Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-17 Parks PacketMAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JOINT MEETING WITH OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2006 MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL NOTE: Prior to the official commission meeting, staff conducted a training session with new commissioner Michelle Gran at 6 p.m.. Following the training session, a tour was conducted of the Maplewood Community Center by parks and recreation director Bruce Anderson and community center manager Linda Crosson. The commission had an opportunity to see firsthand some of the improvement projects including the slide steps, need for painting of the aquatics ceiling, expansion of the child care area, and damage to the gym floor. Community center manager Crosson distributed a packet of information that highlights membership programs and services offered at the community center. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Don Christianson, Peter Fischer, Peter Frank, Michele Gran, Carolyn Peterson, Bruce Roman, Gaoly Yang Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Craig Brannon and Tom Geskermann Open Space Task Force Members Present: Mark Gernes, Dominic Ramacier Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Bruce Anderson, Open Space Coordinator Ginny • Gaynor Visitors: Council Member Rebecca Cave 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Commissioner Christianson, seconded by Commissioner Frank, to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion passed — 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. January 17, 2006 After a lengthy discussion, Chairperson Fischer indicated that he listened to the tape of this meeting and recommended that the minutes be modified to reflect the following: -(1) It was the parks and recreation commission's position that the savanna needed to be funded at the full level of $2 million and that Gloster Park renovation be funded at $600,000. In addition, the minutes need to reflect the commission's position that the bebo is an important connection between the savanna and Flicek Park. Commissioner Frank also requested the minutes reflect that there was some discussion of priorities, but it was the desire of the commission to fund the improvements at the full level. It was further agreed that the minutes reflect that the plaza could be done incrementally. Final verbiage changes were as follows: (a) On page 3 the final sentence of paragraph 3 should read: "The total breakdown is $1.25 million for open space restoration, plus $250,000 for the tot lot, $250,000 for the trail amenities and $250,000 for the plaza, with the plaza being phased in or scaled back if monies are not available." (b) On page 3 the second to the last paragraph should read: "The majority of the group felt that they could not justify $2 million for the bebo." (c) On page 4 the last sentence should read: "The commission further endorsed the planning process and supported whatever level of density would be necessary to generate enough revenue to fund the full amenities at the Gladstone Savanna at $2 million including Gloster and Flicek Parks at $600,000." A motion was made by Commissioner Fischer to approve the January 17, 2006 minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Frank. The motion passed 3 ayes, 0 nays, 4 abstentions. b. February 21, 2006 A motion was made by Commissioner Christianson, seconded by Commissioner Frank, to approve the February 21, 2006 meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed, 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 abstentions. 4. GLADSTONE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Director Anderson updated the commission regarding the Gladstone redevelopment process. Staff distributed a variety of information regarding the Gladstone redevelopment plan and the alternative concept. Staff indicated that it is the commission's responsibility to develop a final recommendation for council review and consideration. He distributed a rough draft of a position statement that had been developed in part by chairperson Peter Fischer for commission consideration. Chairperson Fischer opened discussion for commissioners. is • Commissioner Peterson indicated that she felt there were more people at the last public meeting than were tabulated. She recognized that not everyone voted and the response may not be accurate. She further stated her strong feeling that the bebo needs to be included and that there is a huge difference between a culvert and a bebo. • Commissioner Yang indicated that at this time she is overwhelmed and too new to have any informed decision. • Commissioner Roman indicated that he too is overwhelmed, but feels that the bebo is more structure than he felt was necessary. He further said that Flicek Park should retain one ball field. • Open space coordinator Ginny Gaynor indicated that the natural boulders are important to preserve the intended "look" for the savanna. She also expressed concern regarding making the stormwater work and the need for interpretation and signage on the site. She indicated she did not believe the redevelopment costs were exorbitant, but would provide an excellent open space project. She said that Gladstone has the opportunity to be a showpiece for Maplewood, not just for the Gladstone neighborhood. • Commissioner Roman raised a number of questions regarding groundwater contamination. • Open space task force member Mark Gernes said that he works with contaminated soils and felt the issues could be mitigated. He further stated that the savanna is central to the success of the Gladstone redevelopment. He envisions an understory of prairie grasses with wild flowers prevalent and one to ten trees per acre of oaks. He said that the bebo is an expensive amenity, yet it is critical for pedestrian accessibility. He was concerned about safety issues. • Open space task force member Dominic Ramacier recommended that Item 7. addressing P.A.C. funds be eliminated. The group agreed with that by consensus. • Commissioner Christianson said that it is not the great design that he initially hoped for. 2 • Council member Cave indicated she understands people's frustration that there might not be enough money to get the job done. She discussed lighting the trail and indicated that it will not probably happen at the Gladstone site. She said the monies for the • savanna are important. • Commissioner Gran commented regarding Gladstone Savanna being the "poster child" as opposed to being a unique site. • Open space coordinator Ginny Gaynor said it is important that Gladstone be restored and done right and that there is a good integration of active and passive areas within the Gladstone neighborhood. • Commissioner Frank stated the need for redeveloping the area along with improvements of the savanna. He feels the plan needs to reflect more of a vision rather than a plan. • Chairperson Fischer reminded the commission that the parks are an economic development tool. • Coordinator Ginny Gaynor indicated the importance of the bebo to the overall success of the project. • Chairperson Fischer said he supports the plan as presented by HKGI and supports the concept of a greater density to ensure that the necessary amenities are constructed. Following a lengthy discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Frank, seconded by Commissioner Christianson, to adopt the two-page Gladstone redevelopment position statement as amended (attached as part of the official meeting minutes.) The motion passed, 6 ayes, 1 nay (Commissioner Roman). 5. ANNUAL REPORT Staff distributed a copy of the annual report. A brief discussion followed. Commission recommended that it be forwarded to the city council. A motion was made by Commissioner • Frank, seconded by Commissioner Peterson, to forward the annual report to the city council for their review and consideration. The motion passed 7 ayes, 0 nays. 6. HAZELWOOD SOCCER GRANT SUBMITTAL Staff reviewed the soccer grant information utilizing artificial turf in the heavy use areas. The commission indicated they support the grant submittal. A motion was made by Commissioner Frank, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, to recommend staff submit the grant to Ramsey County. The motion passed 7 ayes, 0 nays. 7. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Commissioner Peterson said she felt the meeting was extremely productive. Commissioner Frank indicated there were 52 high school boys' teams participating in the basketball league. Commissioner Fischer again welcomed the three new commissioners. 8. ADJOURNMENT A motion for adjournment was made by Commissioner Christianson, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. kh/0320.06.min.comm MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: April 14, 2006 for the April 17 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting SUBJECT: Geranium Park Survey Results INTRODUCTION Geranium Park is a nine -acre site located in southern Maplewood at 2568 Geranium Avenue. The park currently has a ball field, basketball courts, playground area, trail system, tennis court, and open play area that are utilized for soccer and lacrosse. We did provide a pleasure skating rink until three years ago, but no longer do due to minimal usage. Staff received a request from a resident in January concerning the safety of Geranium Park. The survey was forwarded to approximately 211 area residents and a copy of the results is enclosed. We received 79 responses, an excellent response rate. BACKGROUND At the direction of the Parks and Recreation Commission, staff forwarded a survey of the Geranium . Park neighborhood. Enclosed is a copy of the results, both numerical as well as comments received. It is important to do surveys, as they provide a snapshot of the neighborhood feelings and sentiment. One of the concerns that staff has seen through surveys is that they sometimes reflect perception as opposed to reality. There is a percentage of residents who have preconceived notions regarding safety and violence that occurs outside of their home. Based on the survey, it appears that there is some significant security issues at Geranium Park. At least one reality that came from the police department is that there has been only one call to Geranium Park in the last three years. The perception of illicit activities and reality I suggest does not always match. Having said that, it appears that the residents would like the city to address this site with increased police patrol and establishment of a neighborhood crime watch program. These were the two greatest responses totaling 82. 1 will be contacting the police department to request that additional police patrol be conducted at Geranium Park through our neighborhood volunteer park patrol program and also contact the neighborhood crime watch program to see if they are willing to step up their local efforts. The issue of lighting was raised by 54 respondents. We currently have minimal security lighting in our parks. Park rules require that the parks are closed 'h hour after sunset to'/2 hour before sunrise. As I indicated at the January commission meeting, there are pros and cons to security lighting. Our experience has been that security lights tend to attract people not unlike bugs. Maybe a poor metaphor, but the reality is that if illicit behavior is going to occur, the lighting tends to not deter that but rather attracts additional people. Having said that, I believe that Geranium Park is somewhat of a secluded, dark area, particularly with the woods located to the south. My recommendation is to do some "experimental' solar lighting panels to 1) determine the pros and cons of solar lighting and 2) to 0 determine if the lighting actually deters inappropriate behavior. I have included a firm that I have worked with in the past called Solar Outdoor Lighting Products. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that staff pursue the installation of solar lighting at Geranium Park at a cost not to • exceed $5,000. Staff recommends lighting the parking lot with a minimum of two fixtures and work with the residents to determine if they have been effective by October 1, 2006. kh\geranium survey results.parks-o.s.mem Enclosures • I ! Cl) 0 LO CL w co a� CD I I 01- = I I 2 CD iia I•C I I N O i O I E O �� a l O LU Y o E N Q Cl) co •� I .m; L �I i al I O � Q I o U*) UIM 1 Q O S I s � W cD^I •� Q O �I (n L t6 w v Q CL �L Q � W M^; I � � _ I —I Y I I v 'I m I EjCD d N I CL N Q N a d Y Cc, y U ea O N ti a- E CL >, d Q N cu� •� >�U aai a CL p �E 7 �m 0CF) � oo o j= O N a O ' 3 m -a coQ E Q c c •� `~ c p vim, ��0 o d C �� d e4 N_ p _—_ u O co 0 = L ' Z' - CL d U f0 CL N rna�voo p a _ .N v v Ca = O c E >'t U ��NMvcnj II II 11 11 111 LIMN `. d NoM a ?� Iai -0-0 CD CD -a L °sa �I E =o O Q � 0I' >,ai v�i''� OM z G1 = O c0 m O cu_ rn a� ++ O N N -Y cc a� m m O U N p 0 d O U U i O U a) E FIs L ea m rn o i ani 1'2 NAI 0 N a� EI o 1 i a N M O O O d C O Q A U d Q _ L = C II II II M II 11 f 11 II I d A! vw •V ,y .-. d y"' M N N "'Q Q cn 00� rCl �' 10 N cu j E Z vQ od I - I I N M I I I ! 4 C d E O u d V N d Y L cc a L d t7 • c o rn rn ° -O CL= =3 n 'O O O N c c O .� >+ O � a) Q N a) w O c NC E :( n N ui c C .a C Q (6 (0 N a) L U U O CD cn N 0 C N L O c U C U CU a) Q) C O rn O N a) O a) N O N O O, otS O N > N 'O cu += wO — L N C a) (0 E L •N = cm d o N a) E O O rn E (n ai ca rn c �_ U N N U cn � +r m 0) t9 _U O 3 N c 0 a) Q U C m a) a,o E Q -o Z (n N c o O75 L a c cu r E m c cn N 06 0 CD M c°) �- E a 3 rn L c0 o E a)o Li ca V ° 3 o rn o a) c a) i MCD O w N a) U O Q` c a) ° L N c O Y a) E 0 ui W Y Y U U) O' fn a _m c 'E ate) n n °' a= ° rn £ c ,� ° 5' ami cn N a) E N c ° m +' a5 a) "- a) u E O O as 3 L m C a) a) (`j a) ( a) a) d 6 O E ,_ �' Cc L 3 O 7 U cn E ca v a U m 0 O N Co O b( a) m Q L m Q a) L Co — N a) .? •c cm j L o. p .� w a) �g0 c L) _ N m �_� S U m ° — c m '� ) c 2 f° a s m .. O :- L c o p ca N = Q of ++ L c a) a) ` = O) O o V) 4O N ° () `F i a) _ a) aL-+ __ :a n c ° m ,� E Z' a) c co L H µ 3 ° o L ° a) m E c`6 c E Q L c a O rn•C �_• - to r. a) O a) N c O E •S N ` d r. E a) cn U E cn L m° .. N �, O c Y 3 O ° 7+ 2 O A L L a3 � CL a) N Q O L m D)o(� d 7 a) a) N 7 c OL L N L Q> O O &- c o N O N 0) m +•. a) V i c C 7 O O N >�, ,� N � N L p) 0 Y t ° 3 c O a) E c N � 0 Eca c a°i o E d u ca ~ ' a N c `- c a o a o > y 3 a) ) (Dm aoa. a) O Is? Q a cn a) c O Ma) 5 O -0 ,tec — a3cn > :8N ° F C c ca N w+ to m o (n• Q U) E c m a) () Q o 3 0- o �c o t o a) z ai cn a°i cn cn w.i a°)) U) H O z cn N O I 00 c� rt z z r ( i z : ( D t O 3 S fD OZ CD n 7 7 O CD O N rt (SD :3cn N CU S (n (n 7 • O �• p CD O < -0 <CD O CD S n. CD O CA "'r <M. 7 CD rt CD < CO (a, -0 rt Qo < ca ?� rn o °� S rt n C N a� ' CD = 3 " S c 00 CD CD w ai (o `` ° CD •C N cr CD m a (D * cn cn -„ N CD O O C1 CD ai "co 0 �'r "='r CD - * CD "p 3 y �. fD N aa) N <CL _ O CD Qo c% S N cD Z v_ w Q m = 7 0co O (° p- C cn C CD 7c o N N m O p (O S z `� CD 3 m co p CD ? O sp c rt 3 a'rt -y+ O p N O (O LT S CD a- `G 'G CD 7 C2 O 7 7 CD N 7 = CD 77 CD S �n O � O CD �. rt N N G O O N cn . _0 (D 3 o (D rt `. (O CD C O O < C (n 3 cL - N O O v S w 'O (� CD N O NCr x CD O a O 3 3 N O N CD 7C , N S C n .+ (n cn rt S S C (Ca cn O CD '� N O (O o 3 N S m 3 °� o CD N CD S 3 a a N (Q 2 CD �G • « �' 7C CD D Q_ '+ p rt O x Cy C2 CD ^ S .• (n "O O < C CD N S O fn c N 0 CD CO a 7 (a CD CD O CND � N E- N CD (p Oa CD rt CD O 0 CD CL rt CD CD O � C L 7 (n j CD CD n N D N 7 O - O C3 O p N 90C tn' O co O CD . N ._. O Qo c. 03 S p =� O O o' ,.Sr n c 3 ,C �' -p 3 n y cpn G CD S O CD n rt N 7 N 7 `< CD n CD S CSD :3 cc Qom'• v < y rt y rt W a — CD N Q (Q CO O CD O cn S CD CD N C2 0 p • CD O 7 N CD (p CD CDrtC7 N CCD CD S C < C CD 90� O (O p) CD C v 3 cn Q (c T� n CD O �( 5 CS fl cn S S p CD (n o S v :3 O 3 N � O 0 W CD c0_n :3O cn p rt n:3 O O' CL O rt S -0 CD O CD N CD Cr N CDw (p CL tD G p W ^� CCD N O cn CD O N X O O O- CD CS CD CD S rt crr CD CO O° S G7 w o N o CD m -0 n (nCD _ CO _ x (n N cn S p _� = N CD 7 O (Oco 3 O- O O � gocn (p' O 3 'CC O SO N CD G S � `G 3 'a a O m0 0 �, 3 fD C O (O O O O O CD < CD O CO CD O(Q CODS to 3 S �N SO0 CD CD w CD O O- J O C2 • • •W I z 2 t i z z Ii --I 2 t 2 2 1 CD m a° m m �' �' m w 0- > > �' — O a °) c' m =r0 < �° S. o � go (j) a) a) �S � �a m --h � 3 0 CD < O" CD CD 0 O O N _CL N 0 Q• CD C, a g S m a (n ,< O � co `< 3 N (D 0 m 0 m cn m �.� v a �a 0 Q-- c° m 3 30 mw ;r u CC ? ON o=f°� 0= te a ;r CD a Q -i � co 0 m 0' CD ° 0 0 3� °Cn cn= ao SCD o `° z0 g `<� 0Q'oo Q°`< 0cn ma — o ov l< ov �a� CL(n ;:-V- CD o °' o v� C O CD � � CD 0 O cD (D < v , r � En a ° fn' (n O a 7' S Z O 7 7 Q< 3 O? N 3 — 0. co (D cQ cQ (p — (D = N m 3 —I <' ° 5 v CD in CD .* =r 5' CD ° a �• m w Xm �• cn m v c O N -w _ o ° Z = 3 a —1 co m m mm O o or C v 00 vofmn ° X 0 0° co'CD —=r <m °'. v 0' oEn m m 0 =r ami cn ~' 3 0 ED O O 0 w � � `C � ° ca � O CDD <°— 0 cD y � � 3 (D o' :3 �= ° o c Q CD m <CD CD CD 0� °cin CD 00 v� CD 0 CL v G v CD ° 03 3 m � ai ° - r� ? 3 � Q Ns CD av — n `<v m v fD � O m 3 .. � ' CD O O � c Fn' to o CL v oCD 0 m o [D (D' ca (D 6 O ID CCD N O = O cn (D N (• cn .n. CD 7C' (U `V` � « ::r w — <' - Q O' CD (D 3 Cl ° CD a W O (D �. M = CD a' a O (p :3 cn c ° _ c 0 7 (D x " c Q a O O 30- m a� O o < < m° 3 CD 0 a CD m5 mo m (D3 m 0— 0 0 0 2 m 3 ° a Q vcn m m �_ m y m o O N a CD CL 3 (D O CD a Q° CD C cQ N N r. G) ° 7 N .. CD O co O O (D Q CD Q 0 ID fD ., lu 7 CD a , t Q co O v 0 v c0 a N a O cn 7=" N � •-� - to p 0 C (D to (D — n tQ co (D N O 0�� < < 0 a B. cD • 7 (Q ] � 3 v M N cn — v Q m c w ° 3 << Q C Q Q N �• = =1 0 CD a w a v :3-" a O O (D (0 O m �• �. cct S' v ° c0 CD aco c m° m n C N 3 �N m " 23 cn 0 <' CD to -, m CD a o ,< = c :: n < �• m ° 0 0 v " CD � m z 0 m CD n CD (D cn m o a cD " z C � a N m 3 `G J OL 0cCD 0 m a c 0 CD CL 0 O Q O v 0 0 O O 2) :' (D v - c 3 a v cQ O C 7 O_ (D C 3 CD 7 Qo cnv v 0 co CL 0 co 0 2 t t rr O OO Q n N (D m O O 0) Cp CD (D CSD N O -h 3 CCDD (� (D CD CD CD (a iii � � � 7 � CD — cc CD <CD � a N 3 Q iii o- - m 7r N D Q_ N c (a O O r N O — o. O c N N 3 N a' 3 O ^�' N O -CD a � O (D Q O ur N Q S� DfD N v 0 C <�� N" N 'a a� m o m 3 CD m U) U) m = a CD o o a .� a — gy o CD ^� m' C 3 m CD CD Q — o o• CDN m -. n Q � O ° .� m o a N cc m -„ N" `� 3 0 m E3 c O N m N O N a CSD v N O CD v 0 CD Q a CD a N� N 9 "O v to (T -� CD _+ 3 CD v O N 7 "v m gy; N co m o O m0 y �• crwcn CD *� -p Q CD O- z Q O N v co m O --h o : 0 3 3 0 O N -0 go Q O j D :3 Q w Q m 3 CD o m N-0 fl: co - cn �• m v; o 0 3 o a cn m w o. cu' o m a N m o a m m r~ x m CD w N 0 m r. CD CDv � -� CD C& j .�. � a y.CD (Q �� 2. 0 cu N (nCD -T. O CD CD � Q 3 �, 2 C CD CD to CD ° Cr o m 'a � � m m o N Q m tll o << m o Q m Cor (o ill - w N W O,. O m .-.� CL `< jr co = — m m m cD 3 (p Cli x C o v - `< c 3C N •+ m Q CD N _ Nww T CD K N 0 'a o r -F - 1 - = :3 Y Q O+ (� aCD C). :3 m (D CD 2 S?o ?c CD tD C N ON 0 CD :3 W Q O _ D m 3 (D < O 7 0 N CD O U :3 N rt CD n Q ai a Cll CCD = a' CD N 3 rt N w n v CD N O -a 3 �< O X r- _ 0) co � �< y X o, 3 m R m o N sli v `<. m m N vi - x m m m m m cn -- M CCD a n a) a m N -'� CD o cQ m 0 m < •-� o a a- 3 N O � 00 cn N N � � CD _ cn rt W 7 N N� CL n < O• Q Q (o =r7 O C � � iii a' CD O CD cn < CD CD "a m n N "a CCD — n N CD Q C 'o O X lD CD N m �� wQ O X C a cr �� a CD 90 — -a N CD 0 a 3 7 Q co -a N CDo N N =" CD n' T� Q m Cn— (o -1 7 o O .+ -�� o� Q m m Q m N � CD co - co w v U' D aim o u, `< o v, m �Q �,Zo no � -0 :3 co , -o 90 O N � O � S g cr '" s Q m CD 3 m �a)w �v n CDD C- �, O m o CD -I ° N •• CD �, > `< N tQ S m m N b O o o Cp CD N N CLcr S Q a CD CDCD O O or =r CD m j OCD (D 7C CD m CD 3 CD 7c w " Q N .+ N N < (o ::rm �" m "a `< fD m m CD = a N CD m CD = N0 (D O =r :3N .+ I N O NCD fD fD `G N 3 m ° 3 cr m i i t , ill N 7 r-► m j (D 3 s N S N O p_ x Q S j N m CD CL co cc CD D 0 < c7 m o a. X cQ 0 t 0 D CD -0 - CQ C M.a) O0 _ a m OL • o o m CL CD CD O O v C) CD N .. m CDD 0 a 9 � m m S 0 R =' o m a O aa) cn— v, a `� 3 c` 0 0' 0 0- < O ' S O m O CD CD N m a) ca O CD `� CD " 0 = C O ,N cr O a) CSG x — r N � CD 'o-lu as 3 0 m 0 = o CD � a w rt rn o Co `< K < �+ 0 a) r- N m CD m Q CA _ c Q- C 7 m uCD Q .� 7 N �.cr — O O :3 ::r �C cnv rtm to m o " N 3 rt B. CC Q �= rt< a)CD = a) 0 0 0 :_ a< 3 0 O -+� a1 CD to O 3 O rt m m 3 ai (C =r C 0 R N `< 7 _ m CS CC CD Cn C' a) C CD m 3 a) n' CD a) 7r m cC CD O m `< 3 O S m _x o c0) to co rt `< 0 -ate M.rtm o CSO CD n)co N a) Q cn * _� N 3 0 �N �. O a) a) o30v� O cc-0oo CD Cn m = co m?mo Qo CD C 30 rt � <c CD to W C m 3 a= cn CD oCD w a�a) 0 v, cn m 1 CD CD m a) Ma)CDo < m C �, cn Cr Cn 0 � 0 — X C Q - CD Cn n 0 33 a) 0-- vCDm 0- M. 0�' m Cn — �_ m=r CD< 7 CC N 3� m CD a) m cr a) N C or m w 0 n• 0 w CD CD CD C S cc co -w 0 — CD CD CD p, X o m o QCD'+ "C N 0 0 C m a) 3< o a) 3<<0=- 0 "" N m 3 =rC -moi oo0 0 a) a) CD ° Q y C. CDW ! 3CD � N 0 �- m °1 Q _ 3 o CD N m O =r cc •� -0 a) Cn a) a) aD 07 O CD cncn 7 ° N amCn j CA CD X CD S O0 lo ,..tEL 3 S v CD �X<CD CD — CD v o' cn n v m a mea) `< a 0 2_�Q° v, v 0 v v CD mo EP �3Q- N (� =. _ C 3 0 co 7 0a m(0 w Co o � a _>U° CL C 7 rt CD 0 3 cn rtM. .. NO a CD co 3 v� m l< O C O= v N CA 0 0 0go"" O O ? CC < N ma q S C a C90 O O C m — 0 m 0 N Q CD cn CD CD m•-0 c Cn 0 N �. m CD CnCD C C CD 3 =m -- CD W u) CD 0 co v- m m cn CD 0 �. CD 0 N o fl: CD �- 0— rt x 3 < CD c ca 0 G 0 0 o O m s m cOna)0co �(n o �-� TI Cp 0 0 0 0 c j CD -a CD ca o 3 CD -00 m m: `o ° 3 >X 90 5. cn m � 3 0CD3 ? =r 3 90 0 CD CD W CD v m cn m O 7 CD • a 0 C CD 90 m O CN C 0 X C3 G m O m 0 O 7 m m 0 CD CD O CQ ca v a o o CD CD CD co Q. m � rt N 3 CCDCD m 3 3 cn a) a) m 3 C ;r O cc `< =C) m 3 a) O Q �. O m 7 — O S B. CC Q O CD O :o 3T `< U _ `- 0 m n' CD m 1 o c0) m m 7 0 cn -w O Cn m = 3 o 3 o rt CD W C CD O �_ co 3 << CD m cn 0 m w _ 0 O C Cp CCD Q Cn ? N O N rt 0 m w 7r 00 3 CD CD CD CD t v U, =rt° m CD m 0 a) 7 N CD_ (7 co O m 07 O CD cncn :• CD O0 lo ,..tEL 3 m CD cn n v 0) m co 90 o EP 3 0 � a a� `< CC O C cn CD a 0 C CD 90 m O CN C 0 X C3 G m O m 0 O 7 m m • • U) m N 3 0 O M O L C 7 3 CD> O m O cu 0 m O E a) m .Q m 0 CL I V) y-+ m c m 06 c O cn a a) w w rn c rn c O E2 a) m m c m rte+ C 7 O LO a) a m n rn c 16 m a) m C a) Y U m a) .E 0 3 a) z r I 3 0 co Q c E O U vi m m ;a .y c () Q (D c T Vq m a 0 c 0 .c N CL E a a) a) CL 2 ui m �U C () 21 a) E () C O C L —O >+ m �U m CL N CD U c a) s 3 .N c O CL N m 0 c m U 0 a I () cu rn c L 0 z I a) C a) a O Q C O m a) U C cd a) cu c a) E a) cn m a) a) m .a E a) U- E t 0 Q CD m a I O Y m CL U 0 c a) a c m (D E a r, cn .c 0 m Q U_ O a- a) a) m CD Q O a) Q CD a) a O 0 a) ui (D m 06 w rn c .0 a) Q O Y m CL O rn m CL a) CD O d 0 cn CL O 0) O C O .N 0) Q CO) O O N 6 CD t 0 Y C a3 L H cm 0 0 L X cn f0 (n Q CD W Y O N CD cn D i 7 .O v a) N Q U) c a) c0 O L 3 CD 0 E O N Q 7 O 0) W N 7 O y -- N a) N 0 t I vi rn 06 a) CD U O N C O N W C Q O C. a) Y t • ti • a) Y /N W Y o Y O 0 E 3 V � o O s E N N A L T a E �� N N Cc L m Cc . v O N � � t low C: O c dO d N E Om � Y E `a� a) .Q L � � wo a) CU � Co E o > o rn = L. C a) N O Q Eo a) .�+ O Cc t Ch s °3 � O C Oj +a N cc c N N dd 0 c_ 0_ ++ C v E O m E ,c L cn S L m O cn CL O 0) O C O .N 0) Q CO) O O N 6 CD t 0 Y C a3 L H cm 0 0 L X cn f0 (n Q CD W Y O N CD cn D i 7 .O v a) N Q U) c a) c0 O L 3 CD 0 E O N Q 7 O 0) W N 7 O y -- N a) N 0 t I vi rn 06 a) CD U O N C O N W C Q O C. a) Y t • ti • • 0 Solar Lighting and Solar Water Pumping Systems F" Page 1 of 3 f 'A Cost -Effective Solution for Outdoor Lighting 100% Powered by the Sun. Unsurpassed Reliability Sold worldwide - with no outstanding warranty claimE Unsurpassed Durability Patented design gives the most resistance to wind possible. Survived hurricanes. 'Maintenance Free Gel Batteries So safe they can be shipped fully charged. Meets National Electrical Code The only UL® listed solar lighting system. __ Easy to Install Mounts on any type of pole. =Will light even after cloudy days No maintenance battery back-up. Meets IES Standards Uses high frequency fired fluorescents or low pressu sodium lamps with super efficient Max -Lite reflector. Environmentally Friendly Solar panels reduce fossil fuel consumption, eliminat pollution. Self -Contained System No wiring! No delays! No trenching through existing roads, sidewalks or landscaping. No routine maintenance. No Transformers! No Meters! No electric bills. it Customers Include: Local, State, and Federal Governments Homeowner Associations Universities Corporations http://www.solarlighting.com/htmlsite/parklighting.html 4/14/2006 Solar Lighting and Solar Water Pumping Systems Page 2 of 3 Developers Joggers at Charleston Air Force Base, S.C. have an easier time running on the jogging trail at • Seventeen SOLO solar powered lights were installed. Master Sgt. Don Curry, Base Energy Manager, came up with the idea for solar powered lights. he preferred them over electric lights. "The difference between solar and electric lights is that E lights need transformers and buried cables. Solar lights are charged by the sun light and at nic their own batteries. " - Master Sgt. Don J. Curry, Base Energy Manager, Charleston Air Force E When Jerry Wheeler, Chief of Maintenance, heard that SolarPal® Safety Streetlights would nt preventive maintenance, he applauded when the National Park Service authorized solarlightir boat ramps and parking areas. After six months of experience with SOLO lights, Chief Wheeler wrote "... The lights have we very well." - Jerry Wheeler, Chief of Maintenance, National Park Service, Whiskeytown, CA. The patented SolarPal® Safety Streetlight is a commercial quality, powered lighting system for residential streets, parking lots and are. lighting. It is also effective for any troublesome "dark spot" - rural ar( farms, or storage facilities. Solar panels absorb the sun's rays, even on overcast days, converti to electricity. The electricity is stored in batteries. A small proprietar) microprocessor controls the functions of the system. It acts as a ph( turning the light on at dusk; it is a timer, regulating the hours the ligh on; it regulates the battery, preventing overcharging and protecting ; discharging. The standard system is designed to operate for at leas - consecutive days without sunlight. All products are tested in the Solar Outdoor Lighting research facility delivery. Furthermore, field tests have been performed by Underwrit Laboratories, United States National Laboratories, and independent universities. All of these inspections assure customers they are buyi most reliable commercial solar lighting available. The warranty, inch year solar panel power guarantee by BP Solar®, is the strongest in industry. SOL, where value is built in before the name goes on.... How long will it take to recover your investment in solar -powered tec Here are some points to consider when comparing solar to the tradi- electric lighting system: 1. Cost to run wire from grid. 2. Cost of trenching or tunneling. 3. Cost of replacing concrete, asphalt, or landscaping. 4. Cost of transformers and meters to be added. 5. Savings from credits for state and federal taxes. http://www.solarlighting.comlhtmisite/parklighting.html 4/14/2006 • • • Solar Lighting and Solar Water Pumping Systems Page 3 of 3 6. No monthly electric bills. EPA GREEN LIGHTS ALLY SOLO is an appointed member of the Environmental Protection Agency Green Lights program. I Click here for PM and SL Series Product Specifications Click here for Customer Information Area Lighting I Billboard Lighting I Dock Lighting I Indoor Lighting I Park Lighting Parking Lot Lighting I Pathway / Walkway Lighting I Sign Lighting I Solar Pump I Street Lighting I Transit Lighting Home I About Us I Solar Basics I FANG I Product Specs I Testimonials I U/L Listings I News I Financing I Site Mao I SOL Store http://www.solarlighting.com/htmlsite/parklighting.html 4/14/2006 Park Rules 1. Parks are open '/ hour before sunrise to '/2 hour after sunset, except by permit or City scheduled activity. (Ord. Sec 26-2) 2. Vehicles may be in parking lots only when parks are open. (Ord. Sec. 21-2) 3. Pets must be on a leash. Person in control of pet must clean up any feces. (Up to $200 fine) (Ord. Sec. 7-52 Sec. 7-146 4. Noise and nuisance ordinances in effect. (Ord. Sec. 19) 5. City ordinances enforced. • TO: FROM: DATE: Parks and Recreation Bruce Anderson, Pa April 14, 2006 for the SUBJECT: 2007-2011 Capital Imp INTRODUCTION wrA Commission Meeting Enclosed is a copy of the proposed city C.I.P. The proposed park program list has changed from $2.9 million to $3 million or increased 3.4%. The projects remain the same as in previous years with two additional projects. The two new projects are Goodrich Park improvements and Legacy Village sculpture park improvements. I have attached separate sheets outlining the proposed capital improvement projects. BACKGROUND The attached financial projections for the park development fund indicate that an annual property tax levy of $360,000 will be needed annually for the next five years if all of the projects totaling $3 million were approved. It should be noted that this is based on a very conservative P.A.C. fund and no • commercial P.A.C. fees are included as well. The funding for the park improvements is reviewed annually. Staff will be reviewing individual projects on a project -by -project basis with the commission on Monday evening. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission review the proposed C.I.P. projects and provide a recommendation for city council consideration. kh\07comm mem.c.i.p. Enclosure MEMORANDUM • TO: Dan Faust, Finance Director FROM: Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: March 22, 2006 SUBJECT: 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Plan Enclosed is a copy of the proposed projects for the parks and recreation department for the five-year period from 2007-2011. The projects remain the same as in the previous submittal with one project being deleted and two additional projects being added. The deleted project is the nature center land expansion. Staff spent a great deal of time in 2005 pursuing this issue. The abutting property owners have chosen to not sell to the city and have put the property on the open market. Should this land become available, we might request a modification of future projects. The two new projects include renovation of the Goodrich ball field complex -in 2010 and expansion and proposed improvements for the Legacy Village sculpture park in 2011. Goodrich ball fields serve as the primary site for our adult softball program. Although adult softball has decreased in numbers over the past 20 years, it remains our largest adult athletic program with over 125 teams and 1,500 participants. The 2010 project proposes the addition of a fourth ball field . including lighting and parking lot improvements. The $300,000 proposed improvement would also include electronic scoreboards and would be paid from the park development fund. • The second new project is the expansion of Legacy Village sculpture park. Legacy Village sculpture park was conceived and developed in 2003 with construction in 2004-2005. Staff envisions that in five years the site will have regional significance and there will be a need for improving and enhancing not only the security system through motion detectors and camera surveillance, but also to improve the lighting and water features. It is estimated that the total cost for the project will be $500,000 with initial design work beginning in 2010. The Maplewood city council doubled the park development fees in 2006, which staff believes will greatly enhance the future funding potential for capital improvement projects for city parks. The enclosed C.I.P. submittal we believe is conservative, yet realistic proposals to address the parks and recreation needs for the city of Maplewood. It should be noted that the C.I.P. does not include monies and/or C.I.P. forms for the Gladstone Savanna project. It is understood that this project would be approved as part of the master Gladstone redevelopment project with the monies coming from the proposed redevelopment projects as they evolve. There will be no impact on annual operating costs for the two new proposed projects. As always, should you have any questions regarding the enclosed submittal, feel free to contact me directly at 2102. kph\07 mem.cip Endosures FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVMENT PLAN PROJECTS GROUPED BY DEPARTMENT • PROJECT TOTALPRIOR ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR NUMBER PROJECT TITLE COST YEARS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 PR03.010 Lions Park Improvements 200,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 PR03.060 Joy Park Improvements 200,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 PR03.080 North Beaver Lake Trail Corridor 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 PR04.050 Gladstone Savanna Improvements 400,000 0 0 400,000 0 0 0 PR05.010 Hazelwood Park Trail Corridor 140,000 0 0 140,000 0 0 0 PR05.030 Joy Park Redevelopment 1,160,000 0 0 160,000 1,000,000 0 0 PR07.010 Goodrich Park Adult Softball Fields 300,000 0 0 0 0 300,000 0 PR07.020 Legacy Village Sculpture Park 500,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 450,000 3,000,000 0 500,000 700,000 1,000,000 350,000 450,000 r 4 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2007-2011 PROJECT TITLE: Lions Park Improvements TOTAL COST: $200,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PR03.010 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Lions Park renovations JUSTIFICATION Lions Park is a three -acre neighborhood park site located at the corner of Century Avenue and Farrell Street. The park is in extremely poor condition and currently has one marginal ball field with significant erosion, standing water, and major water drainage problems running through the park. The playground equipment is in extremely poor condition and 90% of it has been removed. There is no off-street parking and very limited vegetation. Lions Park neighborhood is an older, single-family residential neighborhood. The neighborhood is in need of rehabilitation and improvements to Lions Park would be a major improvement for the neighborhood. Proposed improvements for Lions Park include new playground equipment, upgraded ball field, landscaping, and resolution of the existing drainage ponding. City staff intends to contact the local Lions Club to see if they are willing to financially support on a limited basis any approved improvements to Lions Park. PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Project Funding Source Prior Years 1 2007 I 2008 I 2009 2010 I 2011 I Funding Total Park Development Fund 01 200,0001 01 01 01 01 200,000 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT STARTING DATE: May 2007 Preliminaries: $15,000 Land Acquisition: $0 Construction: $135,000 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: September 2007 Equipment and Other: $50,000 Project Costs: $200,000 NEIGHORHOOD: 09 - Beaver Lake CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2007-2011 PROJECT TITLE: Joy Park Improvements TOTAL COST: $200,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PR03.060 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Joy Park Picnic Shelter JUSTIFICATION Joy Park is a 63 -acre park site that was conveyed to the city in 1995. The park is located at the intersection of Joy Road and Century Avenue. Joy Park is arguably one of the most beautiful land forms in the city park system. Joy Park has had no physical improvements in the past 20 years. The site currently consists of a boat launch, two block -vault bathrooms, and three metal picnic structures. One of the major requests our department receives on an annual basis is for a large community public picnic shelter. The proposal for 2007 is to construct a large picnic shelter and improve the parking lot at Joy Park to accommodate the increased usage. PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Project Funding Source Prior Years 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Funding Total Park Development Fund 01 200,0001 01 01 01 01 200,000 PROJECT STARTING DATE: May 2007 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: September 2007 NEIGHORHOOD: 05 - Maplewood Heights PROJECT COSTS Preliminaries: $15,000 Land Acquisition: $0 Construction: $165,000 Equipment and Other: $20,000 Project Costs: $200,000 J C` • C� CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2007-2011 PROJECT TITLE: North Beaver Lake Trail Corridor TOTAL COST: $100,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PR03.080 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Beaver Lake Trail Corridor, Lakewood Drive to Pondview Apartments JUSTIFICATION The Maplewood city council will review a high-density residential development for a 26 -acre parcel of land at Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue. The proposed development will provide the city with 9.5 acres of open space through the center of the project. The city has proposed to construct an eight -foot bituminous trail with P.A.C. monies. This trail corridor is one of the most critical links within the city's trail system, as it will complete the north -south trail corridor from the Maplewood Nature Center to the Priory property at the intersection of Century and Larpenteur Avenues and ultimately to the Gateway Trail. In 2006, the Beaver Lake Trail Corridor will be extended to the north from Maryland Avenue to the Pondview Apartments. The trail ultimately will tie into the Gateway Trail and through the Sterling Oaks neighborhood park and Priory Neighborhood Preserve. PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Project Funding Source Prior Years 2007 1 2008 1 2009 1 2010 1 2011 Funding Total Park Development Fund 1 01 100,0001 01 01 01 01 100,000 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT STARTING DATE: May 2007 Preliminaries: $5,000 Land Acquisition: $0 Construction: $95,000 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: August 2007 Equipment and Other: $0 Project Costs: $100,000 NEIGHORHOOD: 09 - Beaver Lake CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2007-2011 PROJECT TITLE: Gladstone Savanna Improvements TOTAL COST: $400,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PR04.050 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Restore native plant communities and install trails and interpretive signage JUSTIFICATION Gladstone Savanna is a 23 -acre neighborhood preserve that formerly housed railroad maintenance facilities. Located in an area undergoing redevelopment, the improvements at the preserve will add much to the neighborhood and will celebrate Maplewood's cultural and natural heritage. Construction will include: 1) trail system, 2) redirect storm water in western edge of preserve into a series of filtration ponds, 3) garden and sitting area at corner of Frost and English, 4) sitting area near well, 5) small outdoor classroom near storm water pond, 6) interpretive signage about site's railroad history, Maplewood's natural heritage, and water resources. The preserve will be restored to oak savanna with oak woodlands buffering the homes. Restoration will include: 1) planting prairie understory, 2) planting oak groves, 3) removing invasive species, 4) planting buffers, 5) planting demonstration gardens at entry. PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Project Funding Source Prior Years 1 2007 1 2008 1 2009 2010 2011 Funding Total Park Development Fund 01 01 400,0001 01 01 01 400,000 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT STARTING DATE: May 2008 Preliminaries: $30,000 Land Acquisition: $0 Construction: $370,000 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: November 2008 Equipment and Other: $0 Project Costs: $400,000 NEIGHORHOOD: 07 - Gladstone 0 0 :7 4 4 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2007-2011 PROJECT TITLE: Hazelwood Park Trail Corridor TOTAL COST: $140,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PR05.010 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Neighborhood park development JUSTIFICATION In 2003, the Parks and Recreation Department worked in cooperation with the Public Works Department to construct an off-road trail corridor from Hazelwood Avenue to County Road C. The trail corridor winds through the existing Hazelwood Park on the east as well as on the western portion of the Hazelwood Neighborhood Preserve. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the concept connecting the new Hazelwood trail corridor to the internal Hazelwood Park trail system. In addition to providing a west to east trail connection, staff is proposing to complete the Bruce Vento Trail to the west paralleling Beam Avenue on the south side of the road from Beam Avenue to Highway 61. PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Project Funding Source Prior Years 2007 I 2008 1 2009 2010 I 2011 Funding Total Park Development Fund 01 01 140,0001 01 01 01 140,000 PROJECT STARTING DATE: April 2008 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: September 2008 NEIGHORHOOD: 04 - Hazelwood PROJECT COSTS Preliminaries: $15,000 Land Acquisition: $0 Construction: $125,000 Equipment and Other: $0 Project Costs: $140,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2007-2011 PROJECT TITLE: Joy Park Redevelopment TOTAL COST: $1,160,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PR05.030 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Neighborhood park development JUSTIFICATION Joy Park is a 60 -acre site located in the northeast corner of Maplewood at Joy Road and Century Avenue. The park site is separated by Joy Road with the 40 acres to the north of Joy Road identified as a neighborhood park preserve and the south (or active end) being designed as a community park. The Parks and Recreation Commission conducted a series of neighborhood park planning meetings, including the cities of Oakdale and North St. Paul. The Maplewood City Council has formally gone on record indicating that Joy Park is a high priority and is arguably one of the most esthetic parcels of public land within the community. The proposed development includes reconfiguration of Joy Road, an improved boat ramp, small picnic shelters, creative play area, and restoring native plant species. It is anticipated that the project will be completed with park availability charge revenues from the Legacy Village project projected at $1.4-$1.6 million. PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Project Funding Source Prior Years 2007 1 2008 2009 2010 I 2011 Funding Total [Park Development Fund I 0 0 160 000 I 1 000 000 0 0 1 160 000 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT STARTING DATE: September 2008 Preliminaries: $160,000 Land Acquisition: $0 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: October 2009 Construction: $1,000,000 Equipment and Other: $0 NEIGHORHOOD: 05 - Maplewood Heights Project Costs: $1,160,000 0 0 4 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2007-2011 PROJECT TITLE: Goodrich Park Adult Softball Fields TOTAL COST: $300,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PR07.010 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Goodrich Park Softball Field Improvement JUSTIFICATION Goodrich Park was completed in the mid 1970s and has served as the major adult athletic complex for the past 30 years. Adult softball, although it has reduced numbers, it is still our largest adult program with over 125 teams and 1,500 people participating on an annual basis.The proposed improvements for Goodrich Park include expansion and overlay of the existing parking lot, addition of a fourth field, and construction and installation of new, electronic scoreboards. PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Project Funding Source I Prior Years 1 2007 I 2008 1 2009 I 2010 1 2011 I Funding Total Park Development Fund 01 01 01 01 300,000 I 0 300,000 PROJECT STARTING DATE: May 2010 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: September 2011 NEIGHORHOOD: 08 - Hillside PROJECT COSTS Preliminaries: $15,000 Land Acquisition: $0 Construction: $250,000 Equipment and Other: $351000 Project Costs: $300.000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2007-2011 PROJECT TITLE: Legacy Village Sculpture Park TOTAL COST: $500,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PR07.020 PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Legacy Village Sculpture Park JUSTIFICATION Legacy Village Sculpture Park was constructed in 2004. It is proposed that in 2011 the site will need extensive expansion including the following: increased security including cameras and motion detectors for each of the sculptures, lighting along the boardwalk, additional water features and significant landscape plantings. With the advent and construction of the new Maplewood library, the Legacy Village sculpture park will become a regional facility and serve as a key economic development tool for the Legacy Village neighborhood. PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Project Funding Source I Prior Years I 2007 I 2008 I 2009 I 2010 I 2011 Funding Total Park Development Fund 01 01 01 01 50,0001 450,0001 500,000 PROJECT STARTING DATE: September 2010 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: November 2011 NEIGHORHOOD: 04 - Hazelwood PROJECT COSTS Preliminaries: $50,000 Land Acquisition: $0 Construction: $300,000 Equipment and Other: $150,000 Project Costs: $500,000 0 MEMORANDUM • TO: City Manager and Department Heads • LJ FROM: Finance Director RE: REPORT ON THE 2007-2011 CIP DATE: March 30, 2006 The Finance Department has completed its initial work on the 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Plan. The following is a report on key issues and the current status of the 2007-2011 CIP. DEPARTMENT REQUESTS The five-year total expenditures requested by departments for the 2007-2011 CIP are $88,360,600. Changes by project category over the last CIP are as follows: These totals exclude costs listed for projects in the column labeled prior years. The five largest projects within the CIP are as follows: 1. Gladstone Area Streetscape - $18,150,000. This project is planned to begin in 2006 and will be completed in 2010 in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Gladstone neighborhood. The project will also include storm water system improvements and improvements to the Savanna. 2. White Bear Avenue, County Road D to Buerkle Road - $9,490,000. This project is planned to begin in 2007 and will be completed in 2015. It will relieve traffic congestion on White Bear Avenue. 3. County Road D, Southlawn to White Bear Avenue - $4,480,000. This project is planned to begin in 2008 and will be completed in 2010. This project will include the addition of turning lanes due to increased traffic 4. Western Hills and LarpenteurArea Streets - $4,150,000. This project is planned to begin in 2010 and will be completed in 2011. This project will include the addition of storm sewers and upgrades to the sanitary sewer and water mains. 5. Hills and Dales Area Streets - $3,560,000. Construction of this project is planned for 2010. The majority of the streets will require full reconstruction. 2006-2010 2007-2011 Increase (Decrease) C.I.P. C.I.P. Amount Percent Buildings $ 157,300 $ 278,100 $ 120,800 76.8% Redevelopment 11,705,000 24,550,000 12,845,000 109.7% Equipment 3,056,170 3,956,900 900,730 29.5% Parks 2,900,000 3,000,000 100,000 3.4% Public Works 47,071,200 56,575,600 9,504,400 20.2% TOTALS $ 64,889,670 $ 88,360,600 $ 23,470,930 36.2% These totals exclude costs listed for projects in the column labeled prior years. The five largest projects within the CIP are as follows: 1. Gladstone Area Streetscape - $18,150,000. This project is planned to begin in 2006 and will be completed in 2010 in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Gladstone neighborhood. The project will also include storm water system improvements and improvements to the Savanna. 2. White Bear Avenue, County Road D to Buerkle Road - $9,490,000. This project is planned to begin in 2007 and will be completed in 2015. It will relieve traffic congestion on White Bear Avenue. 3. County Road D, Southlawn to White Bear Avenue - $4,480,000. This project is planned to begin in 2008 and will be completed in 2010. This project will include the addition of turning lanes due to increased traffic 4. Western Hills and LarpenteurArea Streets - $4,150,000. This project is planned to begin in 2010 and will be completed in 2011. This project will include the addition of storm sewers and upgrades to the sanitary sewer and water mains. 5. Hills and Dales Area Streets - $3,560,000. Construction of this project is planned for 2010. The majority of the streets will require full reconstruction. Report on the 2007-2011 CIP March 30, 2006 • There are 87 projects requested for the CIP. Last year's CIP had 76 projects. New projects requested for 2007-2011 are as follows: Community Development Department $183,000 City facilities security system enhancements Fire Department $105,000 Mobile digital communications $124,500 Ambulance replacement $265,000 Truck replacement Information Technology Department $80,000 Wireless mesh infrastructure $125,000 Phone system replacement Parks and Recreation Department $300,000 Goodrich Park improvements $500,000 Legacy Village Sculpture Park improvements Police Department $119,000 In -car video system Public Works Department $119,780 Replacement of water tanker truck $79,980 $179,360 Replacement of trickster, crack filler, two trailers Replacement of three one -ton trucks $169,860 Replacement of wheel loader $1,300,000 Carsgrove Meadows Area street improvements $4,150,000 Western Hills and Larpenteur Area street improvements $1,450,000 Stanich Highlands Area street improvements $340,000 Implementation of Non -Degradation Program $1,900,000 Country View Golf Course development $495,000 Highway 36 and English intersection improvements $50,000 Public Works Campus improvements $220,000 Markham Pond retaining wall repair $50,000 Brand Avenue drainage improvements $50,000 Valley View Drive drainage improvements $75,000 Comprehensive Plan update $2,240,000 Hazelwood Street improvements, Frost to Cope Attached is a listing of CIP project requests grouped by funding source. The following is an analysis of the feasibility of the proposed funding sources and the impact on property taxes and billing rates. . -2- Report on the 2007-2011 CIP • March 30, 2006 PROJECTS FOR THE AMBULANCE SERVICE FUND The CIP projects in the Ambulance Service Fund are the replacement of two ambulances at a total cost of $242,000. Billing rates for ambulance service will not have to be increased to finance this cost because depreciation expense on the current ambulances builds a cash reserve for replacements. PROJECTS FOR THE CIP FUND The Capital Improvement Projects Fund was established to finance major capital outlay expenditures that individually cost in excess of $50,000 and that cannot be easily financed by alternative sources. Property taxes are levied periodically for this fund. Included in department requests was $75,000 for the Comprehensive Plan update and $25,000 of the cost was to be financed out of the CIP Fund. The update of the Comprehensive Plan is not a capital outlay type of expenditure. Therefore, it should not be included in the five-year CIP and should not be financed out of the CIP Fund in my opinion. It has been excluded from the financial projections. The attached financial projections for the CIP Fund indicate that an annual property tax . levy of $216,000 would be needed annually over the next five years if all project requests totaling $912,100 are approved. (After adjusting for a collection rate of 97.7% the annual property tax revenue would be $211,100.) The projections also indicate that if the timing of the projects is not changed there will be periodic deficits in the CIP Fund. If the old Gladstone Fire Station is not sold in 2006 there will be a 12-31-06 deficit of $116,154 in the CIP Fund. The 2006 Budget assumed that the station would be sold for $248,000 in 2005 and that the proceeds would be allocated to the CIP Fund ($148,000) and the Redevelopment Fund ($100,000). 1 recommend that the following 2006 projects in the CIP Fund be delayed until the old station is sold: city-wide sidewalk improvements ($54,700), city hall parking lot and campus improvements ($20,000) and fire station remodeling and sleeping quarters ($65,000). PROJECTS TO BE FINANCED BY THE ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE The Gladstone and Hillcrest area streetscape projects are proposed to be partly financed by the electric franchise fee. The costs planned for electric franchise fee financing total $1,000,000. There are three ways that the financing could be done. The first alternative would be to make the streetscape projects part of an improvement project, assess at least 20% of the project costs, issue improvement bonds that would have property tax levies pledged to finance the unassessed costs, annually cancel some of the tax levies and use electric franchise fee revenue to finance some of the eunassessed costs. An increase in the electric franchise fee rate would need to be implemented and the size of the increase would depend on how quickly we wanted to pay off the bonds. -3- Report on the 2007-2011 CIP • March 30, 2006 A second alternative would be to increase the franchise fee now from the current rate of $0.50 per month on a home to $1.10 per month. This would cause annual franchise fee revenues to increase from $167,760 to $367,700. The additional $200,000 per year would be enough to finance the $1,000,000 needed for the Gladstone and Hillcrest area streetscape projects. A third alternative would be to increase the franchise fee now from the current rate of $0.50 per month on a home to $0.95 per month. This would cause annual franchise fee revenues to increase from $167,760 to $317,700. The additional $150,000 per year would be enough to finance the $300,000 needed for the Gladstone project. The franchise fee could be adjusted again later for the Hillcrest area streetscape project. The initial projections for the 2007-2011 CIP assume that bonds will not be issued for the project costs financed by the electric franchise fee. PROJECTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND The Environmental Utility Fund will finance $5,000,000 of project costs if all of the requests are approved. Current utility rates ($10.29 quarterly per home) can finance • approximately $380,000 annually of project costs. In order to finance annual costs of $1,000,000 the utility rates would have to increase to $27.17 quarterly per home. An alternative would be to issue bonds for the project costs and use utility charge revenues for principal and interest payments on the bonds. The initial projections for the 2007- 2011 CIP assume that bonds will not be issued for the project costs financed by the environmental utility fees. PROJECTS FOR THE FIRE TRUCK REPLACEMENT FUND The attached financial projections for the Fire Truck Replacement Fund indicate that an annual property tax levy of $286,500 would be needed annually over the next five years if all project requests totaling $1,057,000 are approved. (After adjusting for a collection rate of 97.7% the annual property tax revenue would be $280,010.) Normally a new truck is purchased every other year. The requests for the 2007-2011 include the purchase of a new truck in three consecutive years (2008-2010). E -4- Report on the 2007-2011 CIP • March 30, 2006 PROJECTS FOR THE FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND The attached financial projections for the Fleet Management Fund assume that annual operating expenses will increase by 4% per year. This will cause internal rental charges to departments to increase by 4% annually. The second page of the projections indicate that if all of the requests are approved the fund will have a cash deficit of over $395,000 by the end of 2011. Either some of the requests need to be cut or the rental charges need to be increased to departments. If no cuts are made, rental charges to departments will have to increase by 7.5% annually over the next five years. PROJECTS FOR THE PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND The attached financial projections for the Park Development Fund indicate that an annual property tax levy of $360,000 would be needed annually over the next five years if all project requests totaling $3,000,000 are approved. (After adjusting for a collection rate of 97.7% the annual property tax revenue would be $351,840.) The timing of some projects needs to be changed to avoid a 12-31-09 projected fund deficit of $114,602. An important part of the projections is anticipated PAC revenues. No commercial PAC revenues are included because they are impossible to predict with any accuracy. Estimated residential PAC revenues are based on a PAC of $3,060 for a single-family home. The number of new single-family homes per year is based upon the Community Development Department projections (2006-200, 2007-100, 2008 thru 2011-40). If the Gladstone Redevelopment project and Carver Crossings development are not cancelled, the number of new single-family homes per year will be significantly higher. PROJECTS FOR THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND Public improvement projects that are included in department requests will be accounted for in the Public Improvement Projects Fund. Most of the financing for these projects will be with new debt issues that total $60,564,650 over the next five years. This includes the bonds for the Gladstone and Hillcrest redevelopment improvements. If the city's tax base continues to increase annually over the next five years at the same rate as it has over the past 10 years (14%), the ratio of direct debt to tax base (i.e. estimated full market value) will gradually decrease from 1.5% on 12-31-05 to 1.1% on 12-31-11. This indicates that there is a good chance that the city may be able to maintain its present bond rating of Aa2. However, the property tax levies to pay principal and interest on bonds will increase significantly. The tax levy for 2006 was $3,016,800 and for 2011 will be $4,169,900. Attached is a worksheet listing the tax levies by year and the annual percentage changes. • -5- Report on the 2007-2011 CIP March 30, 2006 PROJECTS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT FUND The attached financial projections for the Redevelopment Fund indicate that an annual property tax levy of $168,000 would be needed annually over the next five years if all project requests totaling $750,000 are approved. (After adjusting for a collection rate of 97.7% the annual property tax revenue would be $164,190.) The projections also indicate that if the timing of the projects is not changed there will be periodic deficits in the Redevelopment Fund. If the old Gladstone Fire Station is not sold in 2006 there will be a 12-31-06 deficit of $53,077 in the Redevelopment Fund. The 2006 Budget assumed that the station would be sold for $248,000 in 2005 and that the proceeds would be allocated to the CIP Fund ($148,000) and the Redevelopment Fund ($100,000). PROJECTS FOR THE SANITARY SEWER FUND The Sanitary Sewer Fund will finance $3,621,300 of project costs if all of the requests are approved. Current utility rates ($56.60 quarterly per home) can finance approximately $585,000 annually of project costs which totals $2,925,000 over five years. The remaining $696,300 of project costs can be financed by the surplus working capital in the fund which is $1.5 million. • PROJECTS FOR THE W.A.C. FUND -NORTH ST. PAUL WATER DISTRICT The attached financial projections for the W.A.C. Fund -North St. Paul Water District include revenue of $9,500 annually from a water surcharge beginning in 2007. This is the amount that will be needed if all of the requests are approved. I have asked the North St. Paul Finance Director if their utility billing software has the capability to include a water surcharge for Maplewood and have not received a reply yet. PROJECTS FOR THE W.A.C. FUND -ST. PAUL WATER DISTRICT The attached financial projections for the W.A.C. Fund -St. Paul Water District indicate that there are sufficient funds to finance all of the requests. At the end of 2005 the fund balance was $71,728 and it is projected to increase to $325,938 by the end of 2011. A reduction in the water surcharge rate should be considered. INITIAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY ESTIMATES FOR 2007 Attached is a listing of initial tax levy estimates for the 2007 Budget. The tax levy for the Capital Improvements 2007 Budget would be $1,030,500 if all of the CIP requests are approved. The tax levy was zero for the Capital Improvements 2006 Budget. The Debt Service 2007 Budget will require a tax levy of $3,140,800 which is an increase of 4.1 % over 2006. The tax levy for the Operations portion of the budget consists of levies for three funds: General, Community Center Operations, and Recreation Programs. sm Report on the 2007-2011 CIP • March 30, 2006 The tax levy for 2007 for the Comm unity'Center Operations Fund will need to be $67,500 which is an increase of $28,500 based upon the policy used for the 2006 Budget. This policy is to calculate the tax levy by dividing by five the amount due to other funds (cash deficit) at the end of last year. This amount is then adjusted for the tax collection rate (i.e. divided by 0.977). The tax levy for 2007 for the General and Recreation Programs funds is listed at a 3% increase which should be close to the total of the inflation and city growth rates. The total levy for 2007 is 10.7% higher than 2006. If the target levy is a 5% increase, then the levy will need to be reduced by $809,230 and adjustments will need to be made to the Operations and Capital Improvements portions of the budget. SUMMARY Normally the strategic plan of the city is considered during preparation of the CIP. Maplewood's strategic plan is based on priorities that are set at the annual Council -staff retreat. The last retreat was in June 2005 and the top priorities were police staffing, redevelopment, maintenance of streets/sidewalks and a 5% limit on the tax increase for 2006. These priorities need to be reviewed with the new Council members to determine what changes are needed and what the tax increase limit will be for 2007. 1 . think the completion of the CIP should be delayed until after the Council -staff retreat on April 28. The state legislature is again the wild card in the CIP and budget process this year. We can only hope that the anticipated state aids will not be cut and that the legislature will not put limits on tax and fee increases. On March 14 the governor recommended that the legislature re -impose levy limits because "some local units of government need assistance holding down local property taxes". C: Assistant Finance Director PAR NANCEMORDWIEMO\07CIP • -7- FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVMENT PLAN PROJECTS GROUPED BY FUNDING SOURCE i PROJECT TOTAL PRIOR ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FUNDING SOURCE COST YEARS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 FD05.010 Ambulance Replacement Ambulance Service Fund 117,500 0 0 117,500 0 0 0 FD07.020 Ambulance Replacement Ambulance Service Fund 124,500 0 0 0 0 0 124,500 242,000 0 0 117,500 0 0 124,500 PWO3.150 DeSoto/Roselawn Area Street Improvements Bonds-G.O. Improvement 1,106,200 100,000 1,006,200 0 0 0 0 PW03.160 City-wide Sidewalk Improvements Bonds-G.O. Improvement 490,000 0 90,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 PWD4.050 Femdale/Geranium Area Streets Bonds-G.O. Improvement 417,300 0 127,300 290,000 0 0 0 PW04.060 Brookview Area Streets Bonds-G.O. Improvement 930,600 0 300,000 630,600 0 0 0 PWO4.110 Existing County Rd D, East of TH 61 to Hazelwood Bonds-G.O. Improvement 300,000 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 PW05.060 Lake/Prosperity/Burke Area Streets Bonds-G.O. Improvement 1,087,150 0 0 200,000 887,150 0 0 PWO5.070 Myrtle/Sterling/Idaho Streets Bonds-G.O. Improvement 599,500 0 0 100,000 499,500 0 0 PWO5.080 Pond Avenue/Dorland Road Bonds-G.O. Improvement 53,000 0 0 0 53,000 0 0 PWO6.120 Kohlman Lane Area Streets, Water & Sewer Bonds-G.O. Improvement 292,600 100,000 192,600 0 0 0 0 PWO6.140 Hills & Dales Area Streets Bonds-G.O. Improvement 1,614,800 0 0 0 200,000 1,414,800 0 PWO6.150 County Road C Area Streets, TH 61 to White Bear Av Bonds-G.O. Improvement 1,472,600 0 0 0 200,000 1,272,600 0 PW07.050 Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements Bonds-G.O. Improvement 675,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 575,000 PWO7.060 Western Hills/LarpenteurArea Streets Bonds-G.O. Improvement 1,245,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 1,145,000 PW07.070 Stanich Highlands Area Street Improvements Bonds-G.O. Improvement 807,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 707,000 11,090,750 200,000 2,016,100 1,320,600 1,939,650 3,087,400 2,527,000 CDO4.050 Hillcrest Area Streetscape Bonds-M.S.A. 100,000 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 0 PW02.080 Beam Avenue, White Bear- Bellaire Bonds-M.S.A. 435,000 0 100,000 335,000 0 0 0 PW03.020 County Road D, McKnight- Lydia Bonds-M.S.A. 1,600,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 1,450,000 PW03.090 Desoto Street, Larpenteur- County Road B Bonds-M.S.A. 1,092,400 100,000 992,400 0 0 0 0 PW03.100 Skillman Avenue, McMenemy St. - Desoto St. Bonds-M.S.A. 115,000 15,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 PW03.110 Ferndale Street, Maryland - Stillwater Road Bonds-M.S.A. 213,000 0 13,000 200,000 0 0 0 PW03.120 County F oad D, Southlawn - White Bear Avenue Bonds-M.S.A. 2,650,000 0 0 1,000,000 1,500,000 150,000 0 PWO3.130 Beebe Road, Holloway - Larpenteur Bonds-M.S.A. 500,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 400,000 PW03.140 White Bear Avenue, Radatz- Buerkle Bonds-M.S.A. 550,000 0 75,000 250,000 100,000 50,000 75,000 PW03.220 Eliminate TH 36 Pedestrian Crossing at Hazelwood Bonds-M.S.A. 150,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 125,000 PWO4.140 Century Avenue, 1-94 to Lower Afton Bonds-M.S.A. 200,000 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 PW05.090 Signal System at Southlawn and County Road D Bonds-M.S.A. 150,000 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 PW05.110 Signal System at Kennard St. - County Road D Bonds-M.S.A. 250,000 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 PWO5.140 Signal System at Lakewood and Maryland Bonds-M.S.A. 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 PWO6.110 Holloway Avenue, N. St. Paul Road to McKnight Bonds-M.S.A. 255,000 0 0 60,000 195,000 0 0 PW07.090 Country View Golf Course Development Bonds-M.S.A. 250,000 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 PW07.100 TH 36 -English Intersection Improvements Bonds-M.S.A. 245,000 45,000 50,000 0 50,000 0 100,000 PW88.080 Hazelwood Street, Frost Avenue - Cope Avenue Bonds-M.S.A. 1,568,000 0 0 250,000 1,318,000 0 0 10,373, 400 160,000 1,630,400 2,695,000 3,213,000 525,000 2,150, 000 CD04.010 Gladstrone Area Streetscape Bonds -Special Assessment 2,600,000 0 300,000 350,000 950,000 1,000,000 0 CDO4.030 Hillcrest Area Roadway Improvements Bonds -Special Assessment 1,100,000 0 0 0 0 700,000 400,000 CDD4.040 Hillcrest Area Redevelopment Bonds -Special Assessment 125,OD0 0 0 0 0 125,000 D CDD4.050 Hillcrest Area Streetsoape Bonds -Special Assessment 400,000 0 0 0 200,000 100,000 100,000 PWO2.080 Beam Avenue, White Bear - Bellaire Bonds -Special Assessment 240,000 0 0 240,000 0 0 0 PW03.020 County Road D, McKnight - Lydia Bonds -Special Assessment 190,000 0 0 0 0 0 190,000 PW03.090 Desoto Street, Larpenteur - County Road B Bonds -Special Assessment 530,000 0 530,000 0 0 0 0 PW03.100 Skillman Avenue, McMenemy St. - Desoto St. Bonds -Special Assessment 112,500 0 112,500 0 0 0 0 PW03.110 Femdele Street, Maryland - Stillwater Road Bonds -Special Assessment 75,000 0 0 75,000 0 0 0 PWO3.120 County Road D. Southlawn - White Bear Avenue Bonds -Special Assessment 1,500,000 0 0 0 1,500,000 0 D PW03.130 Beebe Road, Holloway - Larpenteur Bonds -Special Assessment 145,000 0 0 0 0 0 145,000 PW03.150 DeSoto/Roselawn Area Street Improvements Bonds -Special Assessment 957,000 0 957,000 0 0 0 0 PW03.160 City-wide Sidewalk Improvements Bonds -Special Assessment 180,000 0 30,000 30,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 PWO4.050 Femdale/Geranium Area Streets Bonds -Special Assessment 241,000 0 0 241,000 0 0 0 PW04.060 Brookview Area Streets Bonds -Special Assessment 808,000 0 0 808,000 0 0 0 PW04.110 Existing County Rd D, East of TH 61 to Hazelwood Bonds -Special Assessment 200,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 PW04.140 Century Avenue, 1-94 to Lower Afton Bonds -Special Assessment 50,000 0 0 50,000 0 O 0 PW05.050 Lake/Prosperity/Burke Area Streets Bonds -Special Assessment 702,000 0 0 0 702,000 0 0 PWO5.070 Myrtle/Sterling/Idaho Streets Bonds -Special Assessment 330,500 0 0 0 330,500 0 0 PWO5.080 Pond Avenue/Dorland Road Bonds -Special Assessment 91,000 0 0 0 91,000 0 0 PWO5.090 Signal System at Southlawn and County Road D Bonds -Special Assessment 50,000 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 PW06.100 Carver Crossings Area Improvements Bonds -Special Assessment 2,100,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 0 0 0 0 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVMENT PLAN PROJECTS GROUPED BY FUNDING SOURCE W_ • TOTAL PRIOR ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FUNDING SOURCE COST YEARS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 PWO6.110 Holloway Avenue, N. St. Paul Road to McKnight Bonds -Special Assessment 67,000 0 0 0 67,000 0 0 PWO6.120 Kohlman Lane Area Streets, Water & Sewer Bonds -Special Assessment 555,500 0 555,500 0 0 0 0 PWO6.140 Hills & Dales Area Streets Bonds -Special Assessment 1,068,000 0 0 0 0 1,068,000 O PWO6.150 County Road C Area Streets, TH 61 to White Bear Av Bonds -Special Assessment 786,000 0 0 0 0 786,000 0 PW07.050 Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements Bonds -Special Assessment 463,000 0 0 0 0 0 463,000 PW07.060 Western Hills/Larpenteur Area Streets Bonds -Special Assessment 2,314,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,314,000 PW07.070 Stanich Highlands Area Street Improvements Bonds -Special Assessment 435,000 0 0 0 0 0 435,000 PW07.090 Country View Golf Course Development Bonds -Special Assessment 1,600,000 25,000 1,000,000 575,000 0 0 0 PW07.100 TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements Bonds -Special Assessment 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 0, PW88.080 Hazelwood Street, Frost Avenue - Cope Avenue Bonds -Special Assessment 560,000 0 0 0 560,000 0 0 20,625,500 1,025,000 4,835, 000 Z419,000 4,440,500 3,819,000 4,087,000 CD04.010 Gladstrone Area Streetscape Bonds -Tax Increment 15,250,000 0 250,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 0 CD04.030 Hillcrest Area Roadway Improvements Bonds -Tax Increment 1,300,000 0 0 0 0 900,000 400,000 CDD4.040 Hillcrest Area Redevelopment Bonds -Tax Increment 625,000 0 0 0 0 500,000 125,000 C004.050 Hillcrest Area Streetscape Bonds -Tax Increment 1,300,000 0 0 0 200,000 350,000 750,000 18,475,000 0 250,000 5,000,000 6,200,000 5,750,000 1,275,000 CDO7.010 City Facilitiies Security Systems Enhancement C.I.P. Fund 183,ODO 0 183,000 0 0 0 0 FD02.010 Overlay Station Parking Lots C.I.P. Fund 95,100 0 95,100 0 0 0 0 FD07.010 Mobile Digital Communications C.I.P. Fund 105,000 0 105,000 0 0 0 0 ITD6.010 Council Chambers AudioNisual Update C.I.P. Fund 53,000 53,000 0 0 0 0 0 IT07.010 Wireless Mesh Infrastructure C.I.P. Fund 80,000 0 80,000 0 0 0 0 IT09.010 Phone System C.I.P. Fund 125,000 0 0 0 125,000 0 0 PD07.010 In -Car Video System C.I.P. Fund 119,000 0 119,000 0 0 0 0 PWD4.160 City Hall Parking Lot and Campus Improvements C.I.P. Fund 200,000 20,000 95,000 25,000 25,000 35,000 0 Comprehensive Plan Updates C.I.P. Fund 25,000 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 &W07.150 985,100 73,000 702,100 25,000 150,000 35,000 0 CDO4.010 Gladstrone Area Streetscape Electric Franchise Fee 300,000 0 100,000 200,000 0 0 0 CDO4.050 Hilicrest Area Streetscape Electric Franchise Fee 700,000 0 0 0 0 500,000 200,000 1,000,000 0 100,000 200,000 0 500,000 200,000 PWO2.120 City Landfill Closure Environmental Utility Fund 275,000 0 275,000 0 0 0 0 PW03.140 White Bear Avenue, Radatz- Buerkle Environmental Utility Fund 250,000 0 0 100,000 150,000 0 0 PW03.150 DeSoto/Roselawn Area Street Improvements Environmental Utility Fund 292,000 0 292,000 0 0 0 0 PW04.050 Femdale/Geranium Area Streets Environmental Utility Fund 52,000 0 D 52,000 0 0 0 PWD4.060 Brookview Area Streets Environmental Utility Fund 400,000 0 0 400,000 0 0 0 PW05.060 Lake/Prosperity/Burke Area Streets Environmental Utility Fund 336,000 0 0 0 336,000 0 0 PWO6.090 Wetland Enhancement Program Environmental Utility Fund 950,000 50,000 75,000 125,000 200,000 250,000 250,D00 PWO6.120 Kohlman Lane Area Streets, Water & Sewer Environmental Utility Fund 70,000 0 70,000 0 0 0 0 PWD6.130 EdgertoNRoselawn Drainage Improvements Environmental Utility Fund 650,000 0 0 50,000 6DO,000 0 0 PWD6.140 Hills & Dales Area Streets Environmental Utility Fund 525,000 0 0 0 0 525,000 0 P WO6.150 County Road C Area Streets, TH 61 to White Bear Av Environmental Utility Fund 175,000 0 0 0 0 175,000 0 PW07.050 Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements Environmental Utility Fund 68,000 0 0 0 0 0 68,000 PW07.D60 Western Hills/Larpenteur Area Streets Environmental Utility Fund 297,000 O 0 0 0 0 297,000 PW07.070 Stanich Highlands Area Street Improvements Environmental Utility Fund 105,000 0 0 0 0 0 105,000 PW07.080 Implementation of Non -Degradation Program Environmental Utility Fund 340,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 50,000 50,000 PW07.090 Country View Goff Course Development Environmental Utility Fund 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 O 0 PW07.110 Public Works Campus Improvements Environmental Utility Fund 20,000 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 PW07.120 Markham Pond Retaining Wall Repair Environmental Utility Fund 220,000 50,000 170,000 0 0 0 0 PW07.130 Brand Avenue Drainage Improvements Environmental Utility Fund 50,000 20,000 30,000 0 0 0 D PWO7.140 Valley View Drive Drainage Improvements Environmental Utility Fund 50,000 20,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 PWO7.150 Comprehensive Plan Updates Environmental Utility Fund 25,000 0 25,000 O D 0 0 5,200,000 200,000 1,097,000 787,000 1,346,000 1,000,000 770,000 �W03.140 White Bear Avenue, Radatz- Buerkle Federal Aid 5,790,000 0 140,000 5,520,000 70,000 60,000 0 5,790,000 0 140,000 5,520,000 70,000 60,000 0 FD03.020 Replacement of Fire Truck Fire Truck Replacement Fund 384,500 D 0 384,500 0 0 0 W_ FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVMENT PLAN PROJECTS GROUPED BY FUNDING SOURCE 1,057,000 0 0 384,500 265,000 407,500 0 PWO1.010 Street Sweeper Fleet Management Fund 138,500 • PROJECT 0 0 TOTAL PRIOR ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FUNDING SOURCE COST YEARS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 FDO6.020 Replacement of Fire Truck Fire Truck Replacement Fund 407,500 0 0 0 0 407,500 0 FD07.030 Truck Replacement Fire Truck Replacement Fund 265,000 0 0 0 265,000 0 0 1,057,000 0 0 384,500 265,000 407,500 0 PWO1.010 Street Sweeper Fleet Management Fund 138,500 0 138,500 0 0 0 0 PW04.030 Two 1 -Ton Trucks and Two Pickup Trucks Fleet Management Fund 115,000 0 115,000 0 0 0 0 PWO4.080 Two 1 -Ton Trucks Fleet Management Fund 100,000 0 0 100,000 0 0 0 PWO4.090 Street Sweeper Fleet Management Fund 150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 0 PWO5.020 Lawn Mower & Trailers Fleet Management Fund 60,000 0 60,DDO 0 0 0 0 PWO5.050 Two Snow Plow Trucks Fleet Management Fund 279,000 0 0 0 279,000 0 0 PW06.010 Two Toro Lawn Mowers Fleet Management Fund 57,740 0 0 57,740 0 0 0 PWO6.020 Eight 1/2 -Ton Pickup Trucks Fleet Management Fund 186,980 0 0 0 186,980 0 0 PWO6.030 Mower, Truckster, Crack Router & Trailer Fleet Management Fund 78,630 0 0 0 78,630 0 0 PWO6.040 Two 1 -Ton Trucks Fleet Management Fund 114,060 0 0 0 114,060 0 0 PW06.050 One 1 -Ton Truck and Two 112 -Ton Pickups Fleet Management Fund 101,260 0 0 0 0 101,260 D PWO6.060 One Tractor Loader and One Trailer Fleet Management Fund 55,390 0 0 0 0 55,390 0 PW06.070 One Plow Truck Fleet Management Fund 141,460 0 0 0 0 141,460 0 PWD6.080 Two Jacobsen Lawn Mowers Fleet Management Fund 101,900 0 0 0 0 101,900 0 PW07.010 One Water Tanker Fleet Management Fund 119,780 0 0 0 0 0 119,780 PW07.020 One 4-Whl Truckster, 1 Crack filler, 2 trailers Fleet Management Fund 79,980 0 0 0 0 0 79,980 PW07.030 Three 1 -Ton Trucks Fleet Management Fund 179,360 0 0 0 0 0 179,360 PW07.040 Wheel Loader Fleet Management Fund 169,860 0 0 0 0 0 169,860 PW07.110 Public Works Campus Improvements Fleet Management Fund 30,000 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 2,258,900 0 343,500 157,740 658,670 550,010 548,980 PWO6.120 Kohlman Lane Area Streets, Water & Sewer Little Canada 137,500 0 137,500 0 0 0 0 137,500 0 137,500 0 0 0 0- PWO3.140 White Bear Avenue, Radatz- Buerkle MnIDOT 150,000 0 75,000 0 0 0 75,000 PW03.220 Eliminate TH 36 Pedestrian Crossing at Hazelwood MnIDOT 250,000 0 ' 0 0 0 0 250,000 PWO7.100 TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements MnIDOT 200,000 0 50,000 0 50,ODO 0 100,000 600,000 0 125,000 0 50,000 0 425,000 PWO2.080 Beam Avenue, White Bear - Bellaire North St. Paul 175,000 0 0 175,000 0 0 0 PW03.020 County Road D, McKnight - Lydia North St. Paul 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 40,000 PWO6.110 Holloway Avenue, N. St. Paul Road to McKnight North St. Paul 395,000 0 0 0 395,000 0 0 610,000 0 0 175,000 395,000 0 40,000 PW02.080 Beam Avenue, White Bear - Bellaire North St. Paul W.A.C. Fund 25,000 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 PW03.020 County Road D, McKnight - Lydia North St. Paul W.A.C. Fund 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 75,000 0 0 25,000 0 0 50,000 PR03.010 Lions Park Improvements Park Development Fund 200,000 0 200,000 0 D 0 0 PR03.060 Joy Park Improvements Park Development Fund 200,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 PRO3.080 North Beaver Lake Trail Corridor Park Development Fund 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 PRO4.050 Gladstone Savanna Improvements Park Development Fund 400,000 0 0 400,000 0 0 0 PRO5.010 Hazelwood Park Trail Corridor Park Development Fund 140,000 0 0 140,000 0 0 0 PR05.030 Joy Park Redevelopment Park Development Fund 1,160,000 0 0 160,0130 1,000,000 0 0 PR07.010 Goodrich Park Adult Softball Fields Park Development Fund 300,000 0 0 0 0 300,000 0 PR07.020 Legacy Village Sculpture Park Park Development Fund 500,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 450,000 3,000,000 0 500,000 700,000 1,000,000 350,000 450,000 PW03.140 White Beer Avenue, Radatz - Buerkle Ramsey County 2,750,000 0 75,000 2,350,000 200,000 50,000 75,000 PWO5.140 Signal System at Lakewood and Maryland Ramsey County 150,000 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 PW06.110 Holloway Avenue, N. SL Paul Road to McKnight Ramsey County 56,000 0 0 0 56,000 D 0. 2,956,000 0 225,000 2,350,000 256,000 50,000 75,000 CDO2.010 Housing Replacement Program Redevelopment Fund 1,000,000 250,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 -10- FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVMENT PLAN PROJECTS GROUPED BY FUNDING SOURCE • PROJECT TOTAL PRIOR ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FUNDING SOURCE COST YEARS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1,000,000 250,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 PW02.080 Beam Avenue, White Bear- Bellaire Sanitary Sewer Fund 25,000 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 PW03.020 County Road D, McKnight - Lydia Sanitary Sewer Fund 120,000 0 0 0 0 0 120,000 PW03.090 Desoto Street, Larpenteur - County Road B Sanitary Sewer Fund 81,000 0 81,000 0 0 0 0 PW03.100 Skillman Avenue, McMenemy St. - Desoto St. Sanitary Sewer Fund 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 0 0 PW03.110 Femdale Street, Maryland - Stillwater Road Sanitary Sewer Fund 12,000 0 0 12,000 0 0 0 PW03.120 County Road D, Southlawn -White Bear Avenue Sanitary Sewer Fund 280,000 0 0 0 280,000 0 0 PW03.130 Beebe Road, Holloway - Larpenteur Sanitary Sewer Fund 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 PW03.150 DeSoto/Roselawn Area Street Improvements Sanitary Sewer Fund 137,700 0 137,700 0 0 0 0 PW03.180 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Lining/Sealing Program Sanitary Sewer Fund 400,000 200,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 PW03.190 Sanitary Sewer Sump Pump Removal Program Sanitary Sewer Fund 900,000 200,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 125,000 125,000 PW03.210 Lift Station Upgrade Program Sanitary Sewer Fund 350,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 PWO4.050 Femdale/Geranium Area Streets Sanitary Sewer Fund 28,400 0 0 28,400 0 0 0 PW04.060 Brookview Area Streets Sanitary Sewer Fund 118,000 0 0 118,000 0 0 0 PW04.140 Century Avenue, 1-94 to Lower Afton Sanitary Sewer Fund 65,000 0 0 65,000 0 0 0 PW05.060 Lake/Prosperity/Burke Area Streets Sanitary Sewer Fund 93,600 0 0 0 93,600 0 0 PW05.070 Myrtle/Sterling/ldaho Streets Sanitary Sewer Fund 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 0 0 PWO5.OBO Pond Avenue/Dorland Road Sanitary Sewer Fund 6,000 0 0 0 6,000 0 0 PWO6.100 Carver Crossings Area Improvements Sanitary Sewer Fund 500,000 25,000 475,000 0 0 0 0 PW06.110 Holloway Avenue, N. St. Paul Road to McKnight Sanitary Sewer Fund 17,000 0 0 0 17,000 0 0 PW06.120 Kohlman Lane Area Streets, Water & Sewer Sanitary Sewer Fund 115,000 0 115,000 0 0 0 0 PWO6.140 Hills & Dales Area Streets Sanitary Sewer Fund 181,000 0 0 0 0 181,000 0 PWO6.150 County Road C Area Streets, TH 61 to White Bear Av Sanitary Sewer Fund 134,000 0 0 0 0 134,000 0 PW07.050 Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements Sanitary Sewer Fund 68,000 0 0 0 0 0 68,000 PW07.060 Western Hills/Larpenteur Area Streets Sanitary Sewer Fund 211,000 0 0 0 0 0 211,000 PW07.070 Stanich Highlands Area Street Improvements Sanitary Sewer Fund 74,000 0 0 0 0 0 74,000 W07.150 Comprehensive Plan Updates Sanitary Sewer Fund 25,000 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 W88.060 Hazelwood Street, Frost Avenue - Cope Avenue Sanitary Sewer Fund 89,600 0 0 0 89,600 0 0 4,096,300 475,000 1,148, 700 498,400 776,200 515,000 683,000 PW04.060 Brookview Area Streets St. Paul W.A.C. Fund 97,400 0 0 97,400 0 0 0 PW05.060 Lake/Prosperity/Burke Area Streets St. Paul W.A.C. Fund 51,050 0 0 0 51,050 0 0 PW06.120 Kohlman Lane Area Streets, Water & Sewer St. Paul W.A.C. Fund 60,000 0 60,000 0 0 0 0 PWO6.140 Hills & Dales Area Streets St Paul W.A.C. Fund 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 308,450 0 60,000 97,400 51,050 100,000 0 PW03.090 Desoto Street, Larpenteur- County Road B St. Paul Water 46,600 0 46,600 0 0 0 0 PW03.100 Skillman Avenue, McMenemy St. - Desoto St. St. Paul Water 7,500 0 7,500 0 0 0 0 PW03.120 County Road D, Southlawn - White Bear Avenue St. Paul Water 50,000 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 PW03.130 Beebe Road, Holloway - Larpenteur St. Paul Water 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 PW03.150 DeSoto/Roselawn Area Street Improvements St. Paul Water 77,100 0 77,100 0 0 0 0 PW04.050 Femdale/Geranium Area Streets St. Paul Water 21,300, 0 0 21,300 0 0 0 PWO4.060 Brookview Area Streets St. Paul Water 46,000 0 0 46,000 0 0 0 PWO4.110 Existing County Rd D, East of TH 61 to Hazelwood St. Paul Water 70,000 0 70,000 0 0 0 0 PW05.060 Lake/Prosperity/Burke Area Streets St Paul Water 70,200 0 0 0 70,200 0 0 PW05.070 Myrtie/Sterling/Idaho Streets St. Paul Water 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 PWO6.140 Hills & Dales Area Streets St. Paul Water 71,200 0 0 0 0 71,200 0 PW06.150 County Road C Area Streets, TH 61 to White Bear Av St. Paul Water 52,400 0 0 0 0 52,400 0 PW07.050 Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements St. Paul Water 26,000 0 0 0 0 0 26,000 PW07.060 Western Hills/Larpenteur Area Streets St. Paul Water 83,000 0 0 0 0 0 83,000 PW07,070 Stanich Highlands Area Street Improvements St Paul Water 29,000 0 0 0 0 0 29,000 PW88.080 Hazelwood Street, Frost Avenue - Cope Avenue St. Paul Water 22,400 0 0 0 22,400 0 0 712,700 0 201,200 67,300 172,600 123,600 148,000 PW04.110 Existing County Rd D, East of TH 61 to Hazelwood Vadnais Heights 150,000 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 • 150,000 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 90,743, 600 2, 383, 000 13, 811, 500 22, 689,440 21,133, 670 17,022,510 13,703, 480 -11- W U Z g Q m Z D LL 117 Z O — In O W H �o Z W N U Z W Z Q UJO m O a O F o �: Z F LLI J f O QW W 2 O X LL te aw g Wvi U FW IL < w v � LL o O OZ a W U m Uui LU LU a z o U Z m 2a E LL% o �a,+m 0 w z � ¢ LL O ¢ CD w ~ i9 O Lq 0 W O r 0 N W N C rn O `T c 8 A m d O e � O d m 000 0 00 W rn m � d E C a d a o m_Zw m Q' C C W o(7p n N � ❑ Om N � � d OD O O 00 to O G W Q °° O c oh=- M O E E uj N N n m U Q m c o cO Ii ° � E N N d °7mE V � N i5 O — On C �_ —> E m O ° d 7 LL d m Q_' m W C O 000 o 00 000 O N N � 000 O OCD 0 0 0 O O N N N 000 O O O 0 0 0 rn O N `- N N9 000 O co 000 Go o N cV es 0 0 0 O cc 0 0 0 n � O CD N r N O d3 O O O O O O 000 CD w ~ i9 O Lq 0 W O r 0 N W N C rn O `T c 8 `o m d O e � O d m 000 0 00 0o O C rn m � d E C a d v_ m_Zw m Q' C m o(7p n N � ❑ Om J OD O O 00 to O G W Q °° O ice m oh=- M N U Q O F N () Q v3 m 0N m 0 o N O c O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O � Iri � t7 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0o c O O N N N O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 c CL Lo N r 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O N C O Oct Cl O f 7 O 10 (M N� v N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 O O O 00 O c O Cl O t� r m LO LO m m Ln O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C g 00 oi Lf) LLD N 0 O00000000000rnon Om m r O� 0 0 0 0 0 0 r, 0 0 F?O 0 CD d CD W C iO N C rn O `T c 8 `o m d O e � O d m O C] N co o `d N d w d E rn rn m � d E C a d d N 117 m Q' C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OI n O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O � Iri � t7 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0o c O O N N N O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 c CL Lo N r 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O N C O Oct Cl O f 7 O 10 (M N� v N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 O O O 00 O c O Cl O t� r m LO LO m m Ln O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C g 00 oi Lf) LLD N 0 O00000000000rnon Om m r O� 0 0 0 0 0 0 r, 0 0 F?O 0 CD d CD W C iO O O c O c O C O c 0 O c O a a N c u N u M e mu O D f7 rn u N C n v Ln m N l�f 0 � M m C 12 d a m d @ C yy m o p Q V v w o rn m $ r� IE '3 a dZ �E ��8 c v W❑ 8 E m m Em— E d m w o BOB--.- f0 .°�' Z m > c O `ai U m N> C j C C E Qm� c a m °my (D syY -E >E°E � —i_° H � E m m m d E= a° E y `m o d c o;� m m E' m d a d d Vi 0 C C m�� .E � O" 5 N� rn- Ol o d O. l6 : m � O� � 7 7 V d 7 O m moa) y to c' >oocEyE_�3dm ^� rn°LLE a m m U E 8 0 0 °' °- o m@ E y o Y m m y c E `D c v c W d v v Hc�w y>L�mEa m v.�LL °. . .2 CD x ax cddd d m m d d G d .V d pl m 0 _ C C d N m d d> 2 in d 'C c ;i In E y CC11 C V C O y d L W d 9 U m O U y O. 7 m � y — 7 d C d C C W O X 7 0 O. E W a°� m^ "d-' > p X> '� W F- ` C C aU❑—cn❑_ia��—cn 0 I- w< CL a_3 EUu. UCAFU5 F- w ° O~ °' z ti ci UO �N1� o coo rn o000000000oomm o U Z O O O rn N� 0 0 � a « R R N N m m m m O N m ommlDm ol��r��r��rn rn Q c-, com � c�co c7 c'1 vvvcav<avv�c�v� -12- 0 • 101 m O O N N rn m co 0 O O 0 rn O rn 117 O O c O c O C O c 0 O c O a a N c u N u M e mu O D f7 rn u N C n v Ln m N l�f 0 � M m C 12 d a m d @ C yy m o p Q V v w o rn m $ r� IE '3 a dZ �E ��8 c v W❑ 8 E m m Em— E d m w o BOB--.- f0 .°�' Z m > c O `ai U m N> C j C C E Qm� c a m °my (D syY -E >E°E � —i_° H � E m m m d E= a° E y `m o d c o;� m m E' m d a d d Vi 0 C C m�� .E � O" 5 N� rn- Ol o d O. l6 : m � O� � 7 7 V d 7 O m moa) y to c' >oocEyE_�3dm ^� rn°LLE a m m U E 8 0 0 °' °- o m@ E y o Y m m y c E `D c v c W d v v Hc�w y>L�mEa m v.�LL °. . .2 CD x ax cddd d m m d d G d .V d pl m 0 _ C C d N m d d> 2 in d 'C c ;i In E y CC11 C V C O y d L W d 9 U m O U y O. 7 m � y — 7 d C d C C W O X 7 0 O. E W a°� m^ "d-' > p X> '� W F- ` C C aU❑—cn❑_ia��—cn 0 I- w< CL a_3 EUu. UCAFU5 F- w ° O~ °' z ti ci UO �N1� o coo rn o000000000oomm o U Z O O O rn N� 0 0 � a « R R N N m m m m O N m ommlDm ol��r��r��rn rn Q c-, com � c�co c7 c'1 vvvcav<avv�c�v� -12- 0 • 101 1� u I* W h m zQ Su J N U Q 0 m ❑ Z J F u Z Z O U W N 0 0 d NQ U' r ` Z W 7O O Z LL LJ O F z Q N e ❑ m W O U I LAJ IL d Z N a <cW. Y X LL U W O uj LU W U W LL W LLO Z W LU H H 0 O 0 oI I O 0 4 � n a O O c c n S N O 0 G N C M N O O M A N N O O to C7 (7 NN O cc O CD w m 10 O C O co T d Y W U O � U r 5 � a N 111 Q p d � a a d � G d 0 O 0 d 0 - n c �o N ca C (U N m N Y � Q O O 1A w O N O 1� III O O m cn m - N M wiD- O V N O O ID N N N M O O r r O -Coo N r N toMO o mO0 W N N e 0 O N O N I -- to co 0 0 0 O o 0 0 O N U E 0 N c � E •C O O to a w r- o c o o '7 0 t0 � E to c c m A �S G N (0 m t0 a E r E c o E 007 (V O U w N 11 w v c a N E m to n N in C > C m C � O 100 C m O N o 07 N !U d � LI W It G Ooo 0 000c O o O � � v r N N N9 Nw O O O O O O c O N t7 0 0 O� O O O N O O to � o N O O 0 m O to W o7 N � O t00 an 0 0 0 O O c o ui 00 m p7 m 0 00 of O N ^ m N � O O O O O c O N W 00 O O N LO O W N CO O N I� O T to N f9 O O W h m zQ Su J N U Q 0 m ❑ Z J F u Z Z O U W N 0 0 d NQ U' r ` Z W 7O O Z LL LJ O F z Q N e ❑ m W O U I LAJ IL d Z N a <cW. Y X LL U W O uj LU W U W LL W LLO Z W LU H H 0 O 0 oI I O 0 4 � n a O O c c n S N O 0 G N C M N O O M A N N O O to C7 (7 NN O cc O CD w m 10 O C O co T d Y W U O � U r 5 � a N 111 Q p d � a a d � G d 0 O 0 d 0 - n c �o N ca C (U N m N Y � Q O O 1A w O N O 1� III O O m cn m - N M wiD- O V N O O ID N N N M O O r r O -Coo N r N toMO o mO0 W N N e 0 O N O N I -- to co 0 0 0 O o 0 0 O N c o o N 0 N o O 00 O O o r w r- o c o o '7 0 t0 o m m m �S h N N r1't m a00 W 007 l00 m N 100 N� N N N NN n N O� 0 0 O 00 00 0 00 O 0 00 m O O .00 100 r m m o 07 m Ip Ip o It Ln Ln o o v t- v O Iri Nw N v N V! O� O O O N O O to N ao O O 0 m O to W o7 t00 In O t00 an N t00 Iq LD ui Oo 00 ^ ^ m N IA CO O N I� O T to O O 00 O O t0 O w Ln tl] N -e O O N POY A N 1N+7 O O an m u7 r- In 0 m O m ^y M N NN T O t0 t0 O m O O 0 O O Irl In o O O O o O 2 to, N O O M O O' to m t0 00 O W st 0 cl m Cl ti N N (+J F m w Q CD N 0 Ln IN T lNrl NM tp d N LO 2 cc C- 'p Im`c d 7 LL a C 0 W E m 2 p O 7 0 � G = m d S� `° E > _ ❑ c _ N N c-0 E Y(Ic7 d m m LL '0 N r a O; E O C � E v E c E E S 07 W to d N a"i N^ C= _° O LL m p d 0 ❑ n 17 C of V C C N c it m E w m y rn H a m y E c 0 x E m D. D. m a o y .2 E 7c c -cci m E m �' m y cmi a f- C N d `p j y V tD �... X O m O m m @ _ c Q O c c w o s W E o c 2 E K to y to c w a O a a l6 a c a a 2 D d E m m C1 m y N N "' m l6 (U d d` LL r C C 9 U w 7 a) > m O X d > p X O .t.. r N O 7 N d 7 7 O LL U ❑ C G O C O F. W LL lLL C r W O Z LL LL W d LL LL r N M t O O O m N N fm co M SV V 0 -13- (7 Z Z Q� W W Z H W Q � Z O r W O U pZ ❑ O W Q 3: W rn Li W a aZLL, Q ME X LL H W O W . W W UL Z U j O LL! ❑ m CL U LL O W Z U CU LL W U i Q m m E o Y ina�m u Zow �0M, W0oma U a Gi 0 O O n o n N � t• tDD G D O O O p C c C C gars cl N O 0 O� O C O CJ C t USOo] 0 LL � o tD e !D m 0 f m f _ a � ; � e m p N N I N r N I r I O O O O U] Q � m3 � r9 Cl N I r U � N � W Q 8 j UtK ❑ Q au m m m Y O m m m A a.w aciH C) EV�a Z< f`co v c oQC -<, !3H W m U00> m c W -a ggm M LL y: O E° c m mea m uj J F' W Q !A ' m p° m m _ vi0 N m m m K W y o E 0 2 is n o mNt-4c E m I -mw O�Lb ami and c m m ac 000 0 0000c Na fo 000 O N � O c N O fD t00 tD tO0 0 N Pa tD fD 0 �v m Nom N � O O O 00 m C N n O N °1 N O p V n• tD n• lm0 N � N � 0 0 O O O O C O vi �? N � O O N 10 < N N p Q tD n• N N w r N m c n• 0) t9 N tD f` N N! N � F m N t7 l7 O n• COfI °Oi tD N CD O W N w N iT O N W � D N K N f Q LU CD lii IQ Ori tm0 N M O? awa Ca'1 m N N N� 0 w O N Q m o m o fn 1 J w n v rn a rn LO j w O OF b� tOD ct N UQ K O O C7 NI J Q uri Doti r (�r� N U fy U a Gi 0 O O n o n N � t• tDD G D O O O p C c C C gars cl N O 0 O� O C O CJ C t USOo] 0 LL � o tD !D m f m f r � ; O O O t p N N I N r N I r I O O O O Cl Cl N I r N � co m m c N W LL W W m � m `m •• c ul G G Q C m m W 6 d x C W 7 w m m E m m a W ?; - '- E cg M CM m m m m w Z m E m m c m m m omi ,°p o m >m am m cw m 8c �mDocE m c °•5 oc E 'c m° c m c m c ,W- ami m m H R x d EJ m E m d d W c c O iz ° O ofUU F° Oa O c�°-. Z ~U� 5 ¢ C fmnm m0fw IM -14- *I • � 0 \ §\ LL § RE ;-2 o.0 ke) ,U. . \a\ < ■8 a §eV) (h oLLG / CO ! J § -15- ! � � ! I x . } � � \ \ )_ \ k IL / § \ f \ ) \ Lq .07 m 04 16 C11 CD W ! J § -15- ! I x . } \ )_ IL < ! J § -15- E U n m O U 0 0001 Om M c N N coo m Coco a � O n U �✓ �v O O c m 0 0 0 00 c c m O O � N r N (g N LL N 000 0o0o 0 o 0 oo c L m q � o V O P, Z M Np T Q m m C N N mw a U d -00 W C m v o m F e H c N p n- o e `rl y o co �m ❑lm cmv EvW mm `m v m N o o oaa N IAC m i Em O O co v m m a d m p E m c 0 T m cGm EC00 000 > 6N ~ CCo O N N Q 10 ai c ) ?Q mi m eC> IL c ❑ a y1-- N C 0 0001 Om M c N N coo m Coco 00000c e � O N O N H O O 00.0 0 0 0 00 c V a0 < O O � N r N (g N LL 000 0o0o 0 o 0 oo c L m m o V O N W m N N 19 m e -00 0000 O o 0 0 c m N p O O O O O O O O O c 0 eA c0, O O O m i Em O O N � � E m W NO E m cGm EC00 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 c ~ CCo O N N N W 10 o x m m c o o 0 0 0 0 O O O Q GLE o —Lu 0 oc 0 p 10 N K .E CR 2- O m c Q mtw > > No O O Op O O N Qi C J p O O N O m N 4 U cm a r a u N Q m 01A 000. O N r --1 a N li 7 0 m m O N N o trig r N U I- M a 0 0001 Om M c N N MUM • is C li c ni p N LL L m E C it o W m e N 0- eA 0 m mace m i Em m a C' E m m NO E m cGm EC00 b.EEaK Qa m yy E�C oU m a5 10 ai x m m omEo a a ma o nE r c GLE Emm0mc2 .E CR 2- c Q mtw > > '„d, mE cm a ` E m m A m LL CE m m 6) N I- M a Uc 1 m 5 Ucm>m W LL L L a L) G L) Z rn a O~aZ a o v N N c m � N p 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ml O W N C7 N N t7 U Z Q 0 0 0 m m N LL 1I N M t7 M IL W W m o N� t7 C7 1"1 a m A�� O O T v v V' v a Q v v MUM • is FILE NAME:REQUESTS AND LEVIES 06 THRU 11 •LOCATION: P:\EXCEL\CIPWP DATE: PREPARED BY: DF TAX LEVIES FOR 2007-2011 CIP DEPARTMENT REQUESTS FUND Total 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1,080,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 FIRE TRUCK REPLACEMENT 1,432,500 286,500 286,500 286,500 286,500 286,500 PARK DEVELOPMENT 1,800,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 REDEVELOPMENT 840,000 168,000 168,000 168,000 168,000 168,000 TOTAL 5,152,500 1,030,500 1,030,500 1,030,500 1,030,500 1,030,500 TAX LEVIES FOR 2006-2010 CIP DEPARTMENT REQUESTS FUND Total 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 250,000 0 150,000 80,000 20,000 0 FIRE TRUCK REPLACEMENT 1,100,000 0 320,000 320,000 230,000 230,000 PARK DEVELOPMENT 2,005,000 0 400,000 650,000 955,000 0 REDEVELOPMENT 612,000 0 153,000 153,000 153,000 153,000 • 1,358,000 383,000 TOTAL 3,967,000 0 1,023,000 1,203,000 r� -17- c 01 w U o O O — a p 0 0N » 0 0 0 O 5 N m v c m U Q � C N °f 1� W U Z` C m LL oZ r Z O ❑ )e» iq N e o m W O H z N n ai c � T O c 01 N j° O O — a p 0 0N » 0 0 0 O c O R1 0 0 0 t7 O h m v c N U Q � C N °f 1� W U Z` C m r L. C O )e» iq e o m O LL N N N n ai c � T O y D o E m N N N m O c Q 7 6 tO o N �r �! m dy c g m m 0 0 N 0 0 0 m 0 0 O O O O LL v w m o o 0 0 0 0 f9 m o o O O O O d! m o o O O O O :a o�oo 0 000 c 01 • *I 01 C^ Q O p 0 0N » 0 0 0 O N Q O R1 0 0 0 t7 O h t7 N O O N °f 1� W U Z` N¢ o�zc6 t7 O Z Z N N N N m O Q 7 6 �! Q LL O F W c 3 z ix LUJ �o°m' t9 oovu'ip " omm000mo <o oo J O D v M GF- Os Cit �m N m N m� r N O N a0 N ap M m O mIL W NQ L° O O O W aLux w 00 oS LU U19 Z m W > m m ❑ a W ¢ ° a W U. c m w_ Z LU m c m m E 8 m m m E 4 > w _¢ mC7 E °W > w Ol p d C mZ w H •� C t�- E T m m C,_'C dm mm C ` ` �> y_^C >0lim m d ❑ m4 m It F E m an d vi n yEc.wm Z E ...m ala—m Z C7 E, co E m> c° °m c o a°� d c c ® m m m o rn F c c c u m❑ m m m m rAa }m > ° LO E `o c m°3aEmuE w mm wyc�a v m li! D d x '� d `� m y c m m m m a m m c a 'm d m ami d d c o o c a C) W c m W :E F rn O m m '-' d'to r! O F- }f�� ° m o c c 5 :> > W IL LL UJJO c o x o s 2 Q ~N< H W O~ Z li li LU U H W UJ U O Z N O O O O O O N O O LL ❑ d Q < v a O C v< -18- • *I 01 I* W U x v Z Q V m o N !- O to 2 O LL LL W 4 QgLLI o N0 Jz O 7 ¢ O CO a U Z O x ¢ O O� N Z O H J0 Z mo x o LL W W O C ui N QLLI ti h a= a7 al O O O N U ?. C 20 n 4 c d < 'R m N1 � C O o R ` a tm ;5e N � W O N C w � O= L A a) Q O CD CD O Of O O m mss O 0 O O to dm9 o m o O v m es o m o Lq n m O m 0 0 0 vs � 09 o c m Vi N C C C O e �c N c O E Q O O (OD O O O O 0 o c 0 o c Ci ui N O O c 0 0 o c v -% 0 ov0 c V O O N N O O O N N [2 V O n I m m O loo i rn L cl I 0 ED r n c sr c 0 O r. O C O c 0 n M t• O v 1 0 ir -19- U x Y> Fnmm mo w N 0 0 0 o m r� m UO J w M s1 N< m m LL 7 a 5Z Oee m $ m � U Q 21 m a) _ �, a w c ID m > m E E' ZW W H ` m m `o ° m m v Q m E a, i3 o ¢¢ co 3 o rn m me CD E c c v m m J y C C LL ILw m OD CL x > a E nr v c w m E x n a m Dc •Z mLu y x aa)i nm c c c O W O — 3 F W LL U F- x> W O li LLL w¢iiia UO ioo coum» 00000 m J IL � Q Z OmJ co CCD, vm N N N N N a¢ J o a > -19- co U � 06 pm a 1FU O - a Cl) U U Z �Z m E ma m LU Z'' w m O w U F W LL-jwa w U A Q O J .w Q F m 00 —a Z F N LL LU LU 1n F Q Z f0 3 2 W U IL rn O U', W O G W W Z EL W W X LL Q W V W _ z U w J W LLO Q z C w LU 2 LUH O O N N 0 1l O W N W J � ¢ w 050 N 2 =) Om F- L) U Q O O O c o M N a LO 0 0 oc C, m m a O ? N 1< nmlmLr 64 O O O c O m m O O m N W. n m 1n fR 00 C, coo O 10 N n n N v°Di m fR r o O O o o m fn0 u9 r O O O O O O n n O N (D m r � � a9 O N o N" vi o m N O) rn m o m v MI LO W W E g W j O c O _ O .W E 1r9 LD 0 O m O C ,h O a ¢ 0 o co N N 0 0 c Co v [ rn 0 0 I mo. 0 0 O c O OO OI c cc q 1n0 0 0 0 n0 0 m o o m 0 m CD 'V O V m W m co 100 C 0 m m 10 � N CD N Q W N m C _ W E' m y W m C_ V C � N m W ' LL d C d _ W o %^ W ,� = W m ^`p` m 7 U W W E '° a W m w° W Z rWa ' o Z. o a W m m a� E .-� c v v1 W V v v m W C L 'IO W� O C W W W cy lL W C C C a d W E> Y a W a x a m d a a m `W y W N W c �d0 v W _ m y a W m a L_ F- H C c F- W 1i U E- W O O~ Z `" LL li 3 lnoo p0p1000 0 00 01 0 0 0 a n O� 0 0 0 -,r 0 0 0 W Q V N N N N N d Q -20- Cl 0 N 0 J+ m C F NLd O O co C -W r 10 m m m fV 1 co m N r O S O c tt n C ai r cn� e 0 0 0 O a o to m < � o O O O O G NO L CM N N O O O O d OO t00 R C6o vi � a O It O n v C6 tc rn m o VO CDm1-7 LL]1n T, l 1n0 0 0 0 n0 0 m o o m 0 m CD 'V O V m W m co 100 C 0 m m 10 � N CD N Q W N m C _ W E' m y W m C_ V C � N m W ' LL d C d _ W o %^ W ,� = W m ^`p` m 7 U W W E '° a W m w° W Z rWa ' o Z. o a W m m a� E .-� c v v1 W V v v m W C L 'IO W� O C W W W cy lL W C C C a d W E> Y a W a x a m d a a m `W y W N W c �d0 v W _ m y a W m a L_ F- H C c F- W 1i U E- W O O~ Z `" LL li 3 lnoo p0p1000 0 00 01 0 0 0 a n O� 0 0 0 -,r 0 0 0 W Q V N N N N N d Q -20- Cl • TAX LEVY FOR 2006-2007 Operations: General Fund Community Center Operations Fund Recreation Programs Fund Operations Total Capital Improvements: Capital Improvement Projects Fund Fire Truck Replacement Fund Park Development Fund Redevelopment Fund Capital Improvements Total Debt Service: Debt Service Fund Totals -All Funds Target - 5% Increase C AEXC E L\B U D G ET\07TAXE STA 2006 2007 Levy Levy $10,738,190 $11,060,300 $39,000 $67,500 $312,380 $321,800 $11,089,570 $11,449,600 Change $216,000 Amount Percent $322,110 3.0% $28,500 73.1% $9,420 3.0% $360,030 3.2% $0 $216,000 $216,000 N/A $0 $286,500 $286,500 N/A $0 $360,000 $360,000 N/A $0 $168,000 $168,000 N/A $0 $1,030,500 $1,030,500 N/A $3,016,800 $3,140,800 $124,000 4.1% $14,106,370 $15,620,900 $1,514,530 10.7% 705,300 5.0% -21- MEMORANDUM • TO: Parks and Recreation Commission Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: April 13, 2006 for the April 17 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting SUBJECT: Monthly Update—March 2006 The following items are provided to the City Manager and Parks and Recreation Commission to provide an overview of our day-to-day operations. The items are informational and not intended for formal City Council or Parks and Recreation Commission action. 1. New City Manager On Monday, April 10 the city council terminated the employment contract with Richard Fursman and appointed Greg Copeland as interim city manager. Mr. Copeland assumed his duties as city manager on Tuesday, April 11. An all staff parks and recreation department meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, April 12 at the community center at which time staff had an opportunity to meet him. The meeting went extremely well and we look forward to working with Greg and the new city council to further parks and recreation programs and services in the coming months and years. 2. Council Member Rebecca Cave Swearing In On Monday, March 13, city council member Rebecca Cave was sworn in as the newest city council member. I have had an opportunity to meet with Rebecca on a number of occasions and as you are aware, she was in attendance at the Monday, March 20 parks and recreation commission meeting. It is my understanding that council member Cave will serve as the liaison between the city council and the parks and recreation commission. As the liaison, she will attend meetings when her schedule permits and I will keep her, as I do the mayor and other council members, apprised of current parks and recreation commission issues. During the past month I have had the opportunity to have a number of email exchanges with Rebecca and she has proven to be a very involved, active and committed city council member. 3. Joint Meeting Enclosed is a letter from chairperson Peter Fischer to the mayor requesting a meeting with the city council and parks and recreation commission to discuss 2006 goals and objectives. To my knowledge no date has been set, but I have heard from the mayor that she is interested in scheduling a joint meeting in the near future. The commission may desire to have some discussion as to the format of the meeting. I would suggest that some type of park tour would be appropriate to share not only upcoming 2006 projects, but also our past successes and I might add, some of the areas that certainly need improvement. 4. Dog Mitts • As the snow left the ground in the past few weeks, I received over a dozen phone calls from residents concerned over dog droppings throughout our park system. The majority of the calls were from Applewood Park where it appears neighbors utilize the open space site to run their dogs off leash and do not pick up after their dogs as frequently. To address this issue I have ordered 10 doggie mitt cleanup stations. The basic concept is for a waste receptacle with signage and disposable plastic bags for dog owners to be used at the entrance points for each of our parks. We have not defined at this point which ten sites they will go to, but we are focusing at this time on Applewood, Edgerton, and • Joy Parks and the Priory Preserve. This is where we have received the greatest number of calls. I will be monitoring the issues with this ranging from usage to park maintenance time for cleanup and other items as they evolve in the coming weeks and months. 5. Gladstone Redevelopment Meeting I have attached two major staff reports for the April 18 city council meeting on Gladstone redevelopment. The meeting will be held on Tuesday at the Maplewood Community Center theater. This will be the first opportunity for the city council to review firsthand all of the position statements by the various commissions, task forces and boards within the city. The city council will ultimately determine their priorities, goals and adopt a master plan for the future development of the Gladstone area. The parks and recreation commission has been immersed in this process for well over a year and you may desire to attend this meeting to better express your individual positions and/or reiterate the commission's position. Chairperson Peter Fischer will be presenting the enclosed final position statement that has been adopted by the parks and recreation commission and open space task force at the April 18 meeting. 6. Afton Heights Erosion Issue As you are aware, we experienced some significant erosion on the west side of Afton Heights Park in the late fall 2005. The site has been restored and we are currently in the process of planting this site and doing finish grading. The watershed district has been very pleased with the city's response to this issue and we hope to have the final planting and grading completed by June 1. The regrading will result in less water erosion issues due to the increased capacity and permanent piping system that • has been installed. This might be one of the sites to consider for the council/commission tour. 7. Soccer Grant Our department has received a $29,000 grant from Ramsey County to enhance and improve soccer field high -use wear areas to be matched by the city for a total of $58,000. I am currently in the process of putting together design criteria for artificial turf makers which will be distributed in the coming weeks. This is a very exciting project and I am working in close concert with representatives from North East Soccer Association to resolve not only the high -use areas, but look at our overall turf management program for soccer fields. Soccer remains one of our highest participation programs with over 2,000 young people participating. In addition to the organized soccer play, we also have tens of organized leagues and some phantom leagues that use our facilities on a regular basis. 8. Humphrey Institute Staff met with graduate students from the Humphrey Institute on Friday, March 17, to review the status of the Gladstone redevelopment project. It was a wonderful experience to meet with the students and provide them firsthand experience on current government/urban issues. The group is going to use Gladstone as a group graduate project. We have requested a copy of their study to forward on to the city council should one be completed. 9. M.C.C. RFP The Maplewood Community Center has had Suzanne's Catering serving as our exclusive food and beverage provider for the past seven years. We are currently in the process of drafting a RFP to look at other catering options. One of the major changes in the RFP is that we are looking at potentially three catering firms. The RFP will propose a primary caterer and then a secondary caterer that may 2 serve a special niche market. The niche market might include Asian or other ethnic foods or some unique concept that we may not have considered yet to increase our marketing efforts. In addition, we are looking for a third firm to meet the less expensive luncheon business, such as a pizza or sub sandwich type of operation. The RFP will be presented to the city council at their meeting on May 8 with the hope of awarding a contract by January 1, 2007. It should be noted that we are not displeased in the least with the service and quality of food from Suzanne's Cuisine, but we believe it is time to review our existing contracts as we do for all of our service vendors on a regular basis. 10. City Hall Campus The city council has endorsed the concept of updating the city hall campus. It is interesting that the city places fairly strict requirements on many developers regarding rainwater gardens and using environmentally -friendly landscapes. The city rightfully recognizes that we need to be a leader in this area as well. We are in the process of developing final landscape plans for not only city hall, but the community center as well. One of the elements that we are excited about includes doing some extensive boulevard plantings along White Bear Avenue in front of the community center. We will be using native grasses and plants along with day lilies and other annuals such as daffodils. Staff will share final planting plans with the commission as they evolve. We currently have two Boy Scouts lined up to do the planting this summer once we get the final plan developed. 11. Student Intern It appears that the student intern we had lined up for this spring has chosen to go elsewhere. She has been offered a full-time position with the city of Blaine which is advantageous for her to pursue. We • were excited about the possibility of an intern and will be looking at internships in the coming months. 12. Best Practices Seminar There was a statewide best practices seminar held at the Arboretum on April 4 and 5. 1 was registered for it and unfortunately due to work schedules was not able to attend. I understand it was one of the better educational programs ever offered on a statewide level. I will be receiving meeting notes as part of the registration and reviewing them in the coming weeks. Any issues that might be appropriate for commission review and related to commissions directly I will forward to you. 13. Speaking Engagements One of my favorite things is to speak before high school classes. If the truth be told, I am probably a frustrated teacher. I had an opportunity to meet with a senior high school class at St. Bernard's on Thursday, April 6, along with former council member David Bartol. The class has an interest in adopting the Gladstone Savanna open space for an annual cleanup program. I provided them information about our park cleanup program and look forward to hearing from them. kph\0306.mu.comm Enclosures • 3 April 1, 2006 Mayor Diana Longrie 1771 Burr Street Maplewood, MN 55117 Dear'Mayor Longrie: This.is a short note to follow up on the Parks and Recreation Commission's annual report that was submitted for city council review on Monday, March 27. 1 apologize that I was not abletopresent the report in person. Unfortunately, I was previously committed to serving with my son's Boy Scout ,Troop. One of _the priorities for the commission is to schedule a meeting with the city council.to discuss common priorities, goals and objectives for 2006 and beyond. On behalf of the Parks and Recreation Commission, I would like to offer a number of dates for city council consideration. Our first choice is Monday, May 15 at 6 p.m. Our thought is a brief tour of two or three of our most recent projects, probably Sterling Oaks,.:Applewood and/or Legacy Village sculpture park. The tour would include a box lunch and would be completed by 8 p.m. to be followed by 1-1 % hour discussion on .council andcommission goals and objectives. A second option would be the 19th of June and/or meet any Saturday morning of the council's choice in May. Our desire is the sooner the better. On behalf of the commission, I look forward to hearing from you and your fellow council members regarding an acceptable time and 'date. Once a date is achieved, we will develop a firm agenda to make maximum use of your precious time. Should you have any questions, please contact me directly at home. 651-770-4984 or at work 612- 332-2292 ext. 354. Sincerely, Peter'M. Fischer, Chairperson Maplewood Parks and Recreation Commission kphUongrie.Itr06.comm PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 651-249-2101 FAX: 651-249-2129 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1 830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 Review of Project inrormatlon ana MecUI1111 IUCILIan1.20 • • • • Agenda Item K5 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager/Comm Dev Director Bruce Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation Dan Faust, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Gladstone Area Redevelopment Improvements, City Project 04-21 — Public Hearing — 7:00 pm — MCC Theater Review of Project Information and Recommendations DATE: April 12, 2006 INTRODUCTION A Public Hearing on the Gladstone Redevelopment Project has been called for Tuesday, April 18, 2006 at 7:00 pm. The intent of this hearing is to begin the process of the City Council receiving all the data and information collected over the past 2 years; and also, to receive the recommendations of the Task Force, and City Commissions and Boards on their perspectives regarding the proposals. The Hearing will be conducted as follows: 1. Presentation of the process — Brad Scheib, HKGI — (approx. 45 minutes) Note: Presentations by Task Force and Commission are approx. 5-10 minutes each 2. Presentation of the Task Force Recommendation — Wayne Sachi, Gladstone resident 3. Presentation of Planning Commission Recommendation — Dale Trippler and Micheal Grover 4. Presentation of Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation — Peter Fischer 5. Presentation of Open Space Task Force Recommendation — Mark Gernes or AI Singer 6. Presentation of Community Design Review Board Recommendation — Linda Olson 7. Presentation of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Recommendation — Tom Connely/Joe O'Brien 8. Presentation of Historic Preservation Committee Recommendation — George Rossbach 9. Public Hearing Testimony As noted, presentations are expected to last approximately 90 minutes followed by Public Testimony. Staff has mailed nearly 400 notices to residents, property owners and interested parties along with publishing public notices of the meeting. The evening will be dedicated to the City Council receiving information and recommendations. At the conclusion of this stage of the process, the City Council should provide staff questions on the information. Additionally, staff is looking for direction from the Council on what additional information is required for the Council to make a final determination on this important initiative. Background The Gladstone Redevelopment initiative was first discussed with the City Council as a top priority in the Council/Staff Planning Retreat in March 2004. The Council adopted a goal of exploring the redevelopment of the Gladstone Area. During 2004, the Community Development staff worked with an urban designer, Rich McLaughlin to prepare a redevelopment concept plan. Mr. McLaughlin's services were paid from a grant from the Metropolitan Council. The McLaughlin concept proposed redevelopment to include slightly more than 300 new housing units and 174,000 square feet of commercial space, but did not include anything related to the Tourist Cabin property. During this planning process, the Gladstone Neighborhood Coalition developed a number of redevelopment concepts for consideration. In November 2004, the City Council determined that a more extensive public involvement process and comprehensive review of the entire Gladstone area was appropriate and retained the services of a Master Planning Consultant. A proposal from Hoisington Koegler Group (HKGI) and Kimley-Horn Associates (KHA) was selected as the Master Planners. Agenda Item K5 A work plan from Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.; Kimley-Horn and Assoc., Inc., and SEH, Inc. was • approved by the City Council in December 2004. The plan proposed an extensive meeting and review process over a minimum nine-month period. A 20 -person Task Force was established in January 2005 to help guide the process. From the December 2004 staff report: "The intent of the Task Force is not to limit participation, but to make sure that all interest groups are represented." The report from HKGI, Master Planner, Brad Schieb, is attached. The Task Force recommendation will be presented by Wayne Sachi, a resident of the Gladstone area. While a majority of the Task Force agreed on the final recommendation, no opinions were excluded and thus other opinions are also shared in their final report. On August 8, 2005, the city council authorized the preparation of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Gladstone Area Improvements. A proposed redevelopment of this size exceeds the threshold for environmental review, requiring that the city council designate a process for this environmental review to occur. The City expanded the services of the consultant team of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. (HKGI), Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA), SEH, Inc. and Braun Intertec, Inc. to prepare a draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the maximum development scenario. The final draft document is available for review. Public comment on the AUAR has been received, but until a final development scenario is selected, a mitigation plan cannot be prepared and the final AUAR cannot be submitted for review and action. AUAR and Master Framework Plan Process The master planner's scope of work included the preparation of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and a Master Framework Plan as deliverable documents. The AUAR has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The AUAR is a more extensive version of the EAW process and has been determined as necessary due to the extensive number of parcels that may be impacted by the redevelopment initiatives. The AUAR provides the city with a guide to the development process and ensures that proper environmental procedures are followed to protect the roadways, storm • water and other environmental features of the area. The AUAR will ultimately include a mitigation plan for the redevelopment initiatives that the city will be required to implement as part of the infrastructure improvements. The AUAR was prepared to consider the most intensive development proposal. The more intensive nature is being studied only to measure the impact of the proposals on the local utilities and environment. It does not provide a reason to approve the development at that level. The AUAR also extends the moratorium in the area until the final document is adopted. The Master Framework Plan is the guide document for the area. The Master Framework Plan will be used by property owners and the city to facilitate a plan that includes financial incentives (if appropriate) along with guides on building materials, infrastructure improvements, landscaping investments and other public and private improvements that will provide for the future of the Gladstone Area. The Master Framework Plan is the guiding document that the City Council will eventually adopt to define the entire redevelopment process. It has been prepared assuming a development level of approximately 800 units. If a lesser intensity of development is selected by the Council, many of the principals with the Master Plan will remain appropriate, although some of the density levels would need to be revised. This document, however, is appropriate for any of the proposals in order to ensure that the redevelopment vision is realized. Following are a summary of the major findings of the AUAR and Master Framework Plan: • The current project area contains approximately 475 housing units (100 manufactured homes, 188 single family homes, and 187 multi -family units) plus 180,000 square feet of commercial development of which 30,000 — 40,000 is neighborhood retail. The project area also has nearly 60 acres of park and open space. is Agenda Item K5 The studied (most intensive) redevelopment scenario includes the addition of approximately 900 • new housing units consisting of a combination of stacked condominium/apartment units and attached town homes, along with approximately 50,000 square feet of new or relocated existing neighborhood retail. An additional 15,000 square feet of an existing office/service use is proposed to remain within the area. A portion of the open space at Frost and English was studied as a development area for town homes to determine the impacts. Note: This was studied to determine the environmental impacts not as a recommended level of development. • The redevelopment plan calls for approximately $18 million of public improvements, including open space enhancements, Flicek Park improvements, streetscape and roadway improvements mainly to Frost and English Avenues, burial of power lines along Frost and English and site contamination clean up / remediation. Implementation of the redevelopment is assumed to occur over a period of 5 - 10 years or more. • A reconfiguration of the Park and Open Space system is proposed, including the redevelopment of Gloster Park, the re -programming of Flicek Park to a combination of open space and storm water overflow area. Redevelopment or reconfiguration of the Gladstone Savanna to allow environmentally - sensitive development options is not recommended within the plan. A bridge structure is proposed to allow pedestrian, storm water and habitat connections between the Savanna and Flicek Park. • A key part of the Master Plan calls for an improved pedestrian circulation system. Local connections to the Gateway and Vento Trails are proposed. A combination of pedestrian ways, green streets, plaza streets, off street trails and sidewalks are necessary to meet this requirement. • Natural, Cultural and Physical Resources were studied as part of the study and will be recognized as part of the development plan. Natural resources will require major improvements to alleviate current conditions where runoff is directed into Lake Phalen without significant treatment. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been conducted. Fourteen sites will require additional • studies and cleanup which will be accomplished through Phase II evaluation and development of response action plans. • Existing utilities (sanitary sewer and water) are adequate to serve the area. Improvements to the storm water system are needed to properly manage discharged runoff waters. Five wetland areas exist within the project area. Efforts will be made to avoid impact to these areas. • The traffic analysis reviewed the proposed impacts of additional traffic through 2030. The key finding is that the proposed redevelopment concept will not require major mitigation measures. Some improvements will be needed at Frost and TH 61. The traffic engineer found that the proposed redevelopment will have less impact than if the proposed Comprehensive Plan, which permits significant commercial/industrial development patterns. • The need for increased fire and police protection is identified within the AUAR. However, the report concludes that an increase in activity within the area will also create a renewed interest in property maintenance and public safety that will help minimize the public safety department impacts. • The study concludes that students from the proposed development will help support declining enrollments in the school facilities. Financial Planning Considerations The City Council requested further information on the financial planning considerations should the project be implemented. For purposes of illustration, staff has prepared a potential financing plan for Council consideration. We have selected the $18.15 million plan for illustrating one possible scenario. As page 5-1 of the Master Plan suggests, "Financial planning is essential' and "Public financial participation creates ability to influence outcomes". This financial plan is illustrative and does not include the detailed financial planning required to make the process workable. This concept will be consistent with the final adopted isfinancing plan for the improvement project. Agenda Item K5 Financial Planning Considerations (continued) Proposed Improvement Budget: • Land Acquisition (could be payments to developers): $ 1,250,000 Demolition (could be by City or payments to developers): $ 500,000 Environmental (could be by City or payments to developers): $ 650,000 Street Reconstruction (100% by City): $ 3,900,000 Streetscape Improvements (100% by City): $ 3,750,000 Frost Bridge / Bebo (100% by City): $ 2,000,000 Savanna Improvements (100% by City): $ 2,000,000 Flicek Park Improvements (100% by City): $ 600,000 Stormwater Improvements (100% by City): $ 1,500,000 Power Line Burial (100% by City): $ 2,000,000 Total Project Budget: $18,150,000 As noted above only $2.4 million of the proposed $18.15 million budget, or 13.2%, are potentially development subsidies. It is likely that this percentage will be less than 10%. The remainder will be public improvement projects would be implemented through the City improvement process. For purposes of illustration, assume that $2.4 million for land acquisition, demolition to clear property and environmental clean-up is funded through development agreements. The remaining expenses of $15.75 million would be under City control through the improvement process. Following are revenue sources assumed for an improvement project of this scenario: Special Assessments and PAC charges to Developers: $ 2,600,000 City's Electric Franchise Fee: $ 300,000 Tax Increment Financing (TIF): $15,250,000 Total Project Revenue: $18,150,000 It is important to note that the Special Assessments to Developers amount of $2,600,000 is exactly equal to the budget amount proposed for the Savanna and Flicek Park improvements. As noted in the Master Plan (Page 5-6), tax increment financing (TIF) cannot be used for park -type improvements. This budget amount is consistent with the potential payment of $2.4 million for land acquisition or payments to developers. The scenario assumes that this is necessary to make the developable parcels attractive to developers (as noted on Page 5-9 to Page 5-12 of the Master Plan). This financial scenario will be more complex as other improvements to the property may be assessed to developers, including street costs that might increase the park availability charges to allow for the improvements to the Savanna and Flicek Park. The City's Electric Franchise Fee was started in 2005 as a potential revenue source to pay costs of operating street lights, traffic signals and as a potential funding source for power line burial. It is a city-wide fee applied on all electric bills by Xcel Energy on behalf of the city. This scenario proposes that the franchise fee be increased to finance the power line burial cost. One option would be to increase the franchise fee from the current rate of $0.50 per month on a home to $0.95 per month for two years. This would increase annual franchise revenues by $150,000 annually. Another option would be to issue bonds and increase the fee by a smaller amount for a longer period of time to pay off the bonds. Again, similar to park improvements, an assessment to developers will be needed (at least 20% of the cost of the power line burial) in order to sell the bonds necessary for this cost. This scenario provides for proposed subsidies to ensure developers provide the type and style of improvements included within the vision for the area. 40 Agenda Item K5 The budget revenue of $15.25 million is the major source of financing for the redevelopment initiative. Tax . increment financing is a tool whereby the City captures the increase property value on the land. Again, it is the property taxes on the increased value that is captured, not the current taxes paid. The developers continue to pay the actual property taxes of the increased property value. In rough calculations, it has been assumed that each residential property added to the Gladstone plan will generate an additional $22,500 of value. In a TIF planning scenario, the property value increase of all the redeveloped parcels will be captured by the City and used to support the payments of various bonds that would be sold to pay the cost of the public improvements. The bonds would likely be structured to capture this increase for a period up to 20 years. Upon full payment of the bonds, the property taxes on the increased value would be allocated to all taxing districts (School, County and City). In no cases would it be proposed that developers not pay the increased property taxes within the tax increment districts as this would be counter productive to the payment of the bonds. This is the most complex portion of the financing scenario and could vary substantially. In some cases, the City may wait until development is secured and bond payments from TIF can be reasonably guaranteed. In other scenarios, the City may wish to invest in some improvements to "jump-start" the redevelopment and capture the future revenues of the TIF to pay the bonds. Financial planning will be a critical next step in the overall implementation phase of this project. Finally, under this scenario, the City will likely have significant additional operation expenses from the new development. Much of this cost will be for maintenance of the newly installed improvements within the Savanna, the streetscape and roadway improvements, such as sidewalks. It is proposed that a development fee be included in all the developer agreements associated with the new improvements. A service district (page 5-9 of the Master Plan) might also be consider, but it is the basic intent that the redevelopment pay for itself both for the improvements, but also for the on-going maintenance requirements. Again, financial planning during the implementation phase will be critical. 0 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council conduct the Public Hearing for the Gladstone Redevelopment Project. The Council should receive the reports of the Master Planner, the Gladstone Task Force, and the City Boards and Commissions. At the conclusion of the Public testimony phase, the City Council should provide city staff direction on questions and methods to precede to ensure final resolution of the overall redevelopment. Once the Council adopts a plan, staff can initiate the Implementation phase of the Project. While two development scenarios, the 800 -unit and the 490 -unit plans, have been presented for consideration, each plan can be revised to increase or decrease based on the extent of various improvements. Compromise between the plans is a reasonable scenario. We, as the senior staff responsible for this process can see the importance to maintain the concepts and financial stability of the 800 -unit plan, but we also recognize that the threshold of acceptance from the surrounding neighborhood has been exceeded. This may call for compromise and prioritizing of the various improvements. We have suggested to each of the Committees, Boards and Task Force to consider this issue. The Council may also wish to consider this approach, making the necessary value judgments of the various phases to reach a final decision on the project. We firmly believe that doing nothing is not an acceptable option. It is the recommendation of the staff that this "value decision making process" is best made by the City Council. We hereby recommend, consistent with a vast majority of the area property owners and residents, that improvements be made within the Gladstone area and that the debate should be limited to the extent of the improvements and the level of density necessary to support those improvements. LJ Agenda Item K5 Attachments to this report: 1. Report from HKGI (dated April 13, 2006) 2. Map of Illustrative Master Plan and Land Use (HKGI, dated December 1, 2005) 3. Map of Plan B Public Improvement Plan (KHA, dated February 2006) 4. Gladstone Cost Estimates (dated January 6, 2006) 5. Task Force Recommendation Minutes from March 23, 2006 6. Recommendations from Planning Commission — March 20 and April 3, 2006 7. Recommendation from Park and Recreation Commission with Open Space Task Force 8. Community Design Review Board Minutes from April 11, 2006 9. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes from April 11, 2006 10. Historic Preservation Commission, letters of recommendation 11. Master Plan (provided to City Council previously) 0 0 • 0 MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. f To: City of Maplewood City Council From: Brad Scheib, AICP Subject: Consideration of the November 14ffi 2005 Draft of the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Date: 13 April 2006 INTRODUCTION The meeting on April 18th is a public hearing on the draft Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. The consultants will be making a 30 to 40 minute presentation at this meeting followed by short presentations from representatives of the various advisory boards and commissions. Comments from the public will be expected at this public hearing. The objective of this public hearing is for the City Council to take input from the community, deliberate and if possible take action to adopt a Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. The Council can adopt the November 14'h draft of the master plan as presented or it can adopt the plan with certain modifications identified through the course of the public hearing. Following action on the plan, staff will prepare the final document and will complete the AUAR mitigation plan. The final AUAR and mitigation plan will be brought back for Council consideration following final review according to Minnesota Rules. BACKGROUND Over the last several years, the City of Maplewood has been exploring redevelopment concepts for the Gladstone Neighborhood. In December of 2004, the City retained the services of a consultant team to conduct/facilitate a planning process and develop a master plan for the neighborhood. A Task Force representing City Council, boards and commissions, community residents and neighborhood businesses was assembled to provide guidance to the process and to serve as a conduit to the neighborhood and greater community. The process has included five public meetings and eleven meetings of the task force over the last 14 months. In November of 2005, a draft master plan was presented to the public and to advisory boards and commissions. In December of 2005, newly appointed Council member David Bartol requested that an alternative concept be developed and explored. At a City Council meeting in January, the Council authorized staff to develop the alternative presented by Mr. Bartol and to put this alternative through the same analysis and public review as the November 2005 draft plan. Consultants and staff completed this review over the months of January and February of 2006, presented the concept to the Task Force and presented the concept to the public the first week in March of 2006. In March and April of 2006, the plan was discussed one last time by the various advisory boards and commissions as well as the Gladstone Task Force. Their respective recommendations and discussions are attached to this agenda report. THE PLANNING PROCESS The Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan was developed through a detailed planning process that has taken over a year to complete. The process included the following key steps: • technical site analysis and document search conducted by the consulting team • public discussions and dialogues to establish core direction/vision • analysis of land use and development alternatives to achieve the vision • public review and shaping of the concepts 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 5 5401-165 9 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 www.hkgi.com Direct (612) 252-7122 Email bscheib@hkgi.com hkgi.com April 18 Council Background Report 13 April 2006 Page 2 • • technical analysis of concepts (public improvements, analysis of financial and market feasibility) • refinements and adjustments to the concepts to make them feasible • technical analysis of the environmental impacts of the development concept (draft ALTAR prepared) • preparation of draft master plan • public review of results and draft environmental review (ALTAR) • further refinements and adjustments to the concepts to incorporate public concerns • presentation of master plan with refinements to advisory boards and commissions • preparation and analysis of additional concept alternative introduced by Mr. Bartol • public review of additional concept and comparison to draft master plan • final review by boards and commissioners to formulate recommended action • consideration by City Council • implementation (to be commenced upon approval of the master plan) Throughout the process, the Gladstone Neighborhood Task Force met at key points (11 meetings) to review public discourse over the project and to guide the consultant team's work and actions. These meetings generated significant debate and dialogue that fed into the public meetings and that is reflected in the final master plan. THE MASTER PLAN The November 14 Draft of the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan establishes a number of key directions including: • A vision and set of guiding principles. • • A pattern of land use including park and open space areas and an illustrative diagram of building orientation and site design • A desired level of public improvements and infrastructure investments (trails, parks, open space, roads and streetscape, powerline burial) that achieve the vision and principles. • Urban design and environmental policy directives to help guide future public and private redevelopment actions/projects. • Detailed discussion of each area to further provide direction to property owners and developers regarding the desired form and pattern of future redevelopment and an acceptable level of development intensity/ density. • Implementation strategies including detailed discussions on Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and other public finance tools to help fund redevelopment initiatives. • Detailed discussion of public actions necessary to implement the plan including advancing financial strategies, regulatory tools and policies (zoning), and detailed design of public improvements. Density and public improvements Two areas of significant public discussion relate to the level of public improvements proposed for the project and the supporting development magnitude or density of new development. At the beginning of the process for the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan, a number of meetings were held. These meetings included the Gladstone Neighborhood Task Force, the Park Advisory Committee and Open Space Task Force, and a well attended public workshop. In addition to these meetings, the consultant team reviewed numerous public comments received from previous city initiatives including a survey issued to the businesses community. Two directives became absolutely clear from the public's discourse. No general funds (tares) should be used to facilitate redevelopment or improvements in the Gladstone Neighborhood; and, 2) doing nothing is not acceptable." C] April 18 Council Background Report 13 April 2006 • Page 3 This core direction has been a constant consensus throughout the process and confirmed at virtually every public meeting. The result of this directive was to establish a redevelopment plan whereby redevelopment generates the necessary revenues to support the desired level of public investments in parks, open space areas, streetscape enhancements and other amenities. Without redevelopment, the public improvements do not happen. Furthermore, in order for redevelopment to occur, adequate market forces must be present. The technical analysis relied on recent market studies and discussions with Twin Cities developers to confirm the market feasibility of the concepts. The market analysis confirmed that the Gladstone Neighborhood has a significant value largely due to its location and the recreational amenities nearby. The market research also identified challenges associated with drawing commercial uses and a stronger market for residential uses. The discussions also indicated that without a larger vision for the area and a commitment to improve the Savanna and other areas of the public realm, the risk to a developer is significantly greater if not a deterrent to the marketplace. The planning process first established an estimate of the public improvements for the project in the range of $22 to $24 million. Technical analysis was then done to determine how much new re -development was necessary in order to make this level of public investment feasible given the directive form the community and an understanding of market forces. The first results of this analysis proved to be too dense. The consultant's analysis looked for ways to reduce improvement costs and reduce overall development density. A Task Force meeting was held to review the preliminary results of the analysis and confirmed the concerns about development density. Through task force discussions, public improvements and development density were further refined to a more reasonable level. This analysis was presented to the community in a public meeting format. The November 14 Draft Master Plan is a result of these community dialogues and the technical analysis to ensure that the project can be done with redevelopment in Gladstone funding the public improvements in the Gladstone project area. The master plan identifies a range of 800 to 1,000 nezy housing units, 50,000 to 75,000 square feet of commercial space and roughly $18 mullion of public improvements and other redevelopment costs. The alternative concept Staff was directed in January of 2006 to prepare and evaluate an alternative concept. This concept reduced the amount of development to 490 new housing units and a limited amount of commercial development. The level of public improvements that could be supported by this development was reduced to $11 million. Essentially, the analysis demonstrates that fewer units can be achieved in the area with a reduced public improvement budget. However, by reducing the degree of public improvements proposed for the area, the risk of no future redevelopment occurring is increased. Redevelopment may likely still happen at some point in the future, but is more likely to occur in a piecemeal, haphazard manner, unlikely to fully achieve any of the desired principles or community vision. A lesser investment in the public realm typically results in a lesser quality of adjacent private development. The consultant team's analysis concluded that the either concept (the November 14 draft plan or the alternative concept) works from a financial perspective. The alternative concept with the lower public improvement budget and lesser development magnitude runs a greater risk of not achieving the broader vision and guiding principles established through the planning process. Based upon the Task Force meeting deliberations and the public process it is evident that the November 14th draft plan exceeded the level of acceptance for some members of the community. It is also evident that the alternative concept with the lesser public improvement budget and resultant development magnitude may underachieve what the Gladstone Neighborhood could or should be. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION After much discussion, the 20+ person Gladstone Neighborhood Task Force reached the following conclusions: is April 18 Council Background Report 13 April 2006 Page 4 • The Gladstone Task Force recommends the City Council take action to approve the November 14 2005 Draft Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Master Plan with the following statements emphasized: 1. That the total amount of new housing units that result from future redevelopment efforts not exceed 800 units. 2. That the plan allow flexibility to accommodate commercial development such that existing neighborhood businesses have an opportunity to remain in the neighborhood. 3. That improvements to the Savanna be provided with a budget as reflected in the November 14 draft plan ($2 million as funded through area redevelopment.) 4. That improvements to Fhcek Park be provided with a budget as reflected in the November 14 draft plan ($ 600K.) 5. That efforts be made to include the Bebo structure instead of a box culvert. 6. That streetscape improvements along the Savanna side of Frost and English could be downgraded to reflect a more natural appearance consistent with the open space character ... fewer street trees, no irrigation, or street furniture.) 7. That taller structures (4 stories for example) could be supported provided certain public objectives can be met such as accessible housing. In addition, a number of minority opinions (opinions reflected by 2 or 3 members but not widely accepted) were presented: 1. That a middle ground could be agreed upon somewhere between the alternative concept of 490 units with a reduced public improvement budget of $11 million and the November 14 draft plan of 800 units with a public improvement budget of $18 million. 2. That the Savanna needs improvements but not necessarily to the tune of $2 million. SUPPORTING INFORMATION The following items are offered as supporting information for City Council deliberation in formulating action on the Draft Master Plan: 1. The Draft Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan dated 14 November 2005 (distributed in November of 2005.) 2. The Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (ALTAR) (distributed in November of 2005.) 3. February 21 Memorandum to the Gladstone Task Force describing the alternative concept and evaluation. 4. Powerpoint presentation slides from public workshop/task force meeting presentation presenting alternative concepts and comparison to the November 14 draft plan. S. Summary of public meeting #5 survey questions evaluating the alternative concept compared to the November 14 2005 draft. This summary is of the evaluation form filled out by participants at the March 2 2005 public meeting. 6. Evaluation questions. These questions were developed by staff and consultants to help facilitate a review and discussion of key items of the plan. Also as supporting information are minutes or meeting notes from the various advisory boards and commissions that have discussed and offered recommendations or directions on the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Master Plan. RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS The Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan contains a significant amount of information and detail intended to guide future development and public improvements. The plan DOES NOT displace any property owners from their property or business. A specific action would be required by the City Council or individual property owners to displace property owners or tenants from their residences or businesses. lr u April 18 Council Background Report 13 April 2006 Page 5 TheP lan DOES NOT result in an entitlement to any specific property. Rezoning, site plan approval and/or a comprehensive plan amendment will be needed depending upon the project being requested. In order for redevelopment to occur in the Gladstone Neighborhood, a developer must initiate a project. In most cases, this is a private developer or land owner. In some cases, the City will act as a developer by assembling land to attract a development project. In either case, due diligence is required. At its bare minimum, once adopted, this plan can serve as a policy basis for evaluating projects within the Gladstone Neighborhood, particularly projects that are inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. In order to facilitate redevelopment, barriers must be removed. Barriers to redevelopment include conflicting land use guidance in the Comprehensive Plan, conflicting zoning regulations, environmental contamination, incompatible land uses, lack of public infrastructure, lack of public amenities or unassembled parcels of land. The implementation chapter of the November 14'x' draft plan provides a thorough dialogue on the keys to implementation. The consultant team recommends that the City Council consider the following next steps after acting on the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. 1. Amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the land use and policy directives from the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. 2. Establish an approach and begin preparing the City's regulatory tools (zoning and subdivision) ordinances that implement the policy directives and design guidelines established in the plan. 3. Establish a detailed financial plan to coordinate public improvements with potential redevelopment projects. . 4. Market the master plan to preferred developers. 5. Begin detailed design work for public improvements (burial of power lines, park and open space improvements, roads, streetscape, stormwater management) If you have any questions regarding the planning process or the contents of the plan, please do not hesitate to contact me prior to Tuesday evening's meeting. I can be reached at 612.252.7122. 0 MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE FINAL POSITION STATEMENT REGARDING • GLADSTONE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INTRODUCTION The Maplewood Parks and Recreation Commission and Open Space Task Force have held five joint meetings during the past year to discuss and review the status of the Gladstone redevelopment project. To our knowledge, we may have spent more time than any other city commission with the exception of the Gladstone task force and of course, the city council. From the beginning the position of the Open Space Task Force and Parks and Recreation Commission was to keep an open mind and if you will, approach the project from a blank slate perspective. One of the first ideas that came from our joint efforts was the concept of having Gladstone become an eco -village. The concept was to predicate all planning decisions based on an environmental perspective. Initial thoughts included green roofs, expanded green corridors, increased open space, unlimited walkability, potential access to light rail, use of rental cars by the hour, and creating vest pocket parks to define the important role that the environment plays within our community. This concept was founded on the basis that recreational opportunities are abundant in the Gladstone area, including the Gladstone Savanna, Bruce Vento and Gateway Trails, Phalen Regional Park, Keller Regional Golf Course, and five neighborhood parks within one mile. One of the outgrowths of that perspective was the concept of potentially developing on the open space. This was predicated on redefining how we look at open space. Parks do not need to be in rectangles or squares, but rather they should be integrated into the entire planning process or larger environmental scheme. As the planning process evolved, the concept of an eco -village unfortunately never did surface. Our joint commission and task force response to basic planning principles were focused primarily on parks and open space issues. They are as follows: We believe the overriding principle and concept (greater than density and traffic) is the role that parks, open space and recreation plays in the success of this project. As the planning process evolved it became abundantly clear that the savanna, Gloster Park and Flicek Park must be looked at as one inter -connected system rather than as a series of parks. Each of the three park sites serves a specific purpose ranging from natural open space to informal play areas to storm water management. They add immeasurable value to the Gladstone neighborhood. The number one priority that we heard from the neighbors was the important role the Gladstone Savanna open space and parks play in the final development and success of this project. We believe preservation, protection and restoration of the Gladstone Savanna is essential to the overall project's success. Furthermore, the funding for the Gladstone Savanna should be at the current estimate of $2 million. 2. Following a lengthy discussion, the Open Space Task Force and Parks and Recreation Commission adopted the following language by consensus: We do NOT support development on the Savanna based on the current master plan configuration. The Parks and Recreation Commission pursued the development of open space based on the concept of the eco -village theme and that there would be a positive ecological • gain by having flexibility over the open space boundaries. The Open Space Task Force and Parks and Recreation Commission feels strongly that the Gladstone master plan would have benefited from wider green corridors between buildings, significant green connections to the state trails, and increased native plantings and interpretations along the sidewalks. Unfortunately the master plan concept does not go far enough in developing these ecological connections to justify developing on the Savanna. • 3. The Gladstone Savanna was discussed by community residents as the key factor and potential driving force for redevelopment of the neighborhood. It was agreed by consensus that the Savanna's current status was not acceptable and that major improvements needed to be made. It was the consensus of the group that this was the first priority for the Gladstone redevelopment project and that the level of funding required to do this should be the original $2 million. Having once established the budget for $2 million, there was a great deal of discussion regarding the importance of the plaza. The initial estimate for the plaza was $750,000. It was the consensus of the group that if additional prioritizations or reductions in funding were required, the plaza would be an area that monies could be reduced or it could be phased in. 4. The consensus of the group is that Flicek Park served the neighborhood better as proposed in the original master plan. This agreement was reached recognizing there was not a need for an active ball field in this space and that storm water and passive park land was a greater priority, along with the development of a tot lot that would serve not only the neighborhood but the Gateway Trail visitors as well. Recommendation: The funding level for Flicek Park remains at $600,000. 5. It is the consensus of the group that Gloster Park development would meet the following objectives: a. Become part of Gladstone Savanna Neighborhood Preserve b. Provide flood storage for water runoff c. Preserve and/or construct a tot lot area as part of the monies from Gladstone Savanna • d. Provide paved trails on the western portion of the Savanna 6. The group spent a great deal of time on the bebo and the pros and cons of a larger underpass as contrasted with a smaller culvert. It was the consensus of the group that they support the concept of a bebo underpass structure or similar structure. The final design of the underpass must ensure the walkability of the neighborhood and transform regional trails into celebrated village corridors. In addition, the underpass should make Gladstone a compelling quality of life choice and create a neighborhood for all stages of life. The group does not support a narrow box culvert, as it would not meet the aforementioned vision and guiding principles of the Gladstone redevelopment plan. CONCLUSION It was the conclusion of the joint group that the Gladstone Savanna is the "center" of the proposed redevelopment. It was also agreed that it should be the first project developed with capital improvement bond monies at a minimum of $2 million. The joint group further endorsed the planning process in support of whatever level of density would be necessary to generate enough revenue to fund the amenities of Gladstone Savanna at $2 million and Gloster and Flicek Parks at $600,000. VOTING This statement was adopted 6-1 by the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 20, 2006 at their regularly scheduled meeting. The Open Space Task Force adopted it unanimously with two Open is Space Task Force members dissenting on #6 relating to the bebo. 2 RAMSEY COUNTY Parks and Recreation Department Gregory A. Mack, Director 2015 N. Van Dyke Street Maplewood, MN 55109-3796 23 March 2006 Bruce Anderson City of Maplewood 1830 East Co. Rd. B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Bruce: Tel: 651-748-2500• Fax: 651-748-2508 www.co.ramsey.mn.us Enclosed please find the survey maps for the recent aerial deer survey conducted in Ramsey County. Surveys were flown between 14 and 21 March 2006 under good to fair survey conditions. There was a 12 inch base of snow that was melting and well skilled helicopter pilots. Deer movements may have been variable this winter because of the snowless conditions before March 13. My confidence level in seeing deer was good for this survey, but reported numbers should be considered a minimum population for the area. The enclosed map shows the location of the deer. There were 177 deer seen in Maplewood, which was down from 293 from 2003. The enclosed map shows the location of the deer. You will be billed for 2 hours of helicopter time from Complete Helicopter from Anoka Airport at a rate of $275.00 per hour. If you have any other questions on your deer or deer management options feel free to give me a call at 748-2500. Sincerely, J. Moriarty Natural Resources Specialist enclosures 2006 deer survey Minnesota's First Home Rule County printed on recycled paper with a minimum of 10% post -consumer content 1] p 2 Miles P_ Date 3-21-0U Observer %? v r+4r r Conditions Soh �� • 30A Total Map 6 - Keller / Kohiman 0.7 0 0.7 Miles Date 3-21' Observer 1'7`o,l'gl Conditions 514t/,7 -) ©, Total, L/D rte., A44, . Map 7 -Maplewood • • �J L oQ6 M N Date /O(n4a, 4 2 observer Conditions 12 1"/e, 4 kDW Total �'uMhT 2,9,,- fil6 - /", tr e f 5 Map 8 - Battle Creek / Pig's Eye 2006 Ramsey County Aerial Deer Survey 0 4 Miles Deer Surveys were flown between 14 and 21 March 2006. Surveyor was John Moriarty, Ramsey County Parks. Total Deer counted = 691 N A 0 � • 1 Two of the Twin Cities top quality home builders bring you Maplewood's Newest Development 15 Custom Build Executive home sites overlooking ponds and a park. • An ideal location, enjoy the small quiet neighborhood, with all the conveniences and attractions of the city just minutes away. • Model homes are currently available for viewing and purchase, or design and build your next home from the ground up. • Lot and home packages available from the $500s. • Call today for a private no obligation showing appointment or informational packet. Directions: 494 to Lake Road, West on Lake Road to Century Avenue, Left on Century to 151 quick right — to Century/Linwood Avenue, West on Linwood Avenue to Dahl Avenue (Woodhill Development) on left www.aarborhomes.com n ,Worgaard www.norgaardhomes.com Aarbor Homes Norgaard Homes Richard Zemlak Travis Sabby 612.290.8864 612.600.6000 rzemiak@aarborhomes.com travis@sabbypartners.com