% $2,835.00
$9,850,000 2.40% $236,400 135.00% $319,140.00
TOTAL $10,000,000 $238,500 $321,975.00
SHEET C
Pay 2001
Market Value
Class Rates
Tax Capacity
Total Tax Rate
Property Taxes
POTENTIAL:
COMMERCIAL
REDEVELOPMENT
Project A $150,000 1.40% $2,100 135.00% $2,835.00
$5,748,100 2.40% $137,954 135.00% $186,238.44
TOTAL $5,898,100 $140,054 $189,073.44
Note: This is the same as the current market value at the site
Project B $150,000 1.40% $2,100 135.00% $2,835.00
$6,850,000 2.40% $164,400 135.00% $221,940.00
TOTAL $7,000,000 $166,500 $224,775.00
Project C $150,000 1.40% $2,100 135.00% $2,835.00
$8,850,000 2.40% $212,400 135.00% $286,740.00
TOTAL $9,000,000 $214,500 $289,575.00
Project D $150,000 1.40% $2,100 135.00% $2,835.00
$9,850,000 2.40% $236,400 135.00% $319,140.00
TOTAL $10,000,000 $238,500 $321,975.00
SHEET C