The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011 05-23 City Council Packet with CIPAGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, May 23, 2011 City Hall, Council Chambers Meeting No. 10-11 A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. Acknowledgement of Maplewood Residents Serving the Country. C. ROLL CALL Mayor’s Address on Protocol: “Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood City Council. It is our desire to keep all discussions civil as we work through difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public Hearing or to address the City Council, please familiarize yourself with the Policies and Procedures and Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance. Before addressing the council, sign in with the City Clerk. At the podium please state your name and address clearly for the record. All comments/questions shall be posed to the Mayor and Council. The Mayor will then direct staff, as appropriate, to answer questions or respond to comments.” D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of May 9, 2011, City Council Workshop Minutes 2. Approval of May 9, 2011, City Council Meeting Minutes F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of Local Government Innovation Award for Joint Powers Agreement Between the City of Maplewood and the City of North St. Paul (No Report) G. CONSENT AGENDA – Items on the Consent Agenda are considered routine and non- controversial and are approved by one motion of the council. If a councilmember requests additional information or wants to make a comment regarding an item, the vote should be held until the questions or comments are made then the single vote should be taken. If a councilmember objects to an item it should be removed and acted upon as a separate item. 1. Approval Of Claims 2. Approval of Ramsey County Fair Temporary Gambling Permit and Fee Waiver Request 3. Approval to Accept Grant From Midwest Economic Crime Foundation 4. Approval of Resolution Requesting the State Legislature and the Governor Maintaining Ramsey County W ithin a Single Congressional District 5. Consider Approval of Amendment of Conditions for the Gervais Woods Preliminary Plat, South of LaBore Road, East of Arcade Street 6. Consider Approval of Resolution Identifying Maplewood’s Commitment to Host a Minnesota GreenCorps Member 7. Western Hills Area Street Improvements, City Project 10-14, Approval of Purchase for Geotechnical Testing Services 8. Western Hills Area Street Improvements, City Project 10-14, Approval of Rider to Joint Powers Agreement W ith Saint Paul Regional Water Services 9. NPDES Phase II and MS4 Permit, Call Public Hearing for June 27, 2011 at 7:00pm H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11.. Gladstone Area Redevelopment Improvements, Project 04-21 a. Assessment Hearing, 7:00 p.m. – To Be Continued to June 27, 2011 I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Consider Approval of Resolution Adopting the 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan 2. Western Hills Area Street Improvement Wetland Impacts, City Project 10-14 Approval to Construct Public Improvements Within Wetland Buffer 3. Western Hills Area Street Improvements, Project 10-14, Resolution Adopting Revised Assessment Roll J. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of On-Sale Wine and 3.2% Beer Licenses for India Gate Restaurant 2. Acceptance of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report – 2010 3. Authorization to Form Living Streets Task Force K. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS L. AWARD OF BIDS M. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS N. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS O. ADJOURNMENT Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk’s Office at 651.249.2001 to make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability. RULES OF CIVILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings – elected officials, staff and citizens. It is hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone’s opinions can be heard and understood in a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when appearing at Council meetings, it is understood that everyone will follow these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep emotions in check and use respectful language. May 9, 2011 City Council Manager Workshop Minutes 1 Agenda Item E1 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL MANAGER WORKSHOP 5:15 p.m., Monday, May 9, 2011 Council Chambers, City Hall A. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by Mayor Rossbach. B. ROLL CALL Will Rossbach, Mayor Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present James Llanas, Councilmember Present John Nephew, Councilmember Present C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Llanas moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All The motion passed. D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Candidate Interview a. Business & Economic Development Commission i. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director Chuck Ahl answered questions of the council. The City Council interviewed Karen Anderson for the opening on the Business & Economic Development Commission. The appointment will be announced during the regular city council meeting. 2. Wipers Recycling v. City of Maplewood a. Declaration of Intent to Close Meeting for Attorney Update i. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud addressed the council and introduced the item. ii. Attorney, Cliff Greene, Greene Espel gave a report to the council. iii. Attorney, Doug Gronli, League of Minnesota Cities gave a report to the council. Mayor Rossbach closed the meeting at 5:17 p.m. as permitted by Minnesota State Statute 13D.05 subd. 5 for the purpose of discussing litigation. Mayor Rossbach reopened the closed session meeting 6:18 p.m. Packet Page Number 3 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Manager Workshop Minutes 2 E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Water System Evaluation Summary a. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl introduced the item and answered questions of the council. b. Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. St. Paul. Mr. Horn gave the report on the Water System Evaluation Summary and answered questions of the council. c. Steve Schneider, General Manager, St. Paul Regional Water, St. Paul, addressed and answered questions of the council. d. City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompson answered questions of the council. e. City Manager, James Antonen addressed and answered questions of the council. F. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Rossbach adjourned the meeting at 7:00p.m. Packet Page Number 4 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 1 Agenda Item E2 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m., Monday, May 9, 2011 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 09-11 A. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Rossbach. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Will Rossbach, Mayor Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present James Llanas, Councilmember Present at 8:27 p.m. and left at 10:49 p.m. John Nephew, Councilmember Present D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The following items were added to the agenda by the council: N1. Fallen Officer Memorial – Councilmember Juenemann N2. Trash Working Group – Councilmember Nephew N3. Redistricting – Councilmember Nephew N4. Municipal Legislative Commission Meeting with Governor Dayton – Mayor Rossbach Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All The motion passed. E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of April 25, 2011, City Council Workshop Minutes Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the April 25, 2011, City Council Workshop Minutes as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes – All The motion passed. Packet Page Number 5 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 2 2. Approval of April 25, 2011, City Council Meeting Minutes Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the April 25, 2011, City Council Meeting Minutes as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All The motion passed. F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Appointment to Business & Economic Development Commission a. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director Chuck Ahl gave a brief report. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the resolution appointing Karen Anderson to the Business & Economic Development Commission with a term to expire September 30, 2013. RESOLUTION 11-05-567 BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: Hereby appoints the following individuals, who have interviewed with the Maplewood City Council, to serve on the following commissions: Business & Economic Development Commission - Karen Anderson, term expires September 30, 2013 Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All The motion passed. 2. Resolution for Appointment to Heritage Preservation Commission a. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director Chuck Ahl introduced the item. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution appointing Peter Boulay to the Heritage Preservation Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2012. RESOLUTION 11-05-568 BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: Hereby appoints the following individuals, to serve on the following commissions: Heritage Preservation Commission - Peter Boulay, term expires April 30, 2012 Packet Page Number 6 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 3 Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes – All The motion passed. G. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve consent agenda items 1-5. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All The motion passed. 1. Approval of Claims Councilmember Juenemann moved Approval of Claims. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 366,441.18 Checks #84144 thru #84194 Dated 04/22/11 thru 04/26/11 $ 317,133.57 Disbursements via debits to checking account Dated 04/14/11 thru 04/22/11 $ 310,122.28 Disbursements via debits to checking account Dated 05/03/2011 $ 191,806.03 Disbursements via debits to checking account Dated 04/22/11 thru 04/29/11 __________________ $ 1,185,503.06 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 505,874.65 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 04/29/11 $ 1,168.95 Payroll Deduction check #9984093 thru #9984094 dated 04/29/11 ___________________ $ 507,043.60 Total Payroll $ 1,692,546.66 GRAND TOTAL Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All The motion passed. Packet Page Number 7 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 4 2. Approval of Temporary Gambling Permit – The Dog House Bar & Grill Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution for a temporary gambling permit for The Dog House Bar & Grill at 2029 Woodlynn Avenue. RESOLUTION 11-05-569 BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the temporary premises permit for lawful gambling on May 21, 2011 is approved for The Dog House Bar & Grill, 2029 Woodlynn Ave, Maplewood. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute §349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute §349.213. NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All The motion passed. 3. Approval of Budget Adjustments for the Assistance to Firefighter’s Grant Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the finance department make the necessary budget adjustments in regards to the Assistance to Firefighter’s Grant. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All The motion passed. 4. Approval of Conditional Use Permit – Xcel Energy Tanners Lake Electrical Substation Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the conditional use permit for Xcel Energy’s electrical substation and related electrical system operations again only if a major change is proposed or a problem arises. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All The motion passed. 5. Approval of the 2010 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Annual Report Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the 2010 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Annual Report. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All The motion passed. Packet Page Number 8 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 5 H. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Western Hills Area Street Improvements, Project 10-14 a. Assessment Hearing, 7:00 p.m. b. Resolution Adopting Assessment Roll c. Resolution Receiving Bids and Awarding Construction Contract i. City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompson gave a presentation and answered questions of the council. ii. Assistant City Engineer, Steve Love gave the presentation. iii. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud addressed the council. iv. Civil Engineer, Steve Kummer answered questions of the council. Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing. 1. Kristin Borowske, Maplewood. 2. Christine Lehto, Maplewood. 3. Blong Yang, Maplewood. 4. Bill Taylor, Maplewood. 5. Laurie Sherman, Maplewood. 6. Lynn Carter, Maplewood. 7. Jerry O’Brien, Maplewood. 8. Male speaker who didn’t sign in or give his name and address. 9. Nicola Opine, Maplewood. 10. Chuck Berglund, Maplewood. 11. Marvella Lackner, Maplewood. 12. Donald Smieja, Maplewood. 13. Fred Bauer, Maplewood. Mayor Rossbach closed the public hearing. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the resolution adopting the assessment roll for the Western Hills Area Street Improvements, City Project 10-14, minus the objections received. RESOLUTION 11-05-570 ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on April 11, 2011, calling for a Public Hearing, the assessment roll for the Western Hills Area Street Improvements, City Project 10-14 was presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, the following property owners have filed objections to their assessments according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows: 1. Parcel 182922340063 – David Conover; 1702 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Conover is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 2. Parcel 182922340045 – Justin Balar; 1705 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Balar is requesting a revision to his assessment. 3. Parcel 182922340087 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an undeveloped property deferral. 4. Parcel 182922340058 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street Packet Page Number 9 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 6 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an undeveloped property deferral. 5. Parcel 182922340059 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an undeveloped property deferral. 6. Parcel 182922340064 – Don Smieja; 1706 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Smieja is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 7. Parcel 182922340065 – Maiyia Her; 1712 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Her is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 8. Parcel 182922340043 – Gerald Jahnke; 1719 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Jahnke is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. 9. Parcel 182922340066 – Steve M. Barsness; 1724 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Barsness is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 10. Parcel 182922410026 – Linda Bowman; 1902 Adolphus Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Bowman is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 11. Parcel 182922410027 – Johnnie and Gloria Rudolph; 1912 Adolphus Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Rudolph are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 12. Parcel 182922430015 – Nancy Tschida Stephenson; 1706 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Stephenson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. 13. Parcel 182922430045 – Fred Bauer; 1741 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Bauer is requesting a senior citizen deferral. 14. Parcel 182922430043 – Kristin Ross; 1755 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Ross is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 15. Parcel 182922430038 – Brian and Rebecca Cortez; 1793 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Cortez are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 16. Parcel 182922430037 – Jeff Olson; 1799 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Olson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 17. Parcel 182922420089 – Joy Nellessen; 1800 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Nellessen is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. 18. Parcel 182922420096 – Karen and Jose Diaz; 1805 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Diaz are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and request a financial hardship deferral. 19. Parcel 182922420085 – John W. Peterson; 1826 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Peterson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. 20. Parcel 182922420084 – Eileen R. Eaves; 1832 Agate Street Packet Page Number 10 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 7 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Eaves is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. 21. Parcel 182922420083 – Paula B. Merth; 1838 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Merth is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 22. Parcel 172922330028 – Daniel Underbakke; 1705 Arkwright Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Underbakke is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 23. Parcel 182922310034 – Mee and Michel Vansoua; 1845 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Vansoua are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 24. Parcel 182922310012 – Wendy and Charles Dording; 1860 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Dording are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 25. Parcel 182922310032 – Richard Willey; 1861 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Willey is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 26. Parcel 182922310011 – Coleen Hanrahan; 1866 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hanrahan is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 27. Parcel 182922310031 – Laureen Sherman; 1867 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Sherman is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 28. Parcel 182922310030 – Todd and Laurette Alwin; 1873 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Alwin are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 29. Parcel 182922310008 – Jerene Grilz; 1888 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Grilz is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 30. Parcel 182922310027 – Tammi Zapata; 1895 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Zapata is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 31. Parcel 182922420047 – Dennis and Laurie Littlefield; 104 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Littlefield are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 32. Parcel 182922420042 – Brenda Murphy; 142 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Murphy is requesting a financial hardship deferral. 33. Parcel 182922420040 – Mary E. Hackman; 156 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hackman is requesting a senior citizen deferral. 34. Parcel 182922410029 – Mary and Pat McMonigal; 223 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. McMonigal are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 35. Parcel 182922430069 – Yewondwossen Tsegaw; 1733 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Tsegaw is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 36. Parcel 182922430054 – Craig and Michelle Selbitschka; 1766 City Heights Drive Packet Page Number 11 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 8 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Selbitschka are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 37. Parcel 182922430055 – Christine Holman-House; 1774 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Holman-House is requesting a cancellation of assessment or a financial hardship deferral. 38. Parcel 182922430063 – Jose D. Carbajal; 1777 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Carbajal is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 39. Parcel 182922430057 – Paal Salter Carter; 1786 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Salter Carter is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. 40. Parcel 182922430061 – Michelle Irwin; 1791 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Irwin is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 41. Parcel 182922420111 – Dick Pierre; 1803 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Pierre is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 42. Parcel 18-29-22-42-0097 – Mary Jane Hawkins; 1808 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hawkins is requesting deferral of the assessment due to disability status and financial hardship. 43. Parcel 182922420104 – Jamie Whitwood; 1853 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Whitwood is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 44. Parcel 182922420103 – Ann Athen; 130 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Athen is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 45. Parcel 182922420082 – Mary J. Tills; 154 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Tills is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. 46. Parcel 182922420057 – Kevin Osmundson; 171 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Osmundson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 47. Parcel 182922420066 – Muriel Paulson; 202 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Paulson is requesting a senior citizen deferral. 48. Parcel 182922420063 – Richard J. Towle; 217 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Towle is requesting a financial hardship or senior citizen deferral. 49. Parcel 172922330016 – Kenneth J. Pfarr; 1695 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Pfarr is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 50. Parcel 172922330024 – Patrick Her; 1700 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Her is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 51. Parcel 172922330023 – Blong Yang; 1706 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Yang is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral 52. Parcel 172922330022 – Paula Vang; 1714 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Vang is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. Packet Page Number 12 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 9 53. Parcel 172922330019 – Thomas Azzone; 1723 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Azzone is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 54. Parcel 182922310014 – Richard E. Miller; 63 Fenton Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 55. Parcel 182922310043 – Richard E. Miller; 95 Fenton Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 56. Parcel 182922310044 – Richard E. Miller; 97 Fenton Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 57. Parcel 182922340009 William Taylor; 1765 Gurney Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Taylor is requesting a cancellation of assessment or a disability deferral. 58. Parcel 182922340022 – Jeff Hupert; 5 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Hupert is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 59. Parcel 182922340090 – Kristin R. Borowske; 63 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Borowske is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests that the assessment be reduced and the interest rate set to zero percent. 60. Parcel 182922340084 – Jennifer and Bradley Johnson; 76 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 61. Parcel 182922340014 – John and Doris Slama; 77 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Slama are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and request a senior citizen deferral. 62. Parcel 172922330058 – Katherine L. Graham; 385 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Graham is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 63. Parcel 172922330059 – Marvella M. Lackner; 395 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Lackner is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen or financial hardship deferral. 64. Parcel 182922430104 – Bezaneh Gebremedhin; 191 D Larpenteur Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Bezaneh Gebremedhin is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 65. Parcel 182922430010 – Timothy and Michelle Cover; 1740 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Cover are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 66. Parcel 182922430009 – Allan C. Button; 1744 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Button is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 67. Parcel 182922430007 – Lawrence A. Dittel; 1754 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Dittel is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 68. Parcel 182922430030 – Michael Ziolkowski; 1757 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Ziolkowski is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 69. Parcel 182922430004 – Roger J. Beran; 1770 Onacrest Curve Packet Page Number 13 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 10 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Beran is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 70. Parcel 182922430027 – Jack McGee; 1783 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. McGee is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 71. Parcel 182922430026 – Seth Miller; 1793 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 72. Parcel 182922310024 – Clarence Osen; 50 Roselawn Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Osen is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a revision to his assessment due to years of residency and previous assessments and taxes paid. 73. Parcel 182922340040 – Nicola and James Opine; 1730 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Opine are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 74. Parcel 182922340024 – Todd P. Williams; 1754 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Williams is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 75. Parcel 182922340025 – Michael and Carol Bisson; 1758 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Bisson are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 76. Parcel 182922340011 – Marvin Hodgin; 1766 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Hodgin is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 77. Parcel 182922340010 – Christine and David Lehto; 1772 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Lehto are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and request a cancellation of the assessment or a financial hardship deferral. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to review the objections received and report to the City Council at the regular meeting on May 23, 2011, as to their recommendations for adjustments. 3. The assessment roll for the Western Hills Area Street Improvements as amended, without those property owners’ assessments that have filed objections, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. Said assessment roll shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 4. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years for residential properties and 8 years for commercial properties, the first installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2012 and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.0 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first Packet Page Number 14 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 11 installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2011. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 5. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, but no later than November 15, 2011, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of the payment, to the city clerk, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and they may, at any time after November 15, 2011, pay to the county auditor the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 6. The city engineer and city clerk shall forthwith after November 15, 2011, but no later than November 16, 2011, transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the council on this 9th day of May 2011. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All The motion passed. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the resolution accepting the bids award construction contract with T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc. for the Western Hills Area Street Improvements – City Project 10-14. RESOLUTION 11-05-571 RECEIVING BIDS AND AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that the bid of T.A. Schifsky and Sons in the amount of $5,406,359.31 for the Base Bid and Bid Alternates 1 through 8 is the lowest responsible bid for the construction of Western Hills Area Street Improvements – City Project 10-14, and the mayor and clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said bidder for and on behalf of the city. Furthermore, official award of Bid Alternate #3 is authorized by the council however is contingent upon the ratification of an agreement between the City and Saint Paul Regional Water Services. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the financing plan for the project as previously approved by council. Adopted by the council on this 9th day of May, 2011. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All The motion passed. Packet Page Number 15 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 12 I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Consideration of Penalty for Alcohol Compliance Failure – The Ponds at Battle Creek Golf Course Mayor Rossbach asked the representative from The Ponds at Battle Creek to come forward and address the council. Brad Behnke, Owner, The Ponds at Battle Creek Golf Course addressed the council. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the $500 alcohol fine to The Ponds at Battle Creek Golf Course. Seconded by Councilmember Llanas. Ayes – All The motion passed. The city council took a break at 8:49 p.m. The city reconvened at 9:00 p.m. 2. Bid Award on Improvement Bonds – General Obligation Improvement Bonds Series 2011A a. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director Chuck Ahl gave the report and answered questions of the council. b. Terrie Heaton, Springsted, Inc. addressed the council and gave a presentation. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the resolution for the General Obligation Improvement Bonds Series 2011A to Morgan Keegan. EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA HELD: MAY 9, 2011 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular or special meeting of the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota, was duly called and held at the City Hall on May 9, 2011, at 7:00 P.M., for the purpose, in part, of considering proposals and awarding the competitive negotiated sale of, $10,000,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2011A. The following members were present: All and the following were absent: None In accordance with the resolution adopted by the City Council on April 11, 2011, the City Clerk presented proposals on $10,000,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2011A, which were received and tabulated at the offices of Springsted Incorporated on this same day: Bidder Interest Rate True Interest Cost Packet Page Number 16 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 13 The Council then proceeded to consider and discuss the proposals, after which member Nephew introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 11-05-572 ACCEPTING PROPOSAL ON THE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED SALE OF $10,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2011A, PROVIDING FOR THEIR ISSUANCE, PLEDGING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SECURITY THEREOF AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the "City"), has heretofore determined and declared that it is necessary and expedient to issue $10,000,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2011A (the "Bonds"), of the City, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475, to finance the construction of various improvement projects within the City (the "Improvements"); and B. WHEREAS, the Improvements and all their components have been ordered prior to the date hereof, after a hearing thereon for which notice was given describing the Improvements or all their components by general nature, estimated cost, and area to be assessed; and C. WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City that the Bonds be issued in book-entry form as hereinafter provided; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Acceptance of Proposal 2. . The proposal of __________________________ __________________________ (the "Purchaser"), to purchase the Bonds of the City (or individually, a "Bond"), in accordance with the Terms of Proposal, at the rates of interest hereinafter set forth, and to pay therefor the sum of $_______________, plus interest accrued to settlement, is hereby found, determined and declared to be the most favorable proposal received and is hereby accepted, and the Bonds are hereby awarded to said proposal maker. The City Clerk is directed to retain the deposit of said proposal maker and to forthwith return to the unsuccessful proposal makers their good faith checks and drafts. Bond Terms (a) . Title; Original Issue Date; Denominations; Maturities; Term Bond Option. The Bonds shall be titled "General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2011A", shall be dated June 1, 2011, as the date of original issue and shall be issued forthwith on or after such date as fully registered bonds. The Bonds shall be numbered from R-1 upward in the denomination of $5,000 each or in any integral multiple thereof of a single maturity (the "Authorized Denominations"). The Bonds shall mature on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Packet Page Number 17 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 14 Year Amount Year Amount 2013 $ 2023 $ 2014 2024 2015 2025 2016 2026 2017 2027 2018 2028 2019 2029 2020 2030 2021 2031 2022 2032 As may be requested by the Purchaser, one or more term Bonds may be issued having mandatory sinking fund redemption and final maturity amounts conforming to the foregoing principal repayment schedule, and corresponding additions may be made to the provisions of the applicable Bond(s). (a) Book Entry Only System (i) The Bonds shall be initially issued and, so long as they remain in book entry form only (the "Book Entry Only Period"), shall at all times be in the form of a separate single fully registered Bond for each maturity of the Bonds; and for purposes of complying with this requirement under paragraphs 5 and 10 Authorized Denominations for any Bond shall be deemed to be limited during the Book Entry Only Period to the outstanding principal amount of that Bond. . The Depository Trust Company, a limited purpose trust company organized under the laws of the State of New York or any of its successors or its successors to its functions hereunder (the "Depository") will act as securities depository for the Bonds, and to this end: (ii) Upon initial issuance, ownership of the Bonds shall be registered in a bond register maintained by the Bond Registrar (as hereinafter defined) in the name of CEDE & CO., as the nominee (it or any nominee of the existing or a successor Depository, the "Nominee"). With respect to the Bonds neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall have any responsibility or obligation to any broker, dealer, bank, or any other financial institution for which the Depository holds Bonds as securities depository (the "Participant") or the person for which a Participant holds an interest in the Bonds shown on the books and records of the Participant (the "Beneficial Owner"). Without limiting the immediately preceding sentence, neither the City, nor the Bond Registrar, shall have any such responsibility or obligation with respect to (A) the accuracy of the records of the Depository, the Nominee or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds, or (B) the delivery to any Participant, any Owner or any other person, other than the Depository, of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice of redemption, or (C) the payment to any Participant, any Beneficial Owner or any other person, other than the Depository, of any amount with respect to the principal of or (i) premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds, or (D) the consent given or other action taken by the Depository as the Registered Holder of any Bonds (the "Holder"). For purposes of securing the vote or consent of any Holder under this Resolution, the City may, however, rely upon an omnibus proxy under which the Depository assigns its consenting or voting rights to certain Participants to whose accounts the Bonds are credited on the record date identified in a listing attached to the omnibus proxy. (ii) The City and the Bond Registrar may treat as and deem the Depository to be the absolute owner of the Bonds for the purpose of payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds, for the purpose of giving notices of redemption and other matters with respect to the Bonds, for the purpose of obtaining any consent or other action to be taken by Holders for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such Bonds, and for all purpose whatsoever. The Bond Registrar, as paying agent hereunder, shall pay all principal of and Packet Page Number 18 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 15 premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to the Holder or the Holders of the Bonds as shown on the bond register, and all such payments shall be valid and effective to fully satisfy and discharge the City's obligations with respect to the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (iii) Upon delivery by the Depository to the Bond Registrar of written notice to the effect that the Depository has determined to substitute a new Nominee in place of the existing Nominee, and subject to the transfer provisions in paragraph 10 hereof, references to the Nominee hereunder shall refer to such new Nominee. (iv) So long as any Bond is registered in the name of a Nominee, all payments with respect to the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on such Bond and all notices with respect to such Bond shall be made and given, respectively, by the Bond Registrar or City, as the case may be, to the Depository as provided in the Letter of Representations to the Depository required by the Depository as a condition to its acting as book-entry Depository for the Bonds (said Letter of Representations, together with any replacement thereof or amendment or substitute thereto, including any standard procedures or policies referenced therein or applicable thereto respecting the procedures and other matters relating to the Depository's role as book- entry Depository for the Bonds, collectively hereinafter referred to as the "Letter of Representations"). (v) All transfers of beneficial ownership interests in each Bond issued in book-entry form shall be limited in principal amount to Authorized Denominations and shall be effected by procedures by the Depository with the Participants for recording and transferring the ownership of beneficial interests in such Bonds. In connection with any notice or other communication to be provided to the Holders pursuant to this Resolution by the City or Bond Registrar with respect to any consent or other action to be taken by Holders, the Depository shall consider the date of receipt of notice requesting such consent or other action as the record date for such consent or other action; provided, that the City or the Bond Registrar may establish a special record date for such consent or other action. The City or the Bond Registrar shall, (i) to the extent possible, give the Depository notice of such special record date not less than 15 calendar days in advance of such special record date to the extent possible. (ii) Any successor Bond Registrar in its written acceptance of its duties under this Resolution and any paying agency/bond registrar agreement, shall agree to take any actions necessary from time to time to comply with the requirements of the Letter of Representations. (iii) In the case of a partial prepayment of a Bond, the Holder may, in lieu of surrendering the Bonds for a Bond of a lesser denomination as provided in paragraph 5 hereof, make a notation of the reduction in principal amount on the panel provided on the Bond stating the amount so redeemed. (b) Termination of Book-Entry Only System (i) The Depository may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving written notice to the City and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. The City may terminate the services of the Depository with respect to the Bond if it determines that the Depository is no longer able to carry out its functions as securities depository or the continuation of the system of book-entry transfers through the Depository is not in the best interests of the City or the Beneficial Owners. . Discontinuance of a particular Depository's services and termination of the book-entry only system may be effected as follows: Packet Page Number 19 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 16 (ii) Upon termination of the services of the Depository as provided in the preceding paragraph, and if no substitute securities depository is willing to undertake the functions of the Depository hereunder can be found which, in the opinion of the City, is willing and able to assume such functions upon reasonable or customary terms, or if the City determines that it is in the best interests of the City or the Beneficial Owners of the Bond that the Beneficial Owners be able to obtain certificates for the Bonds, the Bonds shall no longer be registered as being registered in the bond register in the name of the Nominee, but may be registered in whatever name or names the Holder of the Bonds shall designate at that time, in accordance with paragraph 11 hereof. To the extent that the Beneficial Owners are designated as the transferee by the Holders, in accordance with paragraph 10 hereof, the Bonds will be delivered to the Beneficial Owners. (iii) Nothing in this subparagraph (c) shall limit or restrict the provisions of paragraph 10 hereof. (c) Letter of Representations 3. . The provisions in the Letter of Representations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of the resolution, and if and to the extent any such provisions are inconsistent with the other provisions of this resolution, the provisions in the Letter of Representations shall control. Purpose; Cost 4. . The Bonds shall provide funds to finance the Improvements. The total cost of the Improvements, which shall include all costs enumerated in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.65, is estimated to be at least equal to the amount of the Bonds. Work on the Improvements shall proceed with due diligence to completion. The City covenants that it shall do all things and perform all acts required of it to assure that work on the Improvements proceeds with due diligence to completion and that any and all permits and studies required under law for the Improvements are obtained. Interest Maturity . The Bonds shall bear interest payable semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year (each, an "Interest Payment Date"), commencing February 1, 2012, calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months, at the respective rates per annum set forth opposite the maturity years as follows: Year Interest Rate Maturity Year Interest Rate 2013 % 2023 % 2014 2024 2015 2025 2016 2026 2017 2027 2018 2028 2019 2029 2020 2030 2021 2031 2022 2032 5. Redemption. All Bonds maturing on February 1, 2022, and thereafter, shall be subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the City on February 1, 2021, and on any date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, the maturities and the principal amounts within each maturity to be redeemed shall be determined by the City; and if only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment, the specific Bonds to be prepaid shall be chosen by lot by the Bond Registrar. Bonds or portions thereof called for redemption shall be due and payable on the redemption date, and interest thereon shall cease to accrue from and after the redemption date. Mailed notice of redemption shall be given to the paying agent and to each affected registered holder of the Bonds. Packet Page Number 20 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 17 To effect a partial redemption of Bonds having a common maturity date, the Bond Registrar prior to giving notice of redemption shall assign to each Bond having a common maturity date a distinctive number for each $5,000 of the principal amount of such Bond. The Bond Registrar shall then select by lot, using such method of selection as it shall deem proper in its discretion, from the numbers so assigned to such Bonds, as many numbers as, at $5,000 for each number, shall equal the principal amount of such Bonds to be redeemed. The Bonds to be redeemed shall be the Bonds to which were assigned numbers so selected; provided, however, that only so much of the principal amount of each such Bond of a denomination of more than $5,000 shall be redeemed as shall equal $5,000 for each number assigned to it and so selected. If a Bond is to be redeemed only in part, it shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar (with, if the City or Bond Registrar so requires, a written instrument of transfer in form satisfactory to the City and Bond Registrar duly executed by the holder thereof or his, her or its attorney duly authorized in writing) and the City shall execute (if necessary) and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver to the Holder of such Bond, without service charge, a new Bond or Bonds of the same series having the same stated maturity and interest rate and of any Authorized Denomination or Denominations, as requested by such Holder, in aggregate principal amount equal to and in exchange for the unredeemed portion of the principal of the Bond so surrendered. 1. Bond Registrar 2. . U.S. Bank National Association, in St. Paul, Minnesota, is appointed to act as bond registrar and transfer agent with respect to the Bonds (the "Bond Registrar"), and shall do so unless and until a successor Bond Registrar is duly appointed, all pursuant to any contract the City and Bond Registrar shall execute which is consistent herewith. The Bond Registrar shall also serve as paying agent unless and until a successor paying agent is duly appointed. Principal and interest on the Bonds shall be paid to the registered holders (or record holders) of the Bonds in the manner set forth in the form of Bond and paragraph 12 of this resolution. Form of Bond UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA RAMSEY COUNTY CITY OF MAPLEWOOD . The Bonds, together with the Bond Registrar's Certificate of Authentication, the form of Assignment and the registration information thereon, shall be in substantially the following form: R-_______ $_________ GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BOND, SERIES 2011A INTEREST RATE MATURITY DATE DATE OF ORIGINAL ISSUE CUSIP ____% FEBRUARY 1, ____ JUNE 1, 2011 REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: _______________________________ DOLLARS The City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota (the "Issuer"), certifies that it is indebted and for value received promises to pay to the registered owner specified above, or registered assigns, in the manner hereinafter set forth, the principal amount specified above, on the maturity date specified above, unless called for earlier redemption, and to pay interest thereon semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year (each, an "Interest Payment Date"), commencing February 1, 2012, at the rate per annum specified above (calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) until the principal sum is paid or has been provided for. This Bond will bear interest from the most recent Interest Payment Packet Page Number 21 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 18 Date to which interest has been paid or, if no interest has been paid, from the date of original issue hereof. The principal of and premium, if any, on this Bond are payable upon presentation and surrender hereof at the principal office of U.S. Bank National Association, in St. Paul, Minnesota (the "Bond Registrar"), acting as paying agent, or any successor paying agent duly appointed by the Issuer. Interest on this Bond will be paid on each Interest Payment Date by check or draft mailed to the person in whose name this Bond is registered (the "Holder" or "Bondholder") on the registration books of the Issuer maintained by the Bond Registrar and at the address appearing thereon at the close of business on the fifteenth day of the calendar month next preceding such Interest Payment Date (the "Regular Record Date"). Any interest not so timely paid shall cease to be payable to the person who is the Holder hereof as of the Regular Record Date, and shall be payable to the person who is the Holder hereof at the close of b usiness on a date (the "Special Record Date") fixed by the Bond Registrar whenever money becomes available for payment of the defaulted interest. Notice of the Special Record Date shall be given to Bondholders not less than ten days prior to the Special Record Date. The principal of and premium, if any, and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. So long as this Bond is registered in the name of the Depository or its Nominee as provided in the Resolution hereinafter described, and as those terms are defined therein, payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond and notice with respect thereto shall be made as provided in the Letter of Representations, as defined in the Resolution, and surrender of this Bond shall not be required for payment of the redemption price upon a partial redemption of this Bond. Until termination of the book-entry only system pursuant to the Resolution, Bonds may only be registered in the name of the Depository or its Nominee. Redemption. All Bonds of this issue (the "Bonds") maturing on February 1, 2022 and thereafter are subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the Issuer on February 1, 2021, and on any date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, the maturities and the principal amounts within each maturity to be redeemed shall be determined by the Issuer; and if only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment, the specific Bonds to be prepaid shall be chosen by lot by the Bond Registrar. Bonds or portions thereof called for redemption shall be due and payable on the redemption date, and interest thereon shall cease to accrue from and after the redemption date. Mailed notice of redemption shall be given to the paying agent and to each affected Holder of the Bonds. Selection of Bonds for Redemption; Partial Redemption. To effect a partial redemption of Bonds having a common maturity date, the Bond Registrar shall assign to each Bond having a common maturity date a distinctive number for each $5,000 of the principal amount of such Bond. The Bond Registrar shall then select by lot, using such method of selection as it shall deem proper in its discretion, from the numbers assigned to the Bonds, as many numbers as, at $5,000 for each number, shall equal the principal amount of such Bonds to be redeemed. The Bonds to be redeemed shall be the Bonds to which were assigned numbers so selected; provided, however, that only so much of the principal amount of such Bond of a denomination of more than $5,000 shall be redeemed as shall equal $5,000 for each number assigned to it and so selected. If a Bond is to be redeemed only in part, it shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar (with, if the Issuer or Bond Registrar so requires, a written instrument of transfer in form satisfactory to the Issuer and Bond Registrar duly executed by the Holder thereof or his, her or its attorney duly authorized in writing) and the Issuer shall execute (if necessary) and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver to the Holder of such Bond, without service charge, a new Bond or Bonds of the same series having the same stated maturity and interest rate and of any Authorized Denomination or Denominations, as requested by such Holder, in aggregate principal amount equal to and in exchange for the unredeemed portion of the principal of the Bond so surrendered. Issuance; Purpose; General Obligation. This Bond is one of an issue in the total principal amount of $10,000,000, all of like date of original issue and tenor, except as to number, maturity, interest rate, denomination and redemption privilege, which Bond has been issued pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota and pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on May 9, 2011 (the "Resolution"), for the purpose of providing money to finance various improvement projects within the jurisdiction of the Issuer. This Bond is payable out of the General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2011A Fund of the Issuer. This Bond constitutes a general obligation of the Issuer, and to provide moneys for the prompt and full payment of its principal, premium, Packet Page Number 22 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 19 if any, and interest when the same become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the Issuer have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. Denominations; Exchange; Resolution. The Bonds are issuable solely as fully registered bonds in Authorized Denominations (as defined in the Resolution) and are exchangeable for fully registered Bonds of other Authorized Denominations in equal aggregate principal amounts at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, but only in the manner and subject to the limitations provided in the Resolution. Reference is hereby made to the Resolution for a description of the rights and duties of the Bond Registrar. Copies of the Resolution are on file in the principal office of the Bond Registrar. Transfer. This Bond is transferable by the Holder in person or by his, her or its attorney duly authorized in writing at the principal office of the Bond Registrar upon presentation and surrender hereof to the Bond Registrar, all subject to the terms and conditions provided in the Resolution and to reasonable regulations of the Issuer contained in any agreement with the Bond Registrar. Thereupon the Issuer shall execute and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in exchange for this Bond, one or more new fully registered Bonds in the name of the transferee (but not registered in blank or to "bearer" or similar designation), of an Authorized Denomination or Denominations, in aggregate principal amount equal to the principal amount of this Bond, of the same maturity and bearing interest at the same rate. Fees upon Transfer or Loss. The Bond Registrar may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge payable in connection with the transfer or exchange of this Bond and any legal or unusual costs regarding transfers and lost Bonds. Treatment of Registered Owners. The Issuer and Bond Registrar may treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment as herein provided (except as otherwise provided with respect to the Record Date) and for all other purposes, whether or not this Bond shall be overdue, and neither the Issuer nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by notice to the contrary. Authentication. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security unless the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been executed by the Bond Registrar. Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligation. This Bond has been designated by the Issuer as a "qualified tax- exempt obligation" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to happen and to be performed, precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond, have been done, have happened and have been performed, in regular and due form, time and manner as required by law, and that this Bond, together with all other debts of the Issuer outstanding on the date of original issue hereof and the date of its issuance and delivery to the original purchaser, does not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota, by its City Council has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile signatures of its Mayor and its Clerk, the corporate seal of the Issuer having been intentionally omitted as permitted by law. Date of Registration: BOND REGISTRAR'S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the Resolution Registrable by: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Payable at: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY MINNESOTA /s/ Facsimile Packet Page Number 23 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 20 mentioned within. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION St. Paul, Minnesota Bond Registrar By Authorized Signature Mayor /s/ Facsimile Clerk ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM - as tenants in common TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common UTMA - ___________ as custodian for _____________ (Cust) (Minor) under the _____________________ Uniform (State) Transfers to Minors Act Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto _________________________________________________________ the within Bond and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint _________________ attorney to transfer the Bond on the books kept for the registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Notice: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or any change whatever. Signature Guaranteed: ___________________________ Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a national bank or trust company or by a brokerage firm having a membership in one of the major stock exchanges or any other "Eligible Guarantor Institution" as defined in 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-15(a)(2). The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning the transferee requested below is provided. Name and Address: Packet Page Number 24 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 21 (Include information for all joint owners if the Bond is held by joint account.) PREPAYMENT SCHEDULE This Bond has been prepaid in part on the date(s) and in the amount(s) as follows: DATE AMOUNT AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE OF HOLDER 8. Execution; Temporary Bonds. The Bonds shall be printed (or, at the request of the Purchaser, typewritten) and shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of its Mayor and Clerk and be sealed with the seal of the City; provided, however, that the seal of the City may be a printed (or, at the request of the Purchaser, photocopied) facsimile; and provided further that both of such signatures may be printed (or, at the request of the Purchaser, photocopied) facsimiles and the corporate seal may be omitted on the Bonds as permitted by law. In the event of disability or resignation or other absence of either such officer, the Bonds may be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of Packet Page Number 25 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 22 that officer who may act on behalf of such absent or disabled officer. In case either such officer whose signature or facsimile of whose signature shall appear on the Bonds shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Bonds, such signature or facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if he or she had remained in office until delivery. The City may elect to deliver, in lieu of printed definitive bonds, one or more typewritten temporary bonds in substantially the form set forth above, with such changes as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a single temporary bond. Such temporary bonds may be executed with photocopied facsimile signatures of the Mayor and Clerk. Such temporary bonds shall, upon the printing of the definitive bonds and the execution thereof, be exchanged therefor and canceled. 9. Authentication 10. . No Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under this resolution unless a Certificate of Authentication on such Bond, substantially in the form hereinabove set forth, shall have been duly executed by an authorized representative of the Bond Registrar. Certificates of Authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the same person. The Bond Registrar shall authenticate the signatures of officers of the City on each Bond by execution of the Certificate of Authentication on the Bond and by inserting as the date of registration in the space provided the date on which the Bond is authenticated, except that for purposes of delivering the original Bonds to the Purchaser, the Bond Registrar shall insert as a date of registration the date of original issue, which date is June 1, 2011. The Certificate of Authentication so executed on each Bond shall be conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this resolution. Registration; Transfer; Exchange Upon surrender for transfer of any Bond at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, the City shall execute (if necessary), and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate, insert the date of registration (as provided in paragraph 9) of, and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of any Authorized Denomination or Denominations of a like aggregate principal amount, having the same stated maturity and interest rate, as requested by the transferor; provided, however, that no Bond may be registered in blank or in the name of "bearer" or similar designation. . The City will cause to be kept at the principal office of the Bond Registrar a bond register in which, subject to such reasonable regulations as the Bond Registrar may prescribe, the Bond Registrar shall provide for the registration of Bonds and the registration of transfers of Bonds entitled to be registered or transferred as herein provided. At the option of the Holder, Bonds may be exchanged for Bonds of any Authorized Denomination or Denominations of a like aggregate principal amount and stated maturity, upon surrender of the Bonds to be exchanged at the principal office of the Bond Registrar. Whenever any Bonds are so surrendered for exchange, the City shall execute (if necessary), and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate, insert the date of registration of, and deliver the Bonds which the Holder making the exchange is entitled to receive. All Bonds surrendered upon any exchange or transfer provided for in this resolution shall be promptly canceled by the Bond Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. All Bonds delivered in exchange for or upon transfer of Bonds shall be valid general obligations of the City evidencing the same debt, and entitled to the same benefits under this resolution, as the Bonds surrendered for such exchange or transfer. Every Bond presented or surrendered for transfer or exchange shall be duly endorsed or be accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the Holder thereof or his, her or its attorney duly authorized in writing. The Bond Registrar may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge payable in connection with the transfer or exchange of any Bond and any legal or unusual costs regarding transfers and lost Bonds. Transfers shall also be subject to reasonable regulations of the City contained in any agreement with the Bond Registrar, including regulations which permit the Bond Registrar to close its transfer books between record dates and payment dates. The Clerk is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute the terms of said agreement. Packet Page Number 26 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 23 11. Rights Upon Transfer or Exchange 12. . Each Bond delivered upon transfer of or in exchange for or in lieu of any other Bond shall carry all the rights to interest accrued and unpaid, and to accrue, which were carried by such other Bond. Interest Payment; Record Date 13. . Interest on any Bond shall be paid on each Interest Payment Date by check or draft mailed to the person in whose name the Bond is registered (the "Holder") on the registration books of the City maintained by the Bond Registrar and at the address appearing thereon at the close of business on the fifteenth (15th) day of the calendar month next preceding such Interest Payment Date (the "Regular Record Date"). Any such interest not so timely paid shall cease to be payable to the person who is the Holder thereof as of the Regular Record Date, and shall be payable to the person who is the Holder thereof at the close of business on a date (the "Special Record Date") fixed by the Bond Registrar whenever money becomes available for payment of the defaulted interest. Notice of the Special Record Date shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the Holders not less than ten (10) days prior to the Special Record Date. Treatment of Registered Owner 14. . The City and Bond Registrar may treat the person in whose name any Bond is registered as the owner of such Bond for the purpose of receiving payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest (subject to the payment provisions in paragraph 12 above) on, such Bond and for all other purposes whatsoever whether or not such Bond shall be overdue, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by notice to the contrary. Delivery; Application of Proceeds 15. . The Bonds when so prepared and executed shall be delivered by the Finance Director to the Purchaser upon receipt of the purchase price, and the Purchaser shall not be obliged to see to the proper application thereof. Funds and Accounts There is hereby created a debt service fund to be designated the General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2011A Fund (the "Debt Service Fund") to be administered and maintained by the Finance Director as a bookkeeping account separate and apart from all other funds maintained in the official financial records of the City. The Debt Service Fund shall be maintained in the manner herein specified until all of the Bonds and the interest thereon have been fully paid. There are hereby irrevocably appropriated and pledged to, and there shall be credited to, the Debt Service Fund: (a) all collections of special assessments herein covenanted to be levied with respect to the Improvements and either initially . There has heretofore been created a capital projects fund designated the "Public Improvement Projects Fund" held and administered by the Finance Director separate and apart from all other funds of the City. The Public Improvement Projects Fund shall continue to be maintained in the manner heretofore specified. In the Public Improvement Projects Fund there shall be created and maintained separate construction accounts (the "Construction Accounts") for each improvement financed by this bond issue. To the Construction Accounts there shall be credited the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds, less accrued interest received thereon, and less capitalized interest and less any amount paid for the Bonds in excess of the minimum bid, plus any special assessments levied with respect to the Improvements and collected prior to completion of the Improvements and payment of the costs thereof. From the Construction Accounts there shall be paid all costs and expenses of making the Improvements listed in paragraph 16, including the cost of any construction contracts heretofore let and all other costs incurred and to be incurred of the kind authorized in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.65; and the moneys in said account shall be used for no other purpose except as otherwise provided by law; provided that the proceeds of the Bonds may also be used to the extent necessary to pay interest on the Bonds due prior to the anticipated date of commencement of the collection of taxes or special assessments herein levied or covenanted to be levied; and provided further that if upon completion of the Improvements there shall remain any unexpended balance in the Construction Accounts, the balance (other than any special assessments) may be transferred by the City Council to the accounts of any other improvement instituted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and provided further that any special assessments credited to the Construction Accounts shall only be applied towards payment of the costs of the Improvements upon adoption of a resolution by the City Council determining that the application of the special assessments for such purpose will not cause the City to no longer be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 1. Packet Page Number 27 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 24 credited to the Construction Accounts and not already spent as permitted above and required to pay any principal and interest due on the Bonds or collected subsequent to the completion of the Improvements and payment of the costs thereof; (b) all accrued interest received upon delivery of the Bonds; (c) all funds paid for the Bonds in excess of the minimum bid; (d) capitalized interest in the amount of $_______, sufficient to pay interest due on the Bonds on or before February 1, 2012; (e) any collections of all taxes herein or hereafter levied for the payment of the principal and interest on the Bonds; (f) all funds remaining in the Construction Accounts after completion of the Improvements and payment of the costs thereof, not so transferred to the account of another improvement; (g) all investment earnings on funds held in the Debt Service Fund; and (h) any and all other moneys which are properly available and are appropriated by the governing body of the City to the Debt Service Fund. The Debt Service Fund shall be used solely to pay the principal and interest and any premiums for redemption of the Bonds and any other general obligation bonds of the City hereafter issued by the City and made payable from said account as provided by law. No portion of the proceeds of the Bonds shall be used directly or indirectly to acquire higher yielding investments or to replace funds which were used directly or indirectly to acquire higher yielding investments, except (i) for a reasonable temporary period until such proceeds are needed for the purpose for which the Bonds were issued and (ii) in addition to the above in an amount not greater than the lesser of five percent of the proceeds of the Bonds or $100,000. To this effect, any proceeds of the Bonds and any sums from time to time held in the Construction Accounts or Debt Service Fund (or any other City account which will be used to pay principal or interest to become due on the bonds payable therefrom) in excess of amounts which under then-applicable federal arbitrage regulations may be invested without regard to yield shall not be invested at a yield in excess of the applicable yield restrictions imposed by said arbitrage regulations on such investments after taking into account any applicable "temporary periods" or "minor portion" made available under the federal arbitrage regulations. Money in the Fund shall not be invested in obligations or deposits issued by, guaranteed by or insured by the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof if and to the extent that such investment would cause the Bonds to be "federally guaranteed" within the meaning of Section 149(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"). 16. Assessments Improvement Designation . It is hereby determined that no less than twenty percent (20%) of the cost to the City of each Improvement financed hereunder within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.58, Subdivision 1(3), shall be paid by special assessments to be levied against every assessable lot, piece and parcel of land benefitted by any of the Improvements. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will let all construction contracts not heretofore let within one year after ordering each Improvement financed hereunder unless the resolution ordering the Improvement specifies a different time limit for the letting of construction contracts. The City hereby further covenants and agrees that it will do and perform as soon as they may be done all acts and things necessary for the final and valid levy of such special assessments, and in the event that any such assessment be at any time held invalid with respect to any lot, piece or parcel of land due to any error, defect, or irregularity in any action or proceedings taken or to be taken by the City or the City Council or any of the City officers or employees, either in the making of the assessments or in the performance of any condition precedent thereto, the City and the City Council will forthwith do all further acts and take all further proceedings as may be required by law to make the assessments a valid and binding lien upon such property. The special assessments have heretofore been authorized in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55, Subdivision 3. The assessments are payable in equal annual installments with interest on the declining balance at the rates specified below. Subject to such adjustments as are required by conditions in existence at the time the assessments are levied, the assessments are hereby authorized and it is hereby determined that the assessments shall be payable in equal, consecutive, annual installments, with general taxes for the years shown below and with interest on the declining balance of all such assessments at a rate per annum not greater than the maximum permitted by law and not less than the rates per annum specified below: Amount Levy Years Collection Years Rates $______ 2011-20__ 2011-20__ ____% Packet Page Number 28 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 25 At the time the assessments are in fact levied the City Council shall, based on the then-current estimated collections of the assessments, make any adjustments in any ad valorem taxes required to be levied in order to assure that the City continues to be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 1. 17. Tax Levy; Coverage Test Year of . To provide moneys for payment of the principal and interest on the Bonds there is hereby levied upon all of the taxable property in the City a direct annual ad valorem tax which shall be spread upon the tax rolls and collected with and as part of other general property taxes in the City for the years and in the amounts as follows: Tax Levy Year of Tax Collection Amount SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE The tax levies are such that if collected in full they, together with estimated collections of special assessments and other revenues herein pledged for the payment of the Bonds, will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Bonds. The tax levies shall be irrepealable so long as any of the Bonds are outstanding and unpaid, provided that the City reserves the right and power to reduce the levies in the manner and to the extent permitted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3. 18. Defeasance 19. . When all Bonds have been discharged as provided in this paragraph, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this resolution to the registered holders of the Bonds shall, to the extent permitted by law, cease. The City may discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds which are due on any date by irrevocably depositing with the Bond Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full; or if any Bond should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Bond Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit. The City may also discharge its obligations with respect to any prepayable Bonds called for redemption on any date when they are prepayable according to their terms, by depositing with the Bond Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full, provided that notice of redemption thereof has been duly given. The City may also at any time discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds, subject to the provisions of law now or hereafter authorizing and regulating such action, by depositing irrevocably in escrow, with a suitable banking institution qualified by law as an escrow agent for this purpose, cash or securities described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, Subdivision 8, bearing interest payable at such times and at such rates and maturing on such dates as shall be required, without regard to sale and/or reinvestment, to pay all amounts to become due thereon to maturity or, if notice of redemption as herein required has been duly provided for, to such earlier redemption date. Compliance With Reimbursement Bond Regulations The City hereby certifies and/or covenants as follows: . The provisions of this paragraph are intended to establish and provide for the City's compliance with United States Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 (the "Reimbursement Regulations") applicable to the "reimbursement proceeds" of the Bonds, being those portions thereof which will be used by the City to reimburse itself for any expenditure which the City paid or will have paid prior to the Closing Date (a "Reimbursement Expenditure"). (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of payment of a Reimbursement Expenditure, the City (or person designated to do so on behalf of the City) has made or will have made a written declaration of the City's official intent (a "Declaration") which effectively (i) states the City's reasonable expectation to reimburse itself for the payment of the Reimbursement Expenditure out of the proceeds of a subsequent borrowing; (ii) gives a general and functional description of the property, project or program to which the Declaration relates and for which the Reimbursement Expenditure is paid, or identifies a specific fund or account of the City and the general functional purpose thereof from which the Reimbursement Expenditure was to be paid (collectively the "Project"); and (iii) states the maximum principal amount of debt expected to be issued by the City for the purpose of financing the Project; Packet Page Number 29 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 26 provided, however, that no such Declaration shall necessarily have been made with respect to: (i) "preliminary expenditures" for the Project, defined in the Reimbursement Regulations to include engineering or architectural, surveying and soil testing expenses and similar prefatory costs, which in the aggregate do not exceed 20% of the "issue price" of the Bonds, and (ii) a de minimis amount of Reimbursement Expenditures not in excess of the lesser of $100,000 or 5% of the proceeds of the Bonds. (b) Each Reimbursement Expenditure is a capital expenditure or a cost of issuance of the Bonds or any of the other types of expenditures described in Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Reimbursement Regulations. (c) The "reimbursement allocation" described in the Reimbursement Regulations for each Reimbursement Expenditure shall and will be made forthwith following (but not prior to) the issuance of the Bonds and in all events within the period ending on the date which is the later of three years after payment of the Reimbursement Expenditure or one year after the date on which the Project to which the Reimbursement Expenditure relates is first placed in service. (d) Each such reimbursement allocation will be made in a writing that evidences the City's use of Bond proceeds to reimburse the Reimbursement Expenditure and, if made within 30 days after the Bonds are issued, shall be treated as made on the day the Bonds are issued. Provided, however, that the City may take action contrary to any of the foregoing covenants in this paragraph 19 upon receipt of an opinion of its Bond Counsel for the Bonds stating in effect that such action will not impair the tax-exempt status of the Bonds. 1. Continuing Disclosure (a) Provide or cause to be provided to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the "MSRB") by filing at www.emma.msrb.org in accordance with the Rule, certain annual financial information and operating data in accordance with the Undertaking. The City reserves the right to modify from time to time the terms of the Undertaking as provided therein. . The City is the sole obligated person with respect to the Bonds. The City hereby agrees, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule"), promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking") hereinafter described to: (b) Provide or cause to be provided to the MSRB notice of the occurrence of certain events with respect to the Bonds in not more than ten (10) business days after the occurrence of the event, in accordance with the Undertaking. (c) Provide or cause to be provided to the MSRB notice of a failure by the City to provide the annual financial information with respect to the City described in the Undertaking, in not more than ten (10) business days following such amendment. (d) The City agrees that its covenants pursuant to the Rule set forth in this paragraph and in the Undertaking is intended to be for the benefit of the Holders of the Bonds and shall be enforceable on behalf of such Holders; provided that the right to enforce the provisions of these covenants shall be limited to a right to obtain specific enforcement of the City's obligations under the covenants. The Mayor and Clerk of the City, or any other officer of the City authorized to act in their place (the "Officers") are hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the City the Undertaking in substantially the form presented to the City Council subject to such modifications thereof or additions thereto as are (i) consistent with the requirements under the Rule, (ii) required by the Purchaser of the Bonds, and (iii) acceptable to the Officers. Packet Page Number 30 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 27 21. General Obligation Pledge 22. . For the prompt and full payment of the principal and interest on the Bonds, as the same respectively become due, the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the City shall be and are hereby irrevocably pledged. If the balance in the Debt Service Fund is ever insufficient to pay all principal and interest then due on the Bonds and any other bonds payable therefrom, the deficiency shall be promptly paid out of any other funds of the City which are available for such purpose, and such other funds may be reimbursed with or without interest from the Debt Service Fund when a sufficient balance is available therein. Certificate of Registration 23. . A certified copy of this resolution is hereby directed to filed in the offices of the County Auditor of Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with such other information such County Auditor shall require, and to obtain the County Auditor's certificate that the Bonds have been entered in the County Auditor's Bond Register, and that the tax levy required by law has been made. Records and Certificates 24. . The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser, and to the attorneys approving the legality of the issuance of the Bonds, certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other affidavits, certificates and information as are required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds as the same appear from the books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the facts recited therein. Negative Covenant as to Use of Proceeds and Improvements 25. . The City hereby covenants not to use the proceeds of the Bonds or to use the Improvements, or to cause or permit them to be used, or to enter into any deferred payment arrangements for the cost of the Improvements, in such a manner as to cause the Bonds to be "private activity bonds" within the meaning of Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the Code. Tax-Exempt Status of the Bonds; Rebate; Elections 26. . The City shall comply with requirements necessary under the Code to establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income under Section 103 of the Code of the interest on the Bonds, including without limitation (i) requirements relating to temporary periods for investments, (ii) limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Bonds, and (iii) the rebate of excess investment earnings to the United States. The City expects to satisfy the 24-month expenditure exemption for gross proceeds of the Bonds as provided in Section 1.148-7(d)(1) of the Regulations. The Mayor, the Clerk or either one of them, are hereby authorized and directed to make such elections as to arbitrage and rebate matters relating to the Bonds as they deem necessary, appropriate or desirable in connection with the Bonds, and all such elections shall be, and shall be deemed and treated as, elections of the City. Designation of Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations (a) the Bonds are issued after August 7, 1986; . In order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, the City hereby makes the following factual statements and representations: (b) the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" as defined in Section 141 of the Code; (c) the City hereby designates the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; (d) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds, treating qualified 501(c)(3) bonds as not being private activity bonds) which will be issued by the City (and all entities treated as one issuer with the City, and all subordinate entities whose obligations are treated as issued by the City) during this calendar year 2011 will not exceed $10,000,000; and Packet Page Number 31 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 28 (e) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by the City during this calendar year 2011 have been designated for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. The City shall use its best efforts to comply with any federal procedural requirements which may apply in order to effectuate the designation made by this paragraph. 27. Severability 28. . If any section, paragraph or provision of this resolution shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this resolution. Headings The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Koppen and, after a full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: . Headings in this resolution are included for convenience of reference only and are not a part hereof, and shall not limit or define the meaning of any provision hereof. All councilmembers voted for and the following voted against the same: None Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF MAPLEWOOD I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City, duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to considering bids for, and awarding the competitive negotiated sale of, $10,000,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2011A. WITNESS my hand on May 9, 2011. ______________________________ Clerk Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All The motion passed. 3. Consider Approval of Emerald Ash Borer Plan a. Park & Recreation Manager, DuWayne Konewko gave the report and answered questions of the council. b. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl answered questions of the council. c. City Manager, James Antonen answered questions of the council. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All The motion passed. Packet Page Number 32 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 29 Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the RFP for the boulevard tree inventory plan and payment for this shall be from available monies in the tree preservation fund, the available fund balance in the CIP fund is not to exceed $10,000, and not to take money from the community fields and park upgrades but instead find any balance necessary from fund reserves. Seconded by Councilmember Llanas. Ayes – Mayor Rossbach, Councilmember’s Juenemann, Llanas & Nephew Nay – Councilmember Koppen The motion passed. J. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consider Approval of the Tax-Increment Financing Development Agreement for the Shores Seniors Living Facility Located at 940 Frost Avenue a. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl gave the report and answered questions of the council. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the TIF Development Agreement for the Shores Seniors Living Facility located at 940 Frost Avenue. Seconded by Councilmember Llanas. Ayes – All The motion passed. 2. Approval of Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Roseville for Shared Engineering Services a. City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompson gave the report and answered questions of the council. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the joint powers agreement with the City of Roseville for Shared Engineering Services and authorizes the Mayor and city Manager to execute said agreement. Furthermore, minor adjustments to the agreement, if needed prior to obtaining signatures, are hereby authorized to be made by the City Attorney. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All The motion passed. 3. Approval of the Goodrich Park Master Plan a. Parks & Recreation Director, DuWayne Konewko introduced the item. b. Recreation Supervisor, Jim Taylor gave the report on the Goodrich Park Master Plan. c. Landscape Architect, SEH, Veronica Anderson gave further information on the Goodrich Park Master Plan. d. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud answered questions of the council. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Goodrich Park Master Plan. Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes – All Packet Page Number 33 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 30 The motion passed. 4. Approval to Proceed with MCC Repair and Improvements and Request for Advancement of Funds a. Parks & Recreation Director, DuWayne Konewko introduced the item and answered questions of the council. b. Aquatic Program Supervisor, Ron Horwath gave the report and answered questions of the council. c. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl addressed and answered questions of the council. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve to spend one time monies from the city’s general fund of $150,000 as recommended at the 4/11/2011 Council Workshop and to advance funds from 2012, with the understanding that the tax levy allocated to the MCC Fund in 2012 will increase as proposed in the 2012-2016 CIP, in an amount not to exceed $75,000 to complete these projects throughout the 2011 fiscal year. Seconded by Mayor Rossbach. Ayes – All The motion passed. K. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS . 1. Bob Zick, North St. Paul. Mr. Zick spoke about the 2011-2013 city council goals and he encouraged citizens to sign up for elections to serve on the Maplewood City Council. The filing period is open from Ma y 17 – May 31, 2011. 2. Mark Bradley, Maplewood. Mr. Bradley said one good thing in Maplewood is the Maplewood Business & Economic Development Commission. Mr. Bradley talked at length about the Emergency Response Routes going North-South and East-West and the emergency vehicle response times. L. AWARD OF BIDS None. M. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS None. N. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. Fallen Officer Memorial – Councilmember Juenemann thanked everyone involved with the Fallen Police Officer Memorial Sunday, May 8, 2011. 2. Trash Group – Councilmember Nephew said the trash work group meeting was held at city hall in the council chambers Friday, May 6th from 1:00-3:00 and was televised on cable and will be replayed on GTN. 3. Redistricting – Councilmember Nephew informed citizens that 2011 is a redistricting year since the census was taken in 2010. The proposed plan would give the City of Maplewood 4 Packet Page Number 34 of 350 May 9, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes 31 different state representatives and 3 different state senators. Councilmember Nephew asked staff if the city will have to have to redraw precinct boundaries if the current redistricting proposal is approved. Staff will bring further information regarding redistricting to the council in the near future. 4. Municipal Legislative Commission Meeting with Governor Dayton – Mayor Rossbach gave a brief report on the meeting with Governor Dayton. O. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Rossbach adjourned the meeting at 11:08 p.m. Packet Page Number 35 of 350 Packet Page Number 36 of 350 Packet Page Number 37 of 350 Packet Page Number 38 of 350 Packet Page Number 39 of 350 Packet Page Number 40 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 AGENDA NO.G-1 TO:City Council FROM:Finance Manager RE:APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: 128,846.83$ Checks # 84242 thru # 84290 dated 05/04/11 thru 05/10/11 356,246.15$ Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 04/28/11 thru 05/06/11 242,346.07$ Checks # 84291 thru # 84357 dated 05/09/11 thru 05/17/11 138,393.53$ Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 05/06/11 thru 05/13/11 865,832.58$ Total Accounts Payable 533,036.90$ Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 05/13/11 2,883.96$ Payroll Deduction check # 9984282 thru # 9984286 dated 05/13/11 535,920.86$ Total Payroll 1,401,753.44$ GRAND TOTAL kf attachments Attached is a detailed listing of these claims. Please call me at 651-249-2902 if you have any questions on the attached listing. This will allow me to check the supporting documentation on file if necessary. PAYROLL AGENDA REPORT May 23, 2011 Attached is a listing of paid bills for informational purposes. The City Manager has reviewed the bills and authorized payment in accordance with City Council approved policies. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: Packet Page Number 41 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 Check Description Amount 84242 02464 FUNDS FOR ATMS 20,000.00 84243 04842 ZUMBA INSTRUCTION 270.00 84244 00585 NET BILLABLE TICKETS - APRIL 916.60 84245 00393 MONTHLY SURTAX - APRIL 11516123035 2,120.70 84246 04265 ZUMBA INSTRUCTION - APRIL 525.00 84247 02274 SPRINT SRVS 3/15 - 4/14 6,396.36 84248 04845 RECYCLING - APRIL 27,499.50 84249 01750 MDSE FOR RESALE 206.00 84250 01190 PROJ 09-04 RELOCATE POWER POLES 28,200.00 84251 01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 14,183.43 84252 00001 PETER FRANK - WAGES 347.28 84253 04277 RAINBARRELS FOR RESALE NC 550.00 84254 04879 REPAIR TURNOUT GEAR 207.90 84255 03833 MAINT FOR PD TICKET WRITER PROG 5,453.82 84256 00157 PROJ 10-14 TESTING 4,533.82 84257 04549 ZUMBA INSTRUCTION 185.60 84258 03619 PROJ 10-14 TELEVISING 470.00 03619 PROJ 10-14 TELEVISING 270.00 03619 PROJ 10-14 TELEVISING 170.00 84259 04878 REPAIR TURNOUT GEAR 215.97 84260 04880 REIMB FOR MILEAGE 1/7 - 3/28 63.64 84261 03809 RED CROSS INSTRUCTION 120.00 84262 00788 OVERPD REIMB ON HIS 4/22 VISA 5.00 84263 00857 REGISTRATION FEES WILL ROSSBACH 295.00 84264 00983 LEASE PMT 04/15 - 05/15 1,137.15 84265 00001 REFUND E DOLLERSCHELL UCARE BENEFI 145.75 84266 00001 REFUND E BIAGI BC BENEFIT 100.00 84267 00001 REFUND D ARCHER AMB 08120 85.83 84268 00001 REFUND H BATE MEDICA BENEFIT 40.00 84269 00001 REFUND S EVANS BCBS BENEFIT 40.00 84270 00001 REFUND GRAMSE HP BENEFIT 40.00 84271 00001 REFUND J ALICEA BCBS BENEFIT 20.00 84272 00001 REFUND V GALLION HP BENEFIT 20.00 84273 00001 REFUND P STERZINGER BCBS BENEFIT 20.00 84274 00001 REFUND J ZAJAC BCBS BENEFIT 20.00 84275 00001 REFUND M HIGGINS UCARE BENEFIT 15.00 84276 00001 REFUND R JUDEEN UCARE BENEFIT 15.00 84277 00001 REFUND E MINOGUE UCARE BENEFIT 15.00 84278 03152 REIMB FOR MEAL & MILEAGE 4/19 27.55 84279 01345 RECORDING FEES 46.00 01345 RECORDING FEES 46.00 84280 01341 MEMBERSHIP DUES 60.00 84281 04054 D.J. SERVICES FOR MCC 175.00 84282 03446 DEER PICKUP - APRIL 100.00 84283 03073 CONSULTING TROUTBROOK TR - MARCH 235.75 84284 04875 PROJ 04-21 BID AD 231.00 84285 00198 WATER UTILITY 1,212.69 84286 04207 STAIR CHAIRS 8,296.36 84287 01550 ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS - APRIL 1,219.00 84288 02705 CERTIFICATION FEE 160.00 84289 04528 ZUMBA INSTRUCTION - APRIL 190.00 84290 02464 PAYING AGENT FEES 431.25 02464 PAYING AGENT FEES 431.25 84290 02464 PAYING AGENT FEES 425.00 05/10/2011 US BANK 05/10/2011 US BANK 05/10/2011 DAVE SWAN 05/10/2011 SARA M. R. THOMPSON 05/10/2011 US BANK 05/10/2011 ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER SRVS 05/10/2011 STRYKER SALES CORP. 05/10/2011 SUMMIT INSPECTIONS 05/10/2011 RICK JOHNSON DEER & BEAVER INC 05/10/2011 SANDERS WACKER BERGLY INC 05/10/2011 SGC HORIZON LLC 05/10/2011 RAMSEY COUNTY 05/10/2011 RAMSEY CTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSN 05/10/2011 STEVEN REED 05/10/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/10/2011 KELLY PRINS 05/10/2011 RAMSEY COUNTY 05/10/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/10/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/10/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/10/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/10/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/10/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/10/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/10/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/10/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/10/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/10/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/10/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/10/2011 FLINT KARIS 05/10/2011 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 05/10/2011 METRO SALES INC 05/10/2011 GEAR WASH, LLC 05/10/2011 SHEILA HEINRICH 05/10/2011 CASIE JACKSON 05/10/2011 DRAIN KING INC 05/10/2011 DRAIN KING INC 05/10/2011 DRAIN KING INC 05/10/2011 ADVANCED PUBLIC SAFETY, INC. 05/10/2011 BARR ENGINEERING CO 05/10/2011 JAN ALICE CAMPBELL 05/06/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/06/2011 ORBIS CORP. 05/10/2011 911 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 05/10/2011 THE WATSON CO INC 05/10/2011 XCEL ENERGY 05/10/2011 XCEL ENERGY 05/10/2011 MARIA PIRELA 05/10/2011 SPRINT 05/10/2011 TENNIS SANITATION LLC 05/10/2011 MARY JOSEPHINE ANDERSON 05/10/2011 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL 05/10/2011 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY Check Register City of Maplewood 05/06/2011 Date Vendor 05/04/2011 US BANK Packet Page Number 42 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 02464 PAYING AGENT FEES 425.00 02464 PAYING AGENT FEES 215.6305/10/2011 US BANK 128,846.8349Checks in this report. 05/10/2011 US BANK Packet Page Number 43 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee Description Amount 4/28/2011 5/2/2011 P.E.R.A.P.E.R.A.87,094.49 4/28/2011 5/2/2011 U.S. Treasurer Federal Payroll Tax 98,408.56 4/28/2011 5/2/2011 US Bank Merchant Services Credit Card Billing fee 2,174.85 4/29/2011 5/2/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 14,786.54 4/28/2011 5/3/2011 Labor Unions Union Dues 5,642.71 4/28/2011 5/3/2011 MN State Treasurer State Payroll Tax 21,562.17 4/28/2011 5/3/2011 MidAmerica - ING HRA Flex plan 16,061.92 5/2/2011 5/3/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 36,949.68 5/3/2011 5/4/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 27,823.11 5/4/2011 5/5/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 21,969.24 5/4/2011 5/5/2011 Pitney Bowes Postage 2,985.00 5/5/2011 5/6/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 17,419.75 5/5/2011 5/6/2011 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 2,622.00 4/28/2011 5/6/2011 Optum Health DCRP & Flex plan payments 746.13 TOTAL 356,246.15 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Packet Page Number 44 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 Check Description Amount 84291 04144 PROJ 04-21 TEMPORARY EASEMENT 1,655.28 84292 00240 APPLICANT BACKGROUND CHECKS 60.00 84293 00353 STATIONERY ORDER FOR 2011 7,330.96 84294 04060 SCBA PARTS 1,889.25 84295 01149 PILE BUCKTHORN AT APPLEWOOD PRESE 2,468.81 84296 01337 PROJ 10-13 EASEMENT RECORDING FEE 46.00 84297 01409 DESIGN & SPECS JOY PARK PHASE II 5,977.66 84298 01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 1,453.06 84299 01798 CONTRACT GAOLINE - MAY 16,689.52 01798 CONTRACT DIESEL - MAY 8,801.93 01798 REMOVE WATER FROM TANKS-VACUUM 708.20 84300 00111 BOARDING & DESTRUCTION FEES 803.89 84301 02473 DANCE COSTUMES 1,209.92 84302 02324 BUCKTHORN REMOVAL-BEAVER CREEK 4,099.20 84303 04828 PIANO TUNING MCC MAY 4 90.00 84304 04419 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE 336.00 84305 03513 REIMB FOR MEALS 4/17 - 4/19 65.06 84306 04260 REFUND TRANS MEDIC PATIENTS 1,885.06 84307 01871 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE 72.00 84308 00241 MEMBER CARDS - KEY TAGS 1,145.00 84309 02743 SECURITY OFFICER MCC APRIL 30 157.50 84310 00412 BOOKS FOR EFFECTIVE MGMT PROG 76.89 00412 BOOKS FOR EFFECTIVE MGMT PROG 76.89 00412 BOOKS FOR ADV EFFECTIVE MGMT PROG 73.68 84311 00420 VEHICLE CLEANING & DETAILING 363.36 84312 04374 AMBUTRAK LICENSE FEE 399.00 84313 00003 ESCROW RELEASE ALDI, INC. 09-14 2,244.06 84314 00543 RICOH COPIER LEASE - APRIL 352.69 84315 00561 REBUILD LIFT STATION 14 PUMP 2 & 1 2,725.89 84316 03538 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE 360.00 84317 00827 CLAIM DEDUCTIBLE #11074540 7,003.34 00827 CLAIM DEDUCTIBLE #11076736 1,034.23 84318 04884 DISPOSAL OF TILE FROM FLEET SRVS 132.41 84319 04446 GUITAR INSTRUCTION 259.00 84320 04142 DANCE INSTRUCTION 70.00 84321 04056 CERTIFICATION EXAMS 200.00 84322 01089 UNEMPLOYMENT - 1ST QTR 11,083.93 84323 04807 2011 MACK GU813 111,428.21 84324 00001 REFUND UNITED HEALTHCARE T MEDIC 1,237.37 84325 00001 REFUND B ROSLEE TRANS MEDIC 415.09 84326 00001 REFUND K HEREID EVENT CANCELLED 350.00 84327 00001 REFUND C WALTERS HP BENEFIT 260.00 84328 00001 REFUND B HENDERSON TRANS MEDIC 212.00 84329 00001 REFUND C MADSON BCBS BENEFIT 100.00 84330 00001 REFUND L BEITEL TRANS MEDIC 80.07 84331 00001 REFUND J HALVERSON BCBS BENEFIT 80.00 84332 00001 REFUND J ANDREA BC BENEFIT 60.00 84333 00001 REFUND M BARBARIS MEDICA 48.93 84334 00001 REFUND E NELSON TRANS MEDIC 43.41 84335 00001 REFUND D STEMIG BCBS BENEFIT 40.00 84336 00001 REFUND J PETERSON HP BENEFIT 20.00 84337 01863 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE 48.00 84338 04829 REIMB FOR TUITION & BOOKS 1/11 - 4/30 1,243.92 Check Register City of Maplewood 05/13/2011 Date Vendor 05/09/2011 MINNESOTA DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOUR 05/17/2011 NATURAL RESOURCES RESTOR INC 05/17/2011 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 05/17/2011 S.E.H. 05/17/2011 C.S.C. CREDIT SERVICES 05/17/2011 CURTIS 1000, INC. - MINNESOTA 05/17/2011 MES - MIDAM 05/17/2011 YOCUM OIL CO. 05/17/2011 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES 05/17/2011 MANDI ANZALDI 05/17/2011 XCEL ENERGY 05/17/2011 YOCUM OIL CO. 05/17/2011 YOCUM OIL CO. 05/17/2011 BRIAN BIERDEMAN 05/17/2011 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MN 05/17/2011 KENNETH COOPER 05/17/2011 APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 05/17/2011 BALAND'S PAPAGENO PIANO TUNING 05/17/2011 LOUISE A. BEAMAN 05/17/2011 DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES 05/17/2011 DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES 05/17/2011 DOWNTOWNER DETAIL CENTER 05/17/2011 CSI SOFTWARE 05/17/2011 RICHARD DOBLAR 05/17/2011 DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES 05/17/2011 GENERAL REPAIR SERVICE 05/17/2011 PATRICK JAMES HUBBARD 05/17/2011 L M C I T 05/17/2011 EMS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC 05/17/2011 ESCROW REFUND 05/17/2011 GE CAPITAL 05/17/2011 POLLY MEYER 05/17/2011 MFSCB 05/17/2011 MN UC FUND 05/17/2011 L M C I T 05/17/2011 MAVO SYSTEMS 05/17/2011 MICHAEL H. MAY 05/17/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/17/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/17/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/17/2011 NUSS TRUCK & EQUIPMENT 05/17/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/17/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/17/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/17/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/17/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/17/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/17/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/17/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/17/2011 CHRISTIE PENN 05/17/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/17/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 05/17/2011 ROGER PACKER Packet Page Number 45 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 84338 04829 REIMB FOR TUITION & BOOKS 1/11-3/1 1,142.53 84339 04779 SPRING CLEANUP EVENT - RECYCLING 1,047.00 84340 02645 TRAINING 295.00 84341 01397 IRRIGATION BACKFLOW PRESURE TESTS 780.00 84342 02663 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE 144.00 84343 03879 EMS FEES - MAY 577.08 84344 04074 TAI CHI INSTRUCTION 246.00 84345 04238 CHARITABLE GAMBLING REIMB 14.98 84346 01463 MCC MASSAGES - 4/16 - 4/31 1,369.00 01463 MCC MASSAGES 4/1 - 4/15 1,258.00 84347 01903 FLOWERS CITY HALL 29.97 84348 04883 BLUE CARD TRAINING 850.00 84349 01836 PROJ 09-15 WATERMAIN & FIRE HYDRANT 6,677.39 01836 PROJ 09-15 WATERMAIN & FIRE HYDRANT 4,861.22 01836 PROJ 09-15 WATERMAIN & FIRE HYDRANT 4,308.27 84350 01528 MUSIC @ ARBOR DAY EVENT NC 150.00 84351 01566 REIMB FOR MILEAGE 2/4 - 4/14 106.08 84352 04882 SEALING & EPOXY COATING FLEET SRVS 1,000.00 84353 01578 LEATHER SAFETY GLOVES 528.00 84354 01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS NOT TO EXCEED 2,502.71 01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS NOT TO EXCEED 1,522.35 84355 03085 ESCROW RELEASE 03-37, 05-05, 08-02 4,834.82 84356 04192 EMS BILLING - APRIL 3,330.00 84357 04106 RECOVER OPERABLE WALLS MCC 5,705.00 05/17/2011 CHRISTIE PENN 05/17/2011 PPL INDUSTRIES, INC. 05/17/2011 SANSIO 05/17/2011 ELAINE SCHRADE 05/17/2011 SIMON PROPERTY GROUP 05/17/2011 PUBLIC AGENCY TRAINING COUNCIL 05/17/2011 RYAN PLUMBING & HEATING CO. 05/17/2011 CARL SAARION 05/17/2011 SPRING LAKE PARK FIRE DEPT INC 05/17/2011 CITY OF ST PAUL 05/17/2011 CITY OF ST PAUL 05/17/2011 SISTER ROSALIND GEFRE 05/17/2011 SISTER ROSALIND GEFRE 05/17/2011 EDNA SPANGLER 05/17/2011 SWEDE BRO, INC. 05/17/2011 T R F SUPPLY CO. 05/17/2011 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 05/17/2011 CITY OF ST PAUL 05/17/2011 KENNETH LYLE STEFFENSON 05/17/2011 RON SVENDSEN 05/17/2011 W.L. HALL CO. 242,346.0767Checks in this report. 05/17/2011 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 05/17/2011 TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES 05/17/2011 TRANS-MEDIC Packet Page Number 46 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee Description Amount 5/6/2011 5/9/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 12,806.07 5/9/2011 5/10/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 24,141.12 5/6/2011 5/11/2011 US Bank VISA One Card*Purchasing card items 47,960.99 5/10/2011 5/11/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 22,730.27 5/11/2011 5/12/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 14,541.94 5/12/2011 5/13/2011 ICMA (Vantagepointe)Deferred Compensation 4,087.76 5/12/2011 5/13/2011 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 1,528.00 5/12/2011 5/13/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 10,597.38 TOTAL 138,393.53 *Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Packet Page Number 47 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 CHECK #CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME 05/13/11 DEMULLING, JOSEPH 2,749.71 05/13/11 COFFEY, KEVIN 2,842.94 05/13/11 CROTTY, KERRY 3,575.20 05/13/11 BOHL, JOHN 3,328.47 05/13/11 BUSACK, DANIEL 3,313.05 05/13/11 BENJAMIN, MARKESE 2,687.63 05/13/11 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 3,314.90 05/13/11 BARTZ, PAUL 3,457.36 05/13/11 BELDE, STANLEY 2,954.18 05/13/11 ALDRIDGE, MARK 3,199.54 05/13/11 BAKKE, LONN 2,003.97 05/13/11 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,882.15 05/13/11 ABEL, CLINT 3,001.43 05/13/11 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 2,081.79 05/13/11 THOMALLA, DAVID 4,936.26 05/13/11 PALANK, MARY 1,886.77 05/13/11 POWELL, PHILIP 2,903.66 05/13/11 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,882.15 05/13/11 KVAM, DAVID 4,188.29 05/13/11 SCHOENECKER, LEIGH 986.61 05/13/11 WEAVER, KRISTINE 2,288.55 05/13/11 OSTER, ANDREA 1,886.78 05/13/11 RICHTER, CHARLENE 907.73 05/13/11 MECHELKE, SHERRIE 1,107.69 05/13/11 MOY, PAMELA 1,107.69 05/13/11 CORTESI, LUANNE 1,074.31 05/13/11 LARSON, MICHELLE 1,758.15 05/13/11 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 2,589.83 05/13/11 SPANGLER, EDNA 1,086.09 05/13/11 KROLL, LISA 1,627.96 05/13/11 NEPHEW, MICHELLE 1,610.35 05/13/11 CAREY, HEIDI 2,005.19 05/13/11 GUILFOILE, KAREN 4,376.43 05/13/11 KELSEY, CONNIE 2,569.24 05/13/11 RUEB, JOSEPH 2,493.80 05/13/11 DEBILZAN, JUDY 1,245.82 05/13/11 JACKSON, MARY 2,159.47 05/13/11 FORMANEK, KAREN 1,742.30 05/13/11 ANDERSON, CAROLE 1,436.16 05/13/11 RAMEAUX, THERESE 3,692.71 05/13/11 BAUMAN, GAYLE 3,860.96 05/13/11 JAHN, DAVID 2,142.41 05/13/11 HENNING, KARISSA 92.30 05/13/11 CHRISTENSON, SCOTT 2,500.03 05/13/11 FARR, LARRY 2,885.65 05/13/11 KOPPEN, MARVIN 416.42 05/13/11 LLANAS, JAMES 416.42 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD AMOUNT 05/13/11 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 416.42 05/13/11 BURLINGAME, SARAH 1,954.40 05/13/11 KANTRUD, HUGH 184.62 05/13/11 AHL, R. CHARLES 5,358.72 05/13/11 ANTONEN, JAMES 5,800.00 05/13/11 NEPHEW, JOHN 416.42 05/13/11 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 473.15 Packet Page Number 48 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 05/13/11 KARRAS, JAMIE 618.00 05/13/11 JONES, JONATHAN 96.00 05/13/11 KANE, ROBERT 661.50 05/13/11 HUTCHINSON, JAMES 231.00 05/13/11 JOHNSON, JAMES 780.00 05/13/11 HALWEG, JODI 2,648.38 05/13/11 HENDRICKSON, NICHOLAS 2,236.38 05/13/11 FASULO, WALTER 521.25 05/13/11 FOSSUM, ANDREW 2,575.55 05/13/11 DIERICH, REBECCA 261.00 05/13/11 EVERSON, PAUL 2,957.23 05/13/11 CRUMMY, CHARLES 204.00 05/13/11 DAWSON, RICHARD 2,648.38 05/13/11 CAPISTRANT, JOHN 264.00 05/13/11 CRAWFORD, RAYMOND 786.00 05/13/11 BRESIN, ROBERT 357.00 05/13/11 CAPISTRANT, JACOB 495.00 05/13/11 BOURQUIN, RON 840.00 05/13/11 BRADBURY, RYAN 213.00 05/13/11 BASSETT, BRENT 450.00 05/13/11 BAUMAN, ANDREW 2,751.80 05/13/11 ARKSEY, CHARLES 270.00 05/13/11 BAHL, DAVID 707.00 05/13/11 XIONG, KAO 2,908.67 05/13/11 ACOSTA, MARK 300.00 05/13/11 TRAN, JOSEPH 3,080.14 05/13/11 WENZEL, JAY 2,856.23 05/13/11 THEISEN, PAUL 3,389.30 05/13/11 THIENES, PAUL 3,386.71 05/13/11 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 2,954.18 05/13/11 TAUZELL, BRIAN 2,512.64 05/13/11 STEINER, JOSEPH 3,298.60 05/13/11 SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM 2,785.00 05/13/11 RHUDE, MATTHEW 2,887.72 05/13/11 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 4,060.51 05/13/11 PARKER, JAMES 1,929.85 05/13/11 REZNY, BRADLEY 2,579.08 05/13/11 NYE, MICHAEL 3,424.96 05/13/11 OLSON, JULIE 2,842.94 05/13/11 MCCARTY, GLEN 2,975.01 05/13/11 METRY, ALESIA 3,105.14 05/13/11 MARINO, JASON 3,314.90 05/13/11 MARTIN, JERROLD 3,001.43 05/13/11 LU, JOHNNIE 2,974.04 05/13/11 LYNCH, KATHERINE 1,895.18 05/13/11 LANGNER, SCOTT 3,293.35 05/13/11 LANGNER, TODD 2,785.00 05/13/11 KREKELER, NICHOLAS 842.40 05/13/11 KROLL, BRETT 2,921.60 05/13/11 KARIS, FLINT 38,030.53 05/13/11 KONG, TOMMY 2,882.45 05/13/11 JOHNSON, KEVIN 4,240.77 05/13/11 KALKA, THOMAS 896.28 05/13/11 HER, PHENG 2,423.48 05/13/11 HIEBERT, STEVEN 2,954.18 05/13/11 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 3,247.24 05/13/11 HAWKINSON JR, TIMOTHY 2,736.37 05/13/11 FRASER, JOHN 3,370.20 05/13/11 FRITZE, DEREK 2,687.63 05/13/11 FLOR, TIMOTHY 1,984.25 05/13/11 FORSYTHE, MARCUS 1,938.63 05/13/11 DUGAS, MICHAEL 3,418.03 05/13/11 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 3,112.67 05/13/11 DOBLAR, RICHARD 3,737.66 Packet Page Number 49 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 05/13/11 DEAVER, CHARLES 578.51 05/13/11 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 2,129.97 05/13/11 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 1,435.83 05/13/11 NAUGHTON, JOHN 2,125.35 05/13/11 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 2,127.66 05/13/11 HINNENKAMP, GARY 2,137.38 05/13/11 MARUSKA, MARK 3,183.11 05/13/11 ZIEMAN, SCOTT 149.10 05/13/11 EDSON, DAVID 2,171.67 05/13/11 LOVE, STEVEN 3,281.23 05/13/11 THOMPSON, MICHAEL 4,228.31 05/13/11 KUMMER, STEVEN 3,123.78 05/13/11 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,713.97 05/13/11 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 2,788.55 05/13/11 KREGER, JASON 2,148.07 05/13/11 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 2,459.75 05/13/11 JACOBSON, SCOTT 2,730.42 05/13/11 BURLINGAME, NATHAN 1,977.21 05/13/11 DUCHARME, JOHN 2,713.97 05/13/11 RUNNING, ROBERT 2,593.25 05/13/11 TEVLIN, TODD 2,437.27 05/13/11 NAGEL, BRYAN 3,408.40 05/13/11 OSWALD, ERICK 3,359.05 05/13/11 JONES, DONALD 2,125.35 05/13/11 MEISSNER, BRENT 1,840.55 05/13/11 EDGE, DOUGLAS 2,416.12 05/13/11 HAMRE, MILES 1,152.00 05/13/11 BUCKLEY, BRENT 2,532.80 05/13/11 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 2,125.35 05/13/11 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 3,075.09 05/13/11 BRINK, TROY 2,651.59 05/13/11 KNUTSON, LOIS 1,996.55 05/13/11 NIVEN, AMY 1,411.62 05/13/11 LUKIN, STEVEN 4,475.33 05/13/11 ZWIEG, SUSAN 2,234.18 05/13/11 WHITE, JOEL 540.00 05/13/11 GERVAIS-JR, CLARENCE 4,012.66 05/13/11 STREFF, MICHAEL 2,726.62 05/13/11 SVENDSEN, RONALD 3,548.79 05/13/11 SCHULTZ, JEROME 12.00 05/13/11 SEDLACEK, JEFFREY 2,648.38 05/13/11 RICE, CHRISTOPHER 462.00 05/13/11 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO 276.00 05/13/11 RAINEY, JAMES 510.00 05/13/11 RAVENWALD, CORINNE 336.00 05/13/11 PLACE, ANDREA 2,553.32 05/13/11 POWERS, KENNETH 390.00 05/13/11 PETERSON, MARK 546.00 05/13/11 PETERSON, ROBERT 2,944.33 05/13/11 OPHEIM, JOHN 374.50 05/13/11 PACHECO, ALPHONSE 165.00 05/13/11 NOWICKI, PAUL 416.00 05/13/11 OLSON, JAMES 2,693.05 05/13/11 NIELSEN, KENNETH 300.00 05/13/11 NOVAK, JEROME 2,648.38 05/13/11 MONSON, PETER 261.00 05/13/11 MORGAN, JEFFERY 591.50 05/13/11 MELLEN, CHRISTOPHER 147.00 05/13/11 MILLER, NICHOLAS 297.00 05/13/11 LINDER, TIMOTHY 2,411.97 05/13/11 LOCHEN, MICHAEL 192.00 05/13/11 KONDER, RONALD 225.00 05/13/11 KUBAT, ERIC 2,189.88 05/13/11 KERSKA, JOSEPH 447.00 Packet Page Number 50 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 05/13/11 CLARK, PAMELA 96.50 05/13/11 BUTLER, ANGELA 51.00 05/13/11 CAMPBELL, JESSICA 1,518.30 05/13/11 BRUSOE, CRISTINA 45.20 05/13/11 BUCKLEY, BRITTANY 153.25 05/13/11 BEITLER, JULIE 92.75 05/13/11 BRENEMAN, SEAN 133.55 05/13/11 ANDERSON, MAXWELL 258.40 05/13/11 BAUDE, SARAH 73.00 05/13/11 ANDERSON, ALYSSA 19.38 05/13/11 ANDERSON, JUSTIN 328.70 05/13/11 VUE, LOR PAO 178.50 05/13/11 ZIELINSKI, JUDY 32.73 05/13/11 STARK, SUE 272.88 05/13/11 VANG, KAY 141.37 05/13/11 PENN, CHRISTINE 2,199.26 05/13/11 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 664.86 05/13/11 OLSON, SANDRA 56.00 05/13/11 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 635.85 05/13/11 KLUCAS, PETER 40.00 05/13/11 KULHANEK-DIONNE, ANN 452.63 05/13/11 HOFMEISTER, MARY 1,097.91 05/13/11 HOFMEISTER, TIMOTHY 359.75 05/13/11 HANSEN, LORI 3,057.86 05/13/11 HER, PETER 464.50 05/13/11 EVANS, CHRISTINE 1,323.62 05/13/11 GLASS, JEAN 2,103.68 05/13/11 BRENEMAN, NEIL 1,527.70 05/13/11 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 479.15 05/13/11 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 2,914.49 05/13/11 ANZALDI, MANDY 1,555.84 05/13/11 HAAG, MARK 2,571.64 05/13/11 KLOOZ, AUSTIN 828.00 05/13/11 ADAMS, DAVID 1,306.60 05/13/11 GERMAIN, DAVID 2,134.59 05/13/11 TAYLOR, JAMES 2,466.23 05/13/11 THOMFORDE, FAITH 1,533.01 05/13/11 SCHALLER, SCOTT 368.88 05/13/11 SCHALLER, TYLER 50.75 05/13/11 ROBBINS, AUDRA 2,847.74 05/13/11 ROBBINS, CAMDEN 83.31 05/13/11 JANASZAK, MEGHAN 720.57 05/13/11 KOHLMAN, JENNIFER 163.88 05/13/11 BERGER, STEPHANIE 142.50 05/13/11 BJORK, BRANDON 332.75 05/13/11 WELLENS, MOLLY 1,677.02 05/13/11 ALLEN, KATELYN 393.75 05/13/11 FISHER, DAVID 3,778.99 05/13/11 SWAN, DAVID 2,738.95 05/13/11 BRASH, JASON 2,259.76 05/13/11 CARVER, NICHOLAS 3,211.95 05/13/11 FINWALL, SHANN 3,202.15 05/13/11 MARTIN, MICHAEL 2,606.15 05/13/11 THOMPSON, DEBRA 752.86 05/13/11 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 3,800.52 05/13/11 OLSON, ERICA 1,109.91 05/13/11 SINDT, ANDREA 2,013.80 05/13/11 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 3,211.95 05/13/11 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 4,590.46 05/13/11 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 511.88 05/13/11 WACHAL, KAREN 854.68 05/13/11 HAYMAN, JANET 1,408.66 05/13/11 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,622.79 05/13/11 GERNES, CAROLE 401.65 Packet Page Number 51 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 05/13/11 XIONG, NAO 94.25 05/13/11 VALERIO, TARA 72.00 05/13/11 VANG, PETER 210.25 05/13/11 SCHULZE, KEVIN 420.00 05/13/11 THOMPSON, BENJAMIN 346.75 05/13/11 PRINS, KELLY 1,255.63 05/13/11 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,915.75 05/13/11 LONETTI, JAMES 420.00 05/13/11 MALONEY, SHAUNA 150.00 05/13/11 FULFORD, ZAHKIYA 181.25 05/13/11 JOHNSON, JUSTIN 247.50 05/13/11 COLEMAN, PATRICK 255.00 05/13/11 DOUGLASS, TOM 1,320.90 05/13/11 ZAGER, LINNEA 448.50 05/13/11 BEHAN, JAMES 1,918.06 05/13/11 LANGER, CHELSEA 27.63 05/13/11 LANGER, KAYLYN 38.00 05/13/11 GIERNET, ASHLEY 18.00 05/13/11 HITE, ANDREA 72.00 05/13/11 BOSLEY, CAROL 287.40 05/13/11 DANIEL, BREANNA 79.25 05/13/11 WEEVER, NAOMI 36.25 05/13/11 WOLFGRAM, TERESA 35.00 05/13/11 WARNER, CAROLYN 264.00 05/13/11 WEDES, CARYL 99.00 05/13/11 TUPY, HEIDE 45.80 05/13/11 TUPY, MARCUS 261.25 05/13/11 TAYLOR, JASON 66.00 05/13/11 TREPANIER, TODD 484.00 05/13/11 SMITH, ANN 60.90 05/13/11 SMITLEY, SHARON 207.20 05/13/11 SCHUNEMAN, GREGORY 38.63 05/13/11 SJERVEN, BRENDA 72.00 05/13/11 SCHREINER, MARK 37.20 05/13/11 SCHREINER, MICHELLE 127.40 05/13/11 RONNING, ZACCEUS 21.90 05/13/11 SCHREIER, ROSEMARIE 74.00 05/13/11 RICHTER, DANIEL 75.60 05/13/11 RONNING, ISAIAH 66.95 05/13/11 PEHOSKI, JOEL 52.00 05/13/11 PROESCH, ANDY 499.67 05/13/11 METCALF, JOLENE 42.25 05/13/11 NADEAU, KELLY 108.35 05/13/11 MCCANN, NATALIE 57.00 05/13/11 MCCORMACK, MELISSA 22.05 05/13/11 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 664.50 05/13/11 LAMSON, ELIANA 72.00 05/13/11 KOHLER, ROCHELLE 36.00 05/13/11 KOLLER, NINA 213.83 05/13/11 JOHNSON, BARBARA 64.95 05/13/11 JOYER, ANTHONY 37.00 05/13/11 HOLMBERG, LADONNA 740.50 05/13/11 HORWATH, RONALD 2,589.01 05/13/11 HAGSTROM, EMILY 40.20 05/13/11 HEINRICH, SHEILA 584.00 05/13/11 GRAY, MEGAN 73.48 05/13/11 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 373.05 05/13/11 FONTAINE, KIM 313.00 05/13/11 GIPPLE, TRISHA 48.56 05/13/11 EKSTRAND, DANIEL 105.28 05/13/11 ERICKSON-CLARK, CAROL 24.50 05/13/11 DEMPSEY, BETH 151.50 05/13/11 DUNN, RYAN 1,129.19 05/13/11 CRANDALL, KRISTA 158.01 Packet Page Number 52 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 9984252 9984266 9984267 9984268 9984269 9984270 9984271 9984272 9984273 9984274 9984275 9984276 9984277 9984278 9984279 9984280 9984281 533,036.90 05/13/11 PENN, CAYLA 108.00 05/13/11 STEFFEN, MICHAEL 87.00 05/13/11 ROSTRON, ROBERT 489.90 05/13/11 WEINHAGEN, SHELBY 105.19 05/13/11 MCMAHON, MICHAEL 18.38 05/13/11 NORTHOUSE, KATHERINE 32.94 05/13/11 FLUEGEL, LARISSA 98.60 05/13/11 MCLAURIN, CHRISTOPHER 283.80 05/13/11 MUELLNER, CHADD 240.00 05/13/11 VUKICH, CANDACE 76.13 05/13/11 WYSE, ROBERT 48.00 05/13/11 BETHEL III, CHARLES 89.25 05/13/11 HERLUND, RICK 150.00 05/13/11 MELLEN, RICHARD 192.00 05/13/11 ANDERSON, BRIAN 96.00 05/13/11 HALE, JOSEPH 427.00 05/13/11 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 2,603.50 05/06/11 FRANK, PETER 425.00 05/13/11 BERGO, CHAD 2,651.63 05/13/11 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 3,669.86 05/13/11 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,390.15 05/13/11 WOEHRLE, MATTHEW 2,178.95 05/13/11 AICHELE, CRAIG 2,196.23 Packet Page Number 53 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 Transaction Date Posting Date Merchant Name Transaction Amount Name 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 U OF M CCE NONCREDIT $210.00 R CHARLES AHL 05/02/2011 05/04/2011 MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL $46.22 JAMES ANTONEN 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 WAL-MART #2274 SE2 $10.03 MANDY ANZALDI 04/23/2011 04/25/2011 JOANN ETC #1970 $67.04 MANDY ANZALDI 04/23/2011 04/25/2011 JOANN ETC #1970 $9.36 MANDY ANZALDI 04/23/2011 04/25/2011 JOANN ETC #1970 $13.09 MANDY ANZALDI 04/23/2011 04/25/2011 TARGET 00011858 $49.98 MANDY ANZALDI 04/25/2011 04/26/2011 BEST BUY MHT 00000109 ($74.97)MANDY ANZALDI 04/25/2011 04/26/2011 CUB FOODS, INC.$12.39 MANDY ANZALDI 04/26/2011 04/27/2011 PARTY CITY #768 $154.05 MANDY ANZALDI 04/27/2011 04/29/2011 JOANN ETC #1970 $26.15 MANDY ANZALDI 04/28/2011 04/29/2011 CUB FOODS, INC.$18.91 MANDY ANZALDI 04/28/2011 05/02/2011 MICHAELS #3701 $33.46 MANDY ANZALDI 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 TCT*M&N INTERNATIONAL $91.18 MANDY ANZALDI 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 TCT*M&N INTERNATIONAL $7.00 MANDY ANZALDI 05/02/2011 05/03/2011 SAVERS 1126 $10.49 MANDY ANZALDI 05/02/2011 05/04/2011 JOANN ETC #1970 $34.69 MANDY ANZALDI 05/03/2011 05/04/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $19.20 MANDY ANZALDI 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 JOANN ETC #1970 $1.07 MANDY ANZALDI 05/04/2011 05/06/2011 CVS PHARMACY #1751 Q03 $19.78 MANDY ANZALDI 05/04/2011 05/06/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $47.83 MANDY ANZALDI 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 CUB FOODS, INC.$9.96 MANDY ANZALDI 05/02/2011 05/04/2011 HEJNY RENTAL INC $38.56 LONN BAKKE 05/02/2011 05/04/2011 HEJNY RENTAL INC $38.56 LONN BAKKE 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT F $15.00 GAYLE BAUMAN 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $11.73 JIM BEHAN 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 ONE SOURCE FITNESS LLC $175.00 JIM BEHAN 04/23/2011 04/25/2011 UPS*2953O17F7QH $6.45 JIM BEHAN 04/25/2011 04/27/2011 OFFICE MAX $108.71 JIM BEHAN 04/25/2011 04/27/2011 WW GRAINGER $83.16 JIM BEHAN 04/26/2011 04/27/2011 SIGNATURE AQUATICS, LLC $260.00 JIM BEHAN 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 BDI*BEARING DISTRIBUTR $29.83 JIM BEHAN 04/28/2011 04/29/2011 AQUA LOGICS INC $1,038.83 JIM BEHAN 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 KEYMETRICSOFTWARE $40.00 CHAD BERGO 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 KNOWLAN'S MARKET #2 $14.65 OAKLEY BIESANZ 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $7.47 OAKLEY BIESANZ 05/03/2011 05/04/2011 NORTH END HARDWARE $21.54 RON BOURQUIN 05/02/2011 05/03/2011 NRPA $40.00 NEIL BRENEMAN 05/04/2011 05/05/2011 DICK'S CLOTHING&SPORTING $19.25 NEIL BRENEMAN 04/26/2011 04/27/2011 FASTENAL COMPANY01 $33.03 TROY BRINK 04/26/2011 04/28/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $48.39 TROY BRINK 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 FASTENAL COMPANY01 $214.57 TROY BRINK 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $167.09 TROY BRINK 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 MENARDS 3059 $93.20 TROY BRINK 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 MOGREN TURF LLP $40.71 TROY BRINK 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES530 $83.02 TROY BRINK 05/03/2011 05/06/2011 PIPELINE SUPPLY INC $132.49 BRENT BUCKLEY 04/25/2011 04/26/2011 RED WING SHOE STORE $140.24 NATHAN BURLINGAME 04/21/2011 04/25/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 ($29.70)SARAH BURLINGAME 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 FEDEX OFFICE #0617 $4.79 SARAH BURLINGAME 04/25/2011 04/27/2011 THE OLIVE GARD00012005 $116.07 SARAH BURLINGAME 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 FEDEX 875703242640 $27.40 SARAH BURLINGAME 04/27/2011 04/29/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $83.86 SARAH BURLINGAME 04/28/2011 04/29/2011 SS *CONSUMERLINK $16.95 SARAH BURLINGAME 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 YARUSSO BROTHERS ITALI $236.24 SARAH BURLINGAME 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 GE CAPITAL $43.92 SARAH BURLINGAME Packet Page Number 54 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 05/02/2011 05/04/2011 TERRYBERRY COMPANY $1,062.39 SARAH BURLINGAME 04/28/2011 05/02/2011 BROWNELLS INC $576.80 DAN BUSACK 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 REMINGTON COUNTRY STORE I $42.80 DAN BUSACK 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 SUPERAMERICA 04022 $21.41 DAN BUSACK 04/21/2011 04/25/2011 KEEPRS METRO LLC $67.78 DANIEL BUSACK 05/02/2011 05/02/2011 WEDDINGPAGES INC $128.00 HEIDI CAREY 05/04/2011 05/05/2011 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSPAPE $75.00 HEIDI CAREY 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 FAMILY TIME $450.00 HEIDI CAREY 04/25/2011 04/27/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $34.75 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 04/27/2011 04/29/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $8.87 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 04/27/2011 04/29/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $28.83 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 04/28/2011 05/02/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $70.92 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 ($40.65)SCOTT CHRISTENSON 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $26.92 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 ($8.50)SCOTT CHRISTENSON 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $91.91 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $12.14 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 05/04/2011 05/06/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $35.83 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 04/23/2011 04/25/2011 MENARDS 3022 $5.33 CHARLES DEAVER 04/28/2011 05/02/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2810 $9.38 CHARLES DEAVER 05/04/2011 05/05/2011 G & K SERVICES 006 $74.46 CHARLES DEAVER 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $24.07 THOMAS DEBILZAN 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $84.98 MICHAEL DUGAS 04/26/2011 04/27/2011 CULVERS OF SIOUX CITY $11.04 MICHAEL DUGAS 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 CUBBY S INC 07049471 $56.51 MICHAEL DUGAS 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 TEXAS ROADHOUSE #2342 $17.85 MICHAEL DUGAS 04/28/2011 04/29/2011 FAMOUS DAVE'S #3060 $13.69 MICHAEL DUGAS 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 BLUE LINE TRAVEL $41.45 MICHAEL DUGAS 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 MCDONALD'S F12817 $11.00 MICHAEL DUGAS 04/30/2011 05/03/2011 WW GRAINGER $12.75 MICHAEL DUGAS 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 RED WING SHOE STORE $148.74 DOUG EDGE 04/28/2011 04/29/2011 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES530 $35.75 DAVE EDSON 04/28/2011 05/02/2011 OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY $100.73 DAVE EDSON 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 HEJNY RENTAL INC $260.70 DAVE EDSON 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 SCS CASES $266.74 PAUL E EVERSON 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 NAPA STORE 3279016 $22.04 PAUL E EVERSON 05/04/2011 05/05/2011 WALGREENS #7388 $14.37 PAUL E EVERSON 04/21/2011 04/25/2011 WW GRAINGER $653.21 LARRY FARR 05/03/2011 05/04/2011 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP $590.67 LARRY FARR 05/03/2011 05/04/2011 AV NOW, INC $924.99 LARRY FARR 05/04/2011 05/05/2011 G & K SERVICES 006 $927.96 LARRY FARR 05/04/2011 05/05/2011 G & K SERVICES 006 $742.45 LARRY FARR 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 WM EZPAY $937.47 LARRY FARR 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 WM EZPAY $424.77 LARRY FARR 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 WM EZPAY $446.49 LARRY FARR 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 TARGET 00021352 $14.95 SHANN FINWALL 05/02/2011 05/04/2011 KEEFE CO PARKING $6.50 DAVID FISHER 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $13.50 KAREN FORMANEK 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 SPECIALIZED TRANSPORT $416.72 MYCHAL FOWLDS 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 ACT*ACTIVE.COM-INVOICE $1,538.37 MYCHAL FOWLDS 05/03/2011 05/04/2011 CDW GOVERNMENT $791.53 NICK FRANZEN 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $159.62 CLARENCE GERVAIS 04/26/2011 04/28/2011 ASPEN MILLS INC.$89.95 CLARENCE GERVAIS 05/02/2011 05/03/2011 INTERNATIONAL ASSOC OF AR $75.00 CLARENCE GERVAIS 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $53.67 JEAN GLASS 04/23/2011 04/25/2011 FIRST SHRED $13.00 JEAN GLASS 04/27/2011 04/27/2011 SABIC POLYMERSHAPES $123.39 MARK HAAG Packet Page Number 55 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 04/26/2011 04/28/2011 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS $65.23 MILES HAMRE 04/27/2011 04/29/2011 TESSMAN COMPANY SAINT PAU $9.19 MILES HAMRE 04/28/2011 04/29/2011 B&T GROWER SUPPLY $155.99 MILES HAMRE 05/04/2011 05/06/2011 OFFICE MAX $14.23 MILES HAMRE 04/21/2011 04/25/2011 BILLS GUN SHOP & RANGE NO $26.73 TIMOTHY HAWKINSON JR. 04/26/2011 04/28/2011 SETON NAME PLATE COMPANY $79.65 RON HORWATH 04/27/2011 04/29/2011 OFFICE MAX $21.61 RON HORWATH 04/29/2011 05/03/2011 AMERICAN RED CROSS TWIN C $199.95 RON HORWATH 05/04/2011 05/05/2011 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC $683.68 DAVID JAHN 04/28/2011 05/02/2011 KHANS MONGOLIAN BBQ COO $22.87 KEVIN JOHNSON 05/02/2011 05/03/2011 TARGET 00011858 $5.02 KEVIN JOHNSON 05/02/2011 05/04/2011 DOLRTREE 3150 00031500 $5.36 KEVIN JOHNSON 05/06/2011 05/06/2011 COMCAST CABLE COMM $143.76 DUWAYNE KONEWKO 04/25/2011 04/27/2011 MILLS FLEET FARM #2,700 $38.22 NICHOLAS KREKELER 04/21/2011 04/25/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $73.09 LISA KROLL 04/27/2011 04/29/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $10.61 LISA KROLL 05/04/2011 05/05/2011 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSPAPE $1,020.88 LISA KROLL 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 CLASSIC COLLISION CTR.$1,116.56 DAVID KVAM 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 NITERIDER TECHNICAL LIGHT $358.98 DAVID KVAM 04/26/2011 04/27/2011 STREICHERS INC $1,604.18 DAVID KVAM 04/27/2011 04/27/2011 COMCAST CABLE COMM $65.58 DAVID KVAM 04/28/2011 04/29/2011 STREICHERS INC $200.00 DAVID KVAM 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $4.00 DAVID KVAM 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $4.00 DAVID KVAM 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $161.19 DAVID KVAM 05/04/2011 05/06/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $75.70 DAVID KVAM 04/28/2011 05/02/2011 L A POLICE GEAR INC $33.74 JOHNNIE LU 04/21/2011 04/25/2011 C AIRE $12.83 STEVE LUKIN 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 ASPEN MILLS INC.$34.50 STEVE LUKIN 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 ATTM*878423931 NBI $214.28 STEVE LUKIN 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT $216.65 STEVE LUKIN 04/27/2011 05/02/2011 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE $229.60 STEVE LUKIN 04/28/2011 04/29/2011 METRO FIRE $1,497.59 STEVE LUKIN 05/02/2011 05/04/2011 SEARS AUTO CNTR 6122 $182.10 STEVE LUKIN 05/02/2011 05/04/2011 OFFICE MAX $73.30 STEVE LUKIN 05/03/2011 05/04/2011 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT $1,647.67 STEVE LUKIN 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 ASPEN MILLS INC.$44.95 STEVE LUKIN 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 ASPEN MILLS INC.$866.95 STEVE LUKIN 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 WM EZPAY $193.51 STEVE LUKIN 04/25/2011 04/26/2011 HIRSHFIELDS ST PAUL CSC $1,926.11 MARK MARUSKA 04/25/2011 04/26/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $41.21 MARK MARUSKA 04/25/2011 04/27/2011 TURF WERKS EGAN $1,339.81 MARK MARUSKA 04/25/2011 04/27/2011 TESSMAN COMPANY SAINT PAU $673.31 MARK MARUSKA 04/26/2011 04/27/2011 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY $1,290.36 MARK MARUSKA 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 UNITED RENTALS $170.01 MARK MARUSKA 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY $64.13 MARK MARUSKA 04/27/2011 04/29/2011 TESSMAN COMPANY SAINT PAU $333.02 MARK MARUSKA 05/03/2011 05/04/2011 WM EZPAY $453.45 MARK MARUSKA 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 ON SITE SANITATION INC $17.94 MARK MARUSKA 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 ON SITE SANITATION INC $8.97 MARK MARUSKA 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 ON SITE SANITATION INC $8.97 MARK MARUSKA 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 ON SITE SANITATION INC $17.94 MARK MARUSKA 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 ON SITE SANITATION INC $8.97 MARK MARUSKA 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 ON SITE SANITATION INC $8.97 MARK MARUSKA 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 ON SITE SANITATION INC $8.97 MARK MARUSKA 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 ON SITE SANITATION INC $8.97 MARK MARUSKA 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 ON SITE SANITATION INC $8.97 MARK MARUSKA Packet Page Number 56 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 ON SITE SANITATION INC $8.97 MARK MARUSKA 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 ON SITE SANITATION INC $8.97 MARK MARUSKA 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 ON SITE SANITATION INC $8.97 MARK MARUSKA 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 ON SITE SANITATION INC $8.97 MARK MARUSKA 05/04/2011 05/05/2011 G & K SERVICES 006 $475.75 MARK MARUSKA 05/04/2011 05/05/2011 LTG POWER EQUIPMENT $154.47 MARK MARUSKA 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $7.44 JOHN NAUGHTON 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $76.44 AMY NIVEN 04/28/2011 04/29/2011 VIRTUE PRINTING $104.62 AMY NIVEN 04/28/2011 05/02/2011 OFFICE MAX $57.82 AMY NIVEN 04/28/2011 05/02/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $62.60 AMY NIVEN 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $78.06 AMY NIVEN 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 G & K SERVICES 006 $1,006.47 AMY NIVEN 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 G & K SERVICES 006 $341.88 AMY NIVEN 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 G & K SERVICES 006 $262.19 AMY NIVEN 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $95.58 MARY KAY PALANK 05/04/2011 05/06/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $60.59 MARY KAY PALANK 05/02/2011 05/04/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $17.11 ROBERT PETERSON 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 PRECISION CAMERA $90.95 PHILIP F POWELL 04/26/2011 04/27/2011 JVC*SERVICE& ENGINEERI $116.51 PHILIP F POWELL 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 PAYPAL *NATIONALCAM $37.53 PHILIP F POWELL 04/28/2011 04/29/2011 PAYPAL *NATIONALCAM $120.06 PHILIP F POWELL 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 TARGET 00011858 $3.59 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $21.38 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 04/30/2011 05/02/2011 LITTLE CAESARS 1456 $87.84 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 04/30/2011 05/02/2011 HOLIDAY STNSTORE 3836 $3.18 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 ($10.69)WILLIAM J PRIEFER 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $261.13 STEVEN PRIEM 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $168.14 STEVEN PRIEM 04/25/2011 04/26/2011 BOYER TRUCKS-LAUDERDALE $760.44 STEVEN PRIEM 04/25/2011 04/27/2011 TRI-STATE BOBCAT INC.$194.21 STEVEN PRIEM 04/25/2011 04/27/2011 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC $103.59 STEVEN PRIEM 04/26/2011 04/27/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $31.13 STEVEN PRIEM 04/26/2011 04/28/2011 AUTO PLUS LITTLE CANADA $36.35 STEVEN PRIEM 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $147.47 STEVEN PRIEM 04/27/2011 04/29/2011 AUTO PLUS LITTLE CANADA $6.89 STEVEN PRIEM 04/28/2011 04/29/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $28.05 STEVEN PRIEM 04/28/2011 04/29/2011 BAUER BUILT TIRE 18 $18.42 STEVEN PRIEM 04/28/2011 05/02/2011 SUPERIOR GOLF CARS $58.49 STEVEN PRIEM 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $168.14 STEVEN PRIEM 05/02/2011 05/04/2011 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $1,348.85 STEVEN PRIEM 05/02/2011 05/04/2011 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE $341.79 STEVEN PRIEM 05/03/2011 05/04/2011 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $329.54 STEVEN PRIEM 05/03/2011 05/04/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $9.58 STEVEN PRIEM 05/03/2011 05/04/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $164.68 STEVEN PRIEM 05/03/2011 05/04/2011 BAUER BUILT TIRE 18 $346.74 STEVEN PRIEM 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $89.13 STEVEN PRIEM 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $4.86 STEVEN PRIEM 05/04/2011 05/06/2011 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $175.70 STEVEN PRIEM 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL ($0.59)STEVEN PRIEM 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $92.86 STEVEN PRIEM 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $9.58 STEVEN PRIEM 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $9.99 STEVEN PRIEM 05/05/2011 05/06/2011 ZIEGLER INC - RETAIL $463.15 STEVEN PRIEM 04/23/2011 04/25/2011 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC $520.68 MICHAEL REILLY 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS $939.53 MICHAEL REILLY 04/28/2011 04/29/2011 HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS $302.33 MICHAEL REILLY Packet Page Number 57 of 350 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 5-09-11 and 5-16-11 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 MN TWOLVES LYNX $100.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 04/26/2011 04/27/2011 TARGET 00011858 $27.72 AUDRA ROBBINS 04/26/2011 04/28/2011 PARTYCELEBRATION.COM ($39.16)AUDRA ROBBINS 04/26/2011 04/28/2011 JOANN ETC #1970 $80.88 AUDRA ROBBINS 04/27/2011 04/28/2011 PARTY CITY 1006 $45.75 AUDRA ROBBINS 04/27/2011 04/29/2011 JO-ANN STORE #1876 $11.84 AUDRA ROBBINS 04/28/2011 04/29/2011 TARGET 00011858 $57.50 AUDRA ROBBINS 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 TARGET 00011858 $23.30 AUDRA ROBBINS 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 DOLRTREE 2396 00023960 $17.14 AUDRA ROBBINS 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 HRM USA, INC $75.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 PARTY CITY #768 $45.80 AUDRA ROBBINS 04/29/2011 05/03/2011 TLF*HERMES FLRL & GHSE $453.67 AUDRA ROBBINS 05/03/2011 05/04/2011 NRPA $25.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 PIONEER PRESS ADVERTISING $61.90 AUDRA ROBBINS 04/28/2011 05/02/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $23.14 ROBERT RUNNING 04/28/2011 05/02/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $379.31 ROBERT RUNNING 05/02/2011 05/03/2011 METRO FIRE ($374.90)ROBERT RUNNING 04/26/2011 04/28/2011 USA MOBILITY WIRELE $16.07 SCOTT SCHULTZ 05/04/2011 05/05/2011 FASTENAL COMPANY01 $50.96 SCOTT SCHULTZ 04/25/2011 04/26/2011 JADSOFTWARE INC.$296.15 MICHAEL SHORTREED 04/25/2011 04/27/2011 WWW.CLEVERBRIDGE.NET $89.20 MICHAEL SHORTREED 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $202.54 MICHAEL SHORTREED 05/04/2011 05/06/2011 MICRO CENTER #045 RETAIL $101.89 MICHAEL SHORTREED 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 LOFFLER COMPANIES $261.39 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 04/26/2011 04/26/2011 REDBOX *DVD RENTAL $9.64 WILLIAM SYPNIEWSKI 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $10.00 BRIAN TAUZELL 04/25/2011 04/27/2011 MASLA $95.00 JAMES TAYLOR 04/29/2011 05/02/2011 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $154.35 KAREN WACHAL 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 GANDER MOUNTAIN $149.99 JAY WENZEL 04/26/2011 04/28/2011 QUILL CORPORATION $134.72 SUSAN ZWIEG 05/02/2011 05/03/2011 WAL-MART $21.36 SUSAN ZWIEG 05/03/2011 05/04/2011 AE SIGN SYSTEMS $36.57 SUSAN ZWIEG 05/03/2011 05/05/2011 THE STAR TRIBUNE CIRCULAT $16.25 SUSAN ZWIEG TOTAL $47,960.99 Packet Page Number 58 of 350 Agenda Report G2 MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Antonen, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, Director Citizen Services DATE: May 10, 2011 SUBJECT: Approval of Ramsey County Fair Temporary Gambling Permit and Fee Waiver Request Introduction Thomas O’Ryan, on behalf of St. Paul East Parks Lions Club, has applied for a temporary gambling permit and a 3.2 beer permit for the Ramsey County Fair that will be held from July 13 through July 17, 2011. This is an annual event for the St. Paul East Parks Lions Club and all funds raised from beer sales at the Ramsey County Fair will be used for community events in the area. Mr. Thomas O’Ryan is requesting that the city council waive the fee for the miscellaneous beer permit which is a total of $275.00. In order for the State of Minnesota to issue a temporary gambling permit, approval of the following resolution from the City is required. RESOLUTION BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the temporary permit for lawful gambling is approved for St. Paul East Parks Lions Club to be used at the Ramsey County Fair, 2020 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, MN from July 13 through July 17, 2011. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute §349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute §349.213. NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the above the fee waiver for 3.2 beer and the resolution for a temporary gambling permit for St. Paul Lions Club. Packet Page Number 59 of 350 Agenda #G-3 AGENDA REPORT To: City Manager James Antonen From: Chief of Police David J. Thomalla Subject: Approval to Accept Grant From Midwest Economic Crime Foundation Date: May 11, 2011 Introduction The Maplewood Police Department is requesting City Council approval to accept a grant from the Midwest Economic Crime Foundation (MECF). Background For several years, the Police Department has worked with the Midwest Economic Crime Foundation on a check diversion program, which works to collect payment on worthless checks issued to businesses/vendors in the City. Now, as part of their grant program, the Board of Directors of MECF has presented the Police Department with $900 to be used to purchase a laptop computer. They stipulate that this computer is to be used specifically by the retail and financial crimes investigators of our department. They also require that our department allow other law enforcement agencies the opportunity to use this computer at our Mall office or our department on an as-needed basis. City Council approval is required for us to accept this grant money and spend the funds on a laptop computer. Recommendation It is recommended that City Council approval be given to accept this $900 grant and use the funds to purchase a laptop computer for use by our retail and financial crimes investigators. Action Required Submit to the City Council for review and approval. DJT:js Packet Page Number 60 of 350 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GIFT TO CITY WHEREAS, Maplewood is AUTHORIZED to receive and accept grants, gifts and devices of real and personal property and maintain the same for the benefit of the citizens and pursuant to the donor’s terms if so-prescribed, and; WHEREAS, Midwest Economic Crime Foundation (MECF) wishes to grant the City of Maplewood the following: $900, and; WHEREAS, Midwest Economic Crime Foundation has instructed that the City will be required to use the aforementioned for: the purchase of a laptop computer to be used by retail and financial crimes investigators of the Maplewood Police Department, and; WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has agreed to use the subject of this resolution for the purposes and under the terms prescribed, and; WHEREAS, the City agrees that it will accept the gift by a super majority of its governing body’s membership pursuant to Minnesota Statute §465.03; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to Minnesota Statute §465.03, that the Maplewood City Council approves, receives and accepts the gift aforementioned and under such terms and conditions as may be requested or requir ed. The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution by a super majority vote of its membership on _________________________, 20_____. Signed: Signed: Witnessed: ___________________ ____________________ ___________________ (Signature) (Signature) (Signature) Mayor______________ Chief of Police_________ City Clerk____________ (Title) (Title) (Title) ___________________ _____________________ ____________________ (Date) (Date) (Date) Packet Page Number 61 of 350 Item G-4 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager Antonen FROM: Karen Guilfoile, Director Citizen Services DATE: May 17, 2011 SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution Requesting the State Legislature and the Governor Maintaining Ramsey County within a Single Congressional District The Ramsey County Board of Commissioners has requested the City of Maplewood support a resolution that addresses congressional redistricting. The County Board requests the State Legislature and the Governor develop a redistricting plan that maintains Ramsey County as a whole within one congressional district. Ramsey County has been a whole political jurisdiction in a single Congressional district since 1891 with the City of Maplewood being a part of the district. Although the 2010 census indicated that the City of Maplewood has in excess of the 38,000 citizens required to be contained in a single House district, it is a virtual certainty that whatever plan is adopted, either by the legislature or by the courts, the entire city of North St. Paul will be included in a district with part of Maplewood. It is presumed that South Maplewood would then be included in a district with either Oakdale or perhaps Woodbury thus putting the “southern leg” of the city in Washington County. The boundaries of Ramsey County and the City of Maplewood are more than legal, geographical descriptions. The boundaries surround the strong networks of relationships that exist within our community. Over the years, our jurisdictions have done extensive work in developing cooperative relationships and consolidated services that bind us together. The multitude of joint boards, mutual aid agreements, shared services and other arrangements among cities, school districts and the county have woven us together in a well-defined community of interest. We each have our own unique identity, but we work together to continuously improve our communities. Having the County within one congressional district provides a single point of contact for addressing issues and programs that affect local jurisdictions and federal agencies. A more complex set of relationships would make these communications more difficult. Staff is requesting approval of the following Resolution that will be forwarded to Ramsey County, the State Legislature and the Governor for consideration. cc: Governor Mark Dayton Minnesota State Legislature Ramsey County Board of Commissioners Attachment Packet Page Number 62 of 350 Resolution Requesting the State Legislature and the Governor Maintain Ramsey County within a Single Congressional District that Includes the Entire City of Maplewood WHEREAS, Date from the 2010 Census requires the Minnesota Legislature to re-draw Congressional boundaries into eight districts with 662,991 people in each district; and WHEREAS, Ramsey County is Minnesota’s second largest county and is the center of economic development, regional transportation, and unique communities of interest in the East Metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, Ramsey County has effectively been in a single Congressional District as a whole political unit since 1891; and WHEREAS, Maintaining Ramsey County as a whole political unit in a single Congressional District will preserve communities of interest along with their unique cultural, economic, and historic connections to the County and the East Metropolitan area, and WHEREAS, The Congressional District redistricting principles used after the 2000 Census stated that, “The districts will be drawn with attention to county, city, and township boundaries. A county, city, or township will not be divided into more than one district except as necessary to meet equal population requirements or to form districts that are composed of convenient, contiguous, and compact territory. When any county, city, or township must be divided into one or more districts, it will be divided into as few districts as possible”; and WHEREAS, Ramsey County seeks to maintain all fifteen municipalities which are entirely contained within its borders as whole political units within a single Congressional District; Now, Therefore, Be it RESOLVED, The Ramsey County Board of Commissioners requests the State Legislature and the Governor to formulate a redistricting plan that maintains Ramsey County as a whole political unit and preserves the County’s unique communities of interest in a single Congressional District; and Be it Further RESOLVED, The Ramsey County Board of Commissioners requests all City Councils and School Boards within Ramsey County to support maintaining Ramsey County with a single Congressional District and to oppose any efforts by the State Legislature to divide Ramsey County into multiple Congressional Districts; and Be It Further RESOLVED, The Ramsey County Board of Commissioners directs the Board Chair to contact elected officials in County municipalities and school districts and request their support for this issue. Packet Page Number 63 of 350 MEMORANDUM TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Consider Amendment of Conditions for the Gervais Woods Preliminary Plat APPLICANT: Steve Kothman of Hanson Builders LOCATION: Cherry Hill Lane, South of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street DATE: May 17, 2011 INTRODUCTION On March 22, 2010, the city council approved the Gervais Woods preliminary plat. This eleven lot, single-dwelling subdivision is located mostly in the City of Little Canada, but the back yards of the southerly four lots extend into the City of Maplewood. Refer to the maps. Steve Kothman, of Hanson Builders, is the general contractor for the homes built in Gervais Woods. He has construction contracts for lots 4 and 5 which have back yards in Maplewood. These houses would meet the 30-foot front setback requirement in Little Canada but would extend slightly over the municipal boundary line into Maplewood. One home would extend one foot into Maplewood and the other three feet. Both would also have decks on the back of the houses as well. Request Mr. Kothman is requesting that the city council amend their condition of approval which required that “the proposed homes on the southerly four lots of this subdivision shall be constructed in the footprints shown on the applicant’s plans. This would require that they be located in the City of Little Canada.” Mr. Kothman is requesting that the Maplewood City Council amend their condition to allow these slight encroachments over the municipal boundary line. DISCUSSION The intent of this condition was twofold: 1) to keep the homes within Little Canada so it was clear that Little Canada would be the only municipality that would need to be involved in the building permit and inspection process for new homes, and 2) to avoid any potential issue regarding taxation by Ramsey County. Dave Fisher, Maplewood Building Official, has stated that if a portion of the homes are in Maplewood, the Maplewood Building Staff would need to review those plans and do inspections. Mr. Fisher explained, however, that this can be worked out with the City of Little Canada if they agree to take responsibility for the entire building permit review and to handle inspections. Joel Hanson, City Administrator of Little Canada, told staff that this would not be any problem. They would be happy to handle the permit reviews and inspections. Agenda Item G5 Packet Page Number 64 of 350 2 Staff also spoke with the Ramsey County Assessor’s office about any possible concern over the two homes overlapping the municipal boundary line into Maplewood. Mr. Pat Chapman replied that it won’t matter if the houses cross the municipal boundary line from their perspective being that all portions of the properties are within Ramsey County. Staff has no objection to these slight encroachments over the municipal boundary line since the City of Little Canada has agreed to handle the building permit review and inspections, and also, since there is no problem with Ramsey County. RECOMMENDATION Amend condition 1.f. of the March 22, 2010 preliminary plat approval to read (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. Approve the preliminary and final plat for Landmark Development of Minnesota for the proposed eleven lot Gervais Woods single-family subdivision located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street. This subdivision is subject to the following conditions: f. The proposed homes on lots 4 and 5, block 2 of this subdivision may extend beyond the municipal boundary line into Maplewood since the City Administrator of the City of Little Canada has agreed that Little Canada would assume all building permit review and building inspection responsibilities for these homes, and also, since this poses no problem with the Ramsey County Assessor’s office. The proposed homes on the southerly four lots of this subdivision shall be constructed in the footprints shown on the applicant’s plans. This would require that they be located in the City of Little Canada. p:sec4\Gervais Woods\Gervais Woods Preliminary Plat Condition Amendment CC Report 5 11 te Attachments: 1. Zoning/Location Map 2. March 22, 2010 City Council Preliminary Plat Conditions of Approval 3. Gervais Woods Preliminary Plat 4. House Pads Shown by the Applicant during the Preliminary Plat Review 5. Site Plan for Lot 4 6. Site Plan for Lot 5 Packet Page Number 65 of 350 Packet Page Number 66 of 350 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 67 of 350 Packet Page Number 68 of 350 Packet Page Number 69 of 350 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 70 of 350 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 71 of 350 Attachment 5 Packet Page Number 72 of 350 Attachment 6 Packet Page Number 73 of 350 Agenda Item G.6 MEMORANDUM TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner SUBJECT: Consider a Resolution Identifying Maplewood’s Commitment to Host a Minnesota GreenCorps Member DATE: May 17, 2011 for the May 23 City Council Meeting INTRODUCTION City staff is requesting that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1). This resolution is required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as part of the city’s application to host a Minnesota GreenCorps member. Minnesota GreenCorps began in September 2009 and is coordinated by the MPCA. The program places AmeriCorps members with host organizations around the state to assist communities and local governments in addressing a variety of statewide needs that aim to:  Reduce solid waste and increase recycling in Minnesota communities.  Reduce greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.  Reduce water runoff and improve water quality.  Assist community members to take eco friendly actions.  Train new environmental professionals. In the third year of the program, Minnesota GreenCorps will have up to 30 full-time AmeriCorps members (1700 hours) supported and deployed by the MPCA to selected host site organizations. All Minnesota GreenCorps service positions are expected to last 11 months, beginning in September 2011. Funding for the Minnesota GreenCorps program in 2011/2012 is contingent on the MPCA receiving funds from ServeMinnesota and the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). DISCUSSION The City of Maplewood has applied for one Minnesota GreenCorps member to serve in the area of Pollution Reduction and Recycling. The GreenCorps member will focus on the following waste prevention and recycling goals:  Increase in recycling participation through education and promotion of the city-wide residential curb side and park recycling programs;  Reduction in waste through the organization of, or improvements to, the city's trash collection system;  Reduction in waste and increase in recycling at city facilities with the implementation of organics collection and environmental purchasing policy in city buildings;  Community education and participation in waste reduction and recycling through educational programming at the Maplewood Nature Center, city events, and the Maplewood Community Center Summer Camp (Junior Green Team). RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) showing the city’s commitment to host a Minnesota GreenCorps Member in the area of Pollution Reduction and Recycling. Attachment: Resolution Packet Page Number 74 of 350 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. _______ CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING MAPLEWOOD’S COMMITMENT TO HOST A MINNESOTA GREENCORPS MEMBER WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has applied to host an AmeriCorps member from the Minnesota GreenCorps, a program of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), for the 2011-2012 program year; and WHEREAS, if the MPCA selects the City of Maplewood, the organization is committed to implementing the proposed project as described in the host site application, and in accordance with pre-scoped position description; and WHEREAS, MPCA requires that the City of Maplewood enter into a host site agreement with MPCA that identifies the terms, conditions, roles and responsibilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Maplewood hereby agrees to enter into and sign a host site agreement with the MPCA to carry out the member activities specified therein and to comply with all of the terms, conditions, and matching provisions of the host site agreement. The Maplewood City Council authorizes and directs Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner, to sign the grant agreement on its behalf. Adopted this 23rd day of May, 2011. ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Mayor Clerk Packet Page Number 75 of 350 AGENDA REPORT TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director Steven Love, Assistant City Engineer Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II SUBJECT: Western Hills Area Street Improvements, City Project 10-14, Approval of Purchase for Geotechnical Testing Services DATE: May 23, 2011 INTRODUCTION It is necessary to utilize the services of an independent testing laboratory to assist city inspectors in quality control on the city capital improvement project slated for 2011 construction. Since this purchase will exceed $10,000 written quotations were obtained and council authorization to proceed is requested. DESCRIPTION Each request for proposal included the scope of services as well as project quantities and access to plans and specifications for the construction project. The companies involved in soliciting a price for services provided a similar scope of testing services essential for project quality control. The City received quotes from the following four (4) geotechnical testing firms: Company Proposal Total Chosen Valley Testing Corporation $21,964.00 Braun Intertec $26,113.00 Terra-Con, Inc $27,362.50 Northern Technologies $37,640.00 BUDGET IMPACT City staff recognized that geotechnical testing services for this street improvement project would most likely be in the $20,000 to $35,000 range and determined competitive quotes were needed. Geotechnical testing costs are built into the approved budget for the project, so no additional funding allocation is required. RECOMMENDATION Chosen Valley Testing came in with the lowest, responsible bid for the project. Chosen Valley previously provided soil borings and geotechnical services for the Western Hills project in 2010. Staff contacted several other cities and private entities that have worked with Chosen Valley in the past. All have mentioned that Chosen Valley is responsive and professional. Agenda Item G7 Packet Page Number 76 of 350 Based on the lowest, responsible bid for services, the reputation of the company and the ability to provide responsive service, staff recommends the council authorize the City Engineer to enter into a contract for services with Chosen Valley Testing for testing and quality control-services for the Western Hills Area Street Improvements, City Project 10-14. Attachments 1. Chosen Valley Testing Corporation Proposal 2. Braun Intertec Proposal 3. Terra-Con, Inc Proposal 4. Northern Technologies Proposal Agenda Item G7 Packet Page Number 77 of 350 Proposal for Construction Testing and Inspection: City of Maplewood Western Hills Area Street Improvements City Project 10-14 Maplewood, Minnesota May 6, 2011 MNT11.3213 Rochester MN La Crosse, WI Rice, MN Mankato, MN Clear Lake, IA Dubuque, IA White Bear, MN C V T Chosen Valley Testing Agenda Item G7 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 78 of 350 Chosen Valley Testing, Inc. Corporate Office: 1410 7th Street NW, Rochester MN 55901, Phone (507) 281-0968 Fax (507) 289-2523 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Rochester, MN La Crosse, WI St. Cloud, MN Mankato, MN Clear Lake, IA Dubuque, IA Hugo, MN Mr. Steven Kummer May 6, 2011 City of Maplewood 1902 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 steven.kummer@ci.maplewood.mn.us Re:Proposal for Quality Assurance Testing Western Hills Area Street Improvement Project City Project #10-14 Maplewood, MN CVT Proposal MNT11.3213 Dear Mr. Kummer: As requested, we have prepared this proposal for providing Quality Assurance Testing for the proposed Western Hills Area Street Improvement project in Maplewood, Minnesota. This proposal was prepared in accordance with the instructions provided in your Request For Proposal (RFP), and will be used by the City to assess and select the appropriate qualified firm for providing the requested services. 1. Executive Summary Chosen Valley Testing (CVT) provides geotechnical engineering, construction material testing and drilling services. The company was founded in 1995 and is based in Rochester, Minnesota. Since its inception, the firm has grown, and to better serve our clients, have opened offices in La Crosse WI; St. Cloud, MN; Mankato, MN; Clear Lake, IA, Dubuque, IA; and most recently in Hugo, MN. The Western Hills Area Street Improvement project is part of the City’s 2011 capital improvement program. The project will consist of street and utility improvements to about three miles of city streets and generally bounded by Roselawn Avenue on the north, I-35E on the east, Larpenteur Avenue on the south and Rice Street on the west. The improvements will include reconstruction of the streets, installation of concrete curbs and gutters, new storm sewer and drainage structures, watermain replacement, and spot repairs or replacements of sanitary sewer. Most of testing services for the project consist of compaction tests, field and laboratory tests on concrete and tests on bituminous. A number of the tests listed in the RFP would be performed directly by the contractor. Based on the quantities provided, we estimate that our total cost for this project will be $21,964.00. The following provides more details regarding our past project experience/qualifications and a breakdown of our anticipated costs. 2. Scope of Services The RFP included a list of typical services for the project along with a tabulation of testing services needed and quantities. Earthwork:Most of the initial services would consist of compaction tests for utilities and associated catch basin and manhole structures. Once the utilities are installed, additional compaction tests would be required on roadway subgrades materials. DCP testing would be needed on aggregate materials. We assumed some of the existing bituminous is being recycled, in which case extraction/gradations would be needed on those materials. Agenda Item G7 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 79 of 350 City of Maplewood - CMT May 6, 2011 CVT Proposal: MNT11.3213 Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Rochester, MN La Crosse, WI St. Cloud, MN Mankato, MN Clear Lake, IA Dubuque, IA White Bear Lake, MN Concrete: Field tests on curb and gutter and the various other concrete improvements (sidewalks, etc.,) area also required. The tabulation suggests that pervious concrete is being used for a limited area of the project and this will require testing as well. Bituminous:The pavements will be primarily bituminous. The contractor will be responsible for taking core samples each day, which we will process in the laboratory to determine density/compaction. Extractions and gradations are required to validate the mix. Other Testing: The tabulation includes a number of other tests which appear to be primarily contractor testing – such as tests relative to the utilities themselves, surface grades of the roadways, etc. Test of dry cast wall units was mentioned, but we rarely see this required or it is evaluated by submittal. Topsoil testing and tests related to infiltration areas were mentioned, and we included unit costs for the types of testing we would expect. 3. Breakdown of Services General: All services would be performed in accordance with accepted ASTM, ACI, MnDOT, AASHTO or other relevant and accepted procedures. Compaction Testing: The compaction tests would be performed with a nuclear density meter, in accordance with ASTM Method 6938. The Proctor tests would be performed in accordance with ASTM D 698. New Proctors would be taken as needed when it appears that a new material is being used. Testing of the aggregate base materials would be performed with a Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. Concrete Testing:The concrete tests would be conducted in accordance with ACI and MnDot procedures. The field concrete tests would consist of slump, air content and temperature tests, and the concrete truck tickets would be checked as well. 6”x12” cylinders would be used, unless the aggregate particle size permits use of a4x8 cylinders. The cylinders would be cured on-site and then returned to our Hugo laboratory for final curing and compression testing. The unit weight of the permeable concrete would be tested using an air-meter and a scale. In accordance with SC-2301A. 3A4, the cores would be taken at least 7 days after placement and measured and weighed in the laboratory in and out of water and to obtain after installation densities. Bituminous Testing: The bituminous tests would be conducted in accordance with MnDOT and AASHTO procedures. The contractor is to take cores of the bituminous each day of paving so we may pick up the samples and deliver them to our laboratory. The cores are to be processed within 48 hours of paving. Extraction and gradation tests are also required per 500 tons of material. Other Tests: o Compression of Dry Cast Units:The procedures for testing these units will depend on their size and shape. For purposes of this proposal, our costs are based on saw-cutting or coring individual units as needed in accordance with Mn/DOT test procedures. o Topsoil:The topsoil nutrient tests would be processed through the University of Minnesota or other agricultural testing facility. Agenda Item G7 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 80 of 350 City of Maplewood - CMT May 6, 2011 CVT Proposal: MNT11.3213 Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Rochester, MN La Crosse, WI St. Cloud, MN Mankato, MN Clear Lake, IA Dubuque, IA White Bear Lake, MN o Filter Media:Depending on the material used, this test would consist of a gradation or a standard gradation with a hydrometer analysis. We included costs for both types of tests. o Subgrade Infiltration Testing: Infiltration would be tested in accordance with ASTM procedures using a double-ring infiltrometer. We assumed the contractor would excavate as needed to prepare the test areas, so the tests may be performed at the appropriate elevation. 4. Scheduling and Reporting Scheduling of services would be through Phil Peterson, our lab manager in Hugo. Phil’s number is 651- 955-3325. Mr. Peterson would be our primary service provider and would be assisted as needed by others at CVT. We assumed that testing can typically be scheduled one day in advance, depending on the weather and other factors. 5. Reporting Reports of tests results would be issued electronically to the City and other parties, as directed by the City or their designated representative. The results would be provided within 2 working days of completion of the tests. We assumed that a hard copy of results would be desired upon completion. Failing results would be reported verbally, ahead of the electronic results. 6. Itemized Costs The total cost for the services is estimated to be $21,964.00. The tabulation below summarizes the approximate distribution of testing cost per type of test. A detailed cost breakdown of the costs per type of service and test is attached at the end of this proposal. Est. Costs for Earthwork and Compaction Testing $6,777.50 Est. Costs for Bituminous Testing $6,800.00 Est. Costs for Concrete Testing $6,451.50 Other Services $1,935.00 Administrative and Reporting Costs $0.00 Total Estimated Cost $21,964.00 References CVT has not provided testing services to the City in the past. Three references for prior testing work are: City of St. Cloud- Mr. Steve Ryynanen 320-255-7247 SEH- Mr. Dave Blommel 320-229-4300 Bonestroo- Mr. Matt Mohs 320-255-7247 Agenda Item G7 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 81 of 350 City of Maplewood - CMT May 6, 2011 CVT Proposal: MNT11.3213 Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Rochester, MN La Crosse, WI St. Cloud, MN Mankato, MN Clear Lake, IA Dubuque, IA White Bear Lake, MN Rates We would provide the services in accordance with the hourly or unit rate schedule below. The rates shown include costs for all equipment associated with the services. We have necessarily assumed that the contractor(s) would assist us in the typical manner expected in the performance of our tasks. Field Services Compaction, Concrete & DCP Testing $45.00/hour Coring of Permeable Concrete, with Coring Machine $80.00/hour Licensed Professional Engineer, if needed $100.00/hour Nuclear Gauge Rental No Charge Special Cylinder Pick-up (personnel and vehicle)$40.00/trip Trip Charges $15.00/trip Laboratory Testing Proctor Density Testing $110 test Concrete Cylinders (6”x12”)$14.00/cylinder Unit Weight of Pervious Concrete Cores $15.00/test Compression Testing of Retaining Wall Units $200.00/set Bituminous Density (cores cut by paving contractor)$40.00/core Extraction/Gradations $125.00/test Extraction on Milled Bituminous $125.00/test Gradation Tests $75.00/test Gradations with Hydrometers $110.00/test Topsoil Testing $25.00/test Infiltrometer Testing $400.00/test For overtime or weekend work there would be an additional 30% fee to our regular hourly rates. Invoicing and Payment An invoice for the work will be mailed to the client each month. Payment is considered to be due 30 days after the date of the invoice. Remarks We appreciate the opportunity to propose professional services to you. If you have any questions about our proposal, please call Colby Verdegan at (507) 281-0968 or Phil Peterson at (651) 955-3325. Sincerely, Chosen Valley Testing, Inc. Phillip J. Peterson, PG Geotechnical Engineer Colby T. Verdegan, PE – IA, WI, MN Geotechnical and Materials Engineer/President P:\____Proposals\Proposals - MN-Twin City Metro\T2011 Proposals\Maplewood Western Hills CMT\CMT Proposal.doc AUTHORIZATION Owners Representative _____________________________________ Signed by _____________________________________ Date Agenda Item G7 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 82 of 350 Chosen Valley Testing Tabulation Showing Units Rates and Estimated Costs for All Services 1. Compaction Testing Time & Trips Tests Tests/Trip Site Visits Est. Hours per Visit Total Hours Unit Cost Cost San.Sewer Manholes 11 5 2 2 4 $45 $180.00 Storm Sewer CB and Manholes 52 5 13 2 26 $45 $1,170.00 Trench Backfill 65 5 13 2 26 $45 $1,170.00 Subgrade 36 6 6 2.5 15 $45 $675.00 Select Granular Borrow 16 6 3 2.5 7 1/2 $45 $337.50 Aggregate Base (DCP Testing)45 6 8 2.5 20 $45 $900.00 Vehicle & Mileage Charges, per Trip 45 $15 $675.00 Tests No. Of Tests Unit Cost Cost Proctor tests - Utility Work& Subgrade 6 $110 $660.00 Proctor Test - Select Granular Borrow 1 $110 $110.00 Proctor Test - Aggregate Base 1 $110 $110.00 Gradation - Select Granular Borrow 1 $40 $40.00 Agg.Gradation - assume milled material 6 $125 $750.00 0 $75 $0.00 Total Est. Costs for Earthwork and Compaction Testing $6,777.50 2. Bituminous Pavement Testing Laboratory Testing No. Of Tests Unit Cost Cost Bituminous Compaction - laboratory density 120 $40 $4,800.00 Extraction/Gradations 16 $125 $2,000.00 Total Est. Costs for Bituminous Testing $6,800.00 3. Concrete Testing Time & Trips Trips Est. Hours per Pour Total Hours Unit Cost Cost 49 1.5 73 1/2 $45 $3,307.50 Pervious Concrete, unit weight 3 1.5 4 1/2 $20 $90.00 1 2 2 $80 $160.00 Vehicle & Mileage Charges, per Trip 52 $15 $780.00 Compression Test Beams - includes mold, curing, and reporting Pours Sets/Pour Sets x Pours x 3 cyls/set Unit Cost Cylinders 49 3 147 $14 $2,058.00 Unit Wt of Cores 4 $14 $56.00 Total Est. Costs for Concrete Testing $6,451.50 4. Other Services Laboratory Testing No. Of Tests Unit Cost Cost Compression of Dry Cast Cast Sec. Wall Units (per set)1 $200.00 $200.00 Nutrient Analysis of Topsoil 1 $25.00 $25.00 Gradation on Filtration Media $70.00 $0.00 Gradation on Filtration Media with Hydrometer Analysis 1 $110.00 $110.00 Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing (assumes pit excavated by contractor 4 $400.00 $1,600.00 Total Other Services $1,935.00 Administrative and Reporting Costs Report $0.00 Est Cost for Administrative and Reporting Costs $0.00 Total Estimated Costs for All Services $21,964.00 $6,777.50 $6,800.00 $6,451.50 $1,935.00 $0.00 $21,964.00 Agg.Gradations - non-milled material, if needed. Total Estimated Cost Est. Costs for Earthwork and Compaction Testing Est. Costs for Bituminous Testing Est. Costs for Concrete Testing Other Services Administrative and Reporting Costs Concrete Testing, Slump Air, temp, cylinders Coring, including coring machine and generator Agenda Item G7 Attachment 1Packet Page Number 83 of 350 Agenda Item G7 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 84 of 350 Agenda Item G7 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 85 of 350 Agenda Item G7 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 86 of 350 AGENDA REPORT TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director Steven Love, Assistant City Engineer Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II SUBJECT: Western Hills Area Street Improvements, City Project 10-14 Approval of Rider to Joint Powers Agreement with Saint Paul Regional Water Services DATE: May 13, 2011 INTRODUCTION As part of the Western Hills Area Street Improvement Project (City Project 10-14), the City is proposing to construct several drainage and infiltration basins on Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) property. The Council will consider approving a rider to an existing agreement between the Board of Water Commissioners and the City of Maplewood which dates back to July 1961. The 4th Rider establishes an agreement between the City and SPRWS for the maintenance of storm water infrastructure on SPRWS lands. BACKGROUND An agreement between the then Village of Maplewood and the Board of Water Commissioners (SPRWS) was ratified in July 1961 for the construction of any street, drainage and sanitary sewer improvements SPRWS Board-owned properties. In July 1968, an addendum to the agreement (the first rider) approved construction of a sanitary sewer along Sylvan Street. Sylvan Street serves as the employee entrance to the SPRWS McCarron’s Treatment Plant campus and provides access to several households. The land under Sylvan Street, which is considered water-utility right-of-way, contains several low-pressure and high-pressure water pipelines that service the entire SPRWS customer base. The agreement outlines the terms and conditions which the City maintains and operates the roadway under a joint-powers agreement with the Board. Descriptions of the agreement and 3 existing riders are attached. DISCUSSION For City Project 10-14 the awarded construction contract to T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc. included Bid Alternate 3 for storm water treatment and drainage improvements on SPRWS lands west of Sylvan Street and west of Fenton Avenue. Bid Alternate 3 was awarded contingent upon an agreement with SPRWS for the construction and maintenance of the proposed drainage systems. The purpose of these improvements is to provide treatment for storm water runoff from the neighborhood at points where neighborhood drainage already enters SPRWS property. Since SPRWS property receives runoff from a 46-acre drainage area, staff felt it prudent to work with SPRWS personnel on a solution that not only provides a treatment benefit to the City, but also improves drainage to and from SPRWS property. To a certain extent, the Capitol Region Watershed District may consider a reduction in required infiltration credits to SPRWS property for any future development due to the City’s storm water enhancements. Agenda Item G8 Packet Page Number 87 of 350 Resulting from this collaboration is an agreement between SPRWS and the City for regular maintenance of the storm water basins and other related improvements on SPRWS property. A copy of the agreement is attached for reference. City staff and SPRWS personnel continue to work through the detailed maintenance and operations plans to be developed as stipulated by this agreement. BUDGET IMPACT There is no direct budget impact to the Western Hills project due to this agreement. Maintenance of the storm water basins and related infrastructure will be rolled into the overall storm water system operations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following:  That council approves the attached 4th Rider to the existing July 1961 agreement between Board of Water Commissioners and the City of Maplewood.  That council directs the Mayor and City Manager to sign the 4th Rider signifying city council approval Minor revisions as approved by the City Attorney are authorized as needed for the agreement.  That council authorize the City Engineer to enter into a supplemental agreement with T.A. Schifsky and Sons., Inc. to add Saint Paul Regional Water Services as additional insured to the Western Hills Area Street Improvement project comprehensive insurance policy. Attachments 1. Proposed 4th Rider to Agreement 2. Existing Addenda Descriptions 3. Existing 1961 Agreement 4. Existing 1968 Addendum Agenda Item G8 Packet Page Number 88 of 350 Agreement # 1089 FOURTH RIDER TO AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 7th day of June, 2011, by and between the BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL (the “Board”) and the CITY OF MAPLEWOOD (the “City”) being a Fourth Rider to that certain Agreement made by and between the Board and the City on the 11th day of July, 1961, and by this reference incorporated herein and made a part and parcel hereof with the same intent, purpose and affect as if said Agreement were set forth herein verbatim. WHEREAS, the Board now possesses title to certain real estate commonly referred to as Sandy Lake and McCarrons Water Treatment Plant and Dewatering Lagoons, situated east of Rice Street between Larpenteur Avenue and County Road B, in the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section 18, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, said real estate hereinafter called the “Premises”. WHEREAS, the City desires permission to enter upon certain portions of the Premises and to therein install and maintain street and sewer improvements and storm water detention basins; and WHEREAS, the Board is willing to grant said permission to the City consistent with requirements and safety of the works of the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AGREED, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements of the parties thereto: That subject to all terms and conditions contained in the Agreement between the parties hereto made and entered into the 11th day of July, 1961, the Board hereby grants to the City permission to enter upon portions of the Premises and to thereon carry out all Board approved necessary operations in respect to the following: Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 89 of 350 1. Approved Activities The City is permitted to install and maintain storm water detention basins and piping improvements in three areas of the Premises adjacent to Fenton Avenue, Skillman Avenue and Sylvan Street in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and with City of Maplewood Project No. 10-14, Western Hills/Larpenteur Area Street Improvement, plans and specifications, as approved by Saint Paul Regional Water Services (“SPRWS”), incorporated herein by reference. Copies of the approved plans and specifications are retained on file at the offices of the Board and the City. Pertinent plan sheets are attached hereto for ease of reference. 2. Special Conditions a) Construction shall not commence on the Premises without SPRWS written approval of final construction plans and specifications and an onsite preconstruction meeting attended by the City, its contractor and SPRWS. b) The City shall notify the following SPRWS personnel at least 48 hours before commencement of construction activities at each site: Damage Prevention Unit Supervisor – (651) 266-6880 Vadnais Supervisor – (651) 775-6192 c) Sylvan Street The City shall install and maintain a neighborhood information sign, subject to SPRWS approval, which shall include City contact information. c) Fenton Avenue Prior to mobilization on the site by contractor, the City shall develop a Security and Fencing Plan for the construction period, subject to SPRWS approval. d) Skillman Avenue None e) Upon final restoration, the City shall conduct an onsite post-construction meeting with its contractor and SPRWS. 3. Operations and Maintenance a) The City shall be responsible for operation and maintenance of all installed works and features. b) All vegetation shall be established and maintained in accordance with the plans, specifications and recommendations of the designer and/or installer, and maintained in accordance with the Operations and Maintenance Plan. c) The City shall develop an Operations and Maintenance Plan, subject to SPRWS approval. Plan shall include aesthetic and performance requirements. Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 90 of 350 d) The City shall maintain the improvements in accordance with the Operations and Maintenance Plan. In the event SPRWS observes a nonconforming conditions it shall notify the City of the condition via telephone at (651) 249-2400 or in writing by U.S. Mail to ‘City Engineer, City of Maplewood Public Works Department, 1902 County Road B East, Maplewood, MN 55109’ depending on the severity of the condition. Upon receiving such notice, the City shall investigate the conditions and provide remedy by a date acceptable to SPRWS and notify SPRWS of such remedy. In the event the City does not provide the remedy by that date, SPRWS may, at its option, perform the remedy and the City shall reimburse the Board for all expenses related thereto. e) The City shall develop an Annual Maintenance Inspection Checklist, subject to SPRWS approval. The Plan shall include aesthetic and performance requirements. f) The City and SPRWS shall jointly perform annual inspections of the sites to verify that the improvements are being maintained in accordance with the Operations and Maintenance Plan. The City shall remedy all nonconforming conditions identified during annual inspections by a date acceptable to SPRWS and acceptably perform correction to the performance requirements as indicted in the Operations and Maintenance Plan. 4. Insurance Section 11 of the July 11, 1961 Agreement is hereby amended to require public liability insurance in minimum amounts of $500,000 for bodily injury or death to one person, $1,500,000 on account of any one accident and $1,500,000 for damages to or destruction of any property. All Other requirements of Section 11 shall remain unchanged. 5. Green Space Credit Upon approval of this Agreement, the Board shall receive from the City a permanent and ongoing Green Space credit of 4.2% towards the City’s Environment Utility (storm water management) charge, based on the following: a) The Premises consists of 23.48 developed acres. b) The storm water improvements to be constructed on the Premises constitute a combined area of 0.98 acres, which is 4.2% of the total developed acres. This Agreement is made and executed pursuant to and under the authority of Resolution Number ________ adopted by the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul on the 7th day of June, 2011, a copy of said Resolution being annexed hereto and by this reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof the same as if set forth herein verbatim. Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 91 of 350 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed these presents in triplicate the day and year first above written. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA By ___________________________________ Will Rossbach, Mayor By ___________________________________ James Antonen, City Manager Approved: BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL ________________________________ By ___________________________________ Stephen P. Schneider, General Manager Patrick Harris, President Saint Paul Regional Water Services By ___________________________________ Mollie Gagnelius, Secretary Approved as to Form: ________________________________ By ___________________________________ Assistant City Attorney Todd Hurley, Acting Director Office of Financial Services Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 92 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 93 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 94 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 95 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 96 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 97 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 98 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 99 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 100 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 101 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 102 of 350 Master Agreement between Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul and City of Maplewood Jul 11, 1961 Board entered into an agreement with the Village (City) allowing it to install, maintain and operate certain public works and improvements within Board-owned property, subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. The agreement also approved construction of City’s 1961 Sanitary Sewer Improvement No. 5, Project No. 2 (Rice Street Trunk). Oct 3, 1968 Board and Village (City) entered into Addendum to Agreement (First Rider to Agreement), which approved construction of City’s 1968 Sanitary Sewer Improvement No. 3, Project No. 2 (Sylvan and Gurney Streets). Mar 31, 1982 Board and City entered into Addendum to Agreement (Second Rider to Agreement), which approved construction of a storm water pond on the Board’s Highwood Water Tower site on the east side of McKnight Road north of Linwood Avenue. Jun 20, 2000 Board and City entered into Third Rider to Agreement, which approved construction of City’s Improvement Project No. 99-02 (Lift Station No. 9 Sanitary Sewer). Proposed: Jun 7, 2011 Board and City entered into Fourth Rider to Agreement, which approved construction of street and sewer improvements in Sylvan Street and three storm water basins near Sylvan Street, Kingston Avenue and Fenton Avenue as part of City’s Improvement Project No. 10-14, Western Hills/Larpenteur Area Street Improvement. Agenda Item G8 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 103 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 104 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 105 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 106 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 107 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 108 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 109 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 110 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 111 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 112 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 113 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 114 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 115 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 116 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 117 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 118 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 119 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 120 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 121 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 122 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 123 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 124 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 125 of 350 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 126 of 350 AGENDA REPORT TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director Steven Love, Assistant City Engineer Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II SUBJ: NPDES Phase II and MS4 Permit Call Public Hearing for June 27, 2011 at 7:00pm DATE: May 13, 2011 INTRODUCTION As part of Maplewood’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, the City is required to prepare an annual report detailing the progress made in the previous year toward satisfying the requirements of the permit. Part of this process is soliciting public comment. A minimum 30-day comment period and formal public hearing is required as part of updating the permit. The Council will consider ordering a public hearing for the City’s permit for the June 27, 2011 City Council meeting. BACKGROUND A 1987 amendment to the federal Clean Water Act required implementation of a two-phase comprehensive national program to address pollution from stormwater runoff. This program was named the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Since 1991, NPDES Phase I regulated cities with populations of 100,000 or more. NPDES Phase II took effect in 2003, regulating cities with populations of 10,000 or more. Maplewood was among a group of approximately 220 cities in Minnesota affected by NPDES Phase II. The State of Minnesota regulates the disposal of stormwater by a State Disposal System (SDS) permit. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) administers both NPDES and SDS permits in Minnesota. In turn, the MPCA regulates cities and other public entities through its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. In 2006, the city submitted its permit application to the MPCA. The permit cycle runs five years. DISCUSSION Staff is currently in the process of updating the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for 2010. The full SWPPP document will be available for public viewing on May 25, 2011 at the Public Works front counter and on the City’s web site. The City is required to hold a public meeting on the annual report to solicit comments. All comments, written and oral, will be addressed in the final report submitted to the MPCA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends calling for a public hearing on June 27, 2011 at 7 pm to meet the NPDES requirement and to solicit feedback on the updated SWPPP. Agenda Item G9 Packet Page Number 127 of 350 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Packet Page Number 128 of 350 AGENDA REPORT TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director SUBJECT: Gladstone Area Redevelopment Improvements, Project 04-21 a. Assessment Hearing, 7:00 p.m. (To Be Continued to June 27th) DATE: May 17, 2011 INTRODUCTION Final plans and specifications for the above referenced project were approved, and advertisement for bids was authorized at the April 25, 2011 council meeting in addition to calling for an Assessment Hearing. The bid opening was scheduled for 10:00am on May 18, 2011. The assessment hearing was scheduled for May 23, 2011 at 7:00pm. An assessment notice was sent to both the land owner (Rand Corporation) and developer (Maplewood Senior Living, LLC). The council will consider continuing these actions as stated in the staff recommendation. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The plans and specifications are complete and they have been submitted for Mn/DOT review and approval since State Aid funds are proposed to finance a portion of the project costs. Delays have been encountered in obtaining the necessary State Aid approvals due to a heavy Mn/DOT review workload. As a result of these delays, the bid opening date has been rescheduled for June 3, 2011 at 10:00am and contract award will then be considered at the June 13, 2011 council meeting. Staff is continuing to work with Maplewood Senior Living, LLC to coordinate the proposed development with the city’s public infrastructure improvements. Additional time is needed to complete the various coordination activities and it would be beneficial to delay the assessment hearing until the June 27, 2011 council meeting. The overall project schedule will not be adversely impacted by the delay in the assessment hearing and contract award. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council continue the assessment hearing for the project to the June 27, 2011 council meeting. The bid opening will be continued to June 3, 2011 at 10:00am in council chambers, and the award of bid will be considered by the city council at the June 13, 2011 meeting. Attachments: 1. Location Map Agenda Item H1 Packet Page Number 129 of 350 Agenda Item H1 Attachment Packet Page Number 130 of 350 Agenda Item I1 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Consider Approval of Resolution Adopting the 2012 – 2106 Capital Improvement Plan DATE: May 18, 2011 INTRODUCTION The 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan was released by the City Council for review by the City Commissions on April 25, 2011. A Public Hearing on the CIP was held at the Planning Commission on May 17, 2011. Each of the Commissions have provided recommendations to adopt the CIP without revision. It is now appropriate for the City Council to adopt the CIP. Adopting the CIP does not commit the Council to the proposed projects, nor implement the assumptions made during the preparation; however, this is the basis for the 2012 Budget as we proceed to begin preparing for the 2012 Budget document. A draft copy of the CIP was provided to the Council during the Council-Manager Workshop on April 11; as there were no changes recommended through the review process with the commissions and boards, final copies will be prepared and distributed after adoption by the Council. If a Council Member needs a new copy of the draft CIP, contact staff. Background Information During the April 11th Work Session the topic of a referendum for various facilities was reviewed along with the status of the 2010 final revenue and expenditure summary. On April 23rd, the staff reviewed the process for the preparation of this CIP, as well as the major assumptions made to determine the funding available as well as the impact of implementing the projects as recommended. The scope of the budget process starts with the assumptions of funding that might be available from 2010 [such as money being used for the MCC Pool and the Phone System] as well as a discussion of the major capital projects. The CIP was prepared assuming no referendum at this time. That can be changed as the process is evaluated, but the staff assumption is to attempt to implement goals without the benefit of a referendum discussion. Similarly, the staff has assumed that the Council endorses the uses of 2010 funds being carried forward for improvements to the Pool at MCC and replacement of the phone system. Those projects are not included in the 2012 – 2016 CIP. Attached to this report is the 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan. The Transmittal Letter highlights the major projects and revisions within the Plan for consideration. The biggest revision is the inclusion of the new Fire Stations and expansion of the Police Department, which adds nearly $7.0 million in improvements to the plan over last year’s proposal. The document explains each of the proposed projects, as well, analyzes the impacts on the budget for the various funds, along with the tax impact necessary to implement these projects as proposed. The overall theme of the CIP, as well as the planning for the 2012 Budget is Financial Sustainability, as well as implementation of the Council goal to “Evaluate and Implement Facility Improvements into the Infrastructure Needs”. These goals have been translated into a staff recommendation to reduce current operating expenses to help fund facility improvements. As the 2012 Budget process moves forward with these assumptions, the City Council will hear from Department Heads about the impacts of the proposed cuts as follows: Packet Page Number 131 of 350 2012 – 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE TWO • Police Department Reductions $150,000 • Fire Department Reductions $100,000 • Ambulance Fund Reductions $110,000 • Public Works Department Reductions $150,000 • Citizen Services Department Reductions $ 42,000 • Community Development Department Reductions $ 60,000 • Park and Recreation Department Reductions $ 50,000 Commission Review 1. Business and Economic Development Commission a. Reviewed the CIP on April 28, 2011 b. Recommended approval without revision on a 3 – 1 vote. c. The minority vote noted concern with a proposed 5.0% increase in levy. 2. Park and Recreation Commission a. Reviewed the CIP on May 4, 2011. b. Following is provided by Jim Taylor: At the May 4 special meeting the Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to approve the Draft CIP report. They were very complimentary of the hard work that the City Council and City staff have put into the report and wanted to thank both for their commitment to improving our park system. Although unanimous they did have a couple of concerns: 1. There was still concern over Gladstone primarily the $100,000 of existing pack budgeted in 2012 and the planning process for the Savanna. 2. They had concerns about the cutting of funding to other park projects like Goodrich and Legacy. 3. The Commission expressed some concern over the additional $375,000 dollars budgeted at Gethsemane. Staff explained that this would only happen if the planned development occurred. 4. They had concern that the $250,000 dollars for the MCC still may not cover all of the infrastructure needs at the facility. The Parks and Recreation Commission is very pleased with the additional CIP Fund money going into park improvement and replacement (From $48,000 to $100,000). They felt this number would greatly help us improve and start replacing amenities in our existing parks. Action went as follows: Motion – Commissioner Fischer 2nd – Commissioner Maas Ayes - All 3. Housing Redevelopment Authority a. Reviewed the CIP on May 11, 2011 b. Recommended approval without revision. c. Commented that the fees at the MCC should be considered for reduction to see if membership would increase. Packet Page Number 132 of 350 2012 – 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE THREE 4. Environmental and Natural Resources Commission a. Reviewed the CIP on May 16, 2011 b. Recommended approval without revision. 5. Planning Commission a. Reviewed the CIP on May 17, 2011 b. Recommended approval without revision. c. Found that the CIP is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Note: The following is re-printed as background information from April 25, 2011. Capital Improvement Plan Process The process for the Capital Improvement Plan [CIP] begins in February of each year. The Council provided guidance by adopting goals for the coming years. A clear goal of the Council was financial sustainability combined with a focus on funding for City facilities. The key discussion at the retreat involved the Maplewood Community Center funding as well as a long- term vision for public safety facilities. The staff submits projects based upon those goals, and the finance staff analyzes the funds available for capital projects along with the impacts of the staff proposals. A number of revisions are made in the project submittals based upon the analysis of finance, as well as management priorities to achieve the attached CIP plan. This document reflects the final accumulation of that process. Summary of CIP The 2010 – 2014 CIP was approved at a $77.76 Million level; while last year’s 2011 – 2015 CIP was approved at a reduced $65.74 Million level. The staff, again based upon the Council input on priorities for investment in the MCC and public safety facilities, has slightly decreased the proposed 2012 – 2106 CIP to $65.32 Million. It should be noted that the original staff submittals to management totaled $102.79 Million in needed requests. Each project was analyzed, and management determined that nearly $38 Million in proposed projects should be removed from the next 5 years of consideration. A majority of those projects are listed in the Declined Category; it is noted that some projects were revised to lower estimates and, while proceeding, are proceeding at lower levels; thus the Declined projects total only $28.9 Million. The proposed 2012 – 2016 CIP can be divided into three sections based upon the need for new revenues as follows: 1. New annual revenue for Public Safety Facilities: $620,000 a. What does this investment provide? i. New Fire Stations: 1. A new station within the South Leg of Maplewood on or near the 3M Campus to be built in 2012 – 2013 without the need for a referendum. We have assumed that we could implement an assessment to a partner and then sell bonds for both the assessment as well as the Fire Station expense to provide for the $4.0 million expense. Significant bond work and discussion with partners are necessary to make this a reality. Packet Page Number 133 of 350 2012 – 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE FOUR 2. Refurbishment/replacement of Fire Station #7 at Hazelwood and County Road C in 2014 – 2015. This assumes that the Century Avenue, Londin Lane and McMenemy Street stations are abandoned; the property sold at a value of $2.0 million by 2013. This funding would then be used for the construction of new Fire Station #7 at the same location. ii. New money to the Fire Truck Replacement Fund 1. Prior to the recession, the City was providing an annual levy to be placed in a fund for the replacement of fire trucks on a rotating basis. The last levy dollars that were placed in the fund was a $45,000 transfer of General Fund dollars in 2009. This proposal provides a plan for an annual levy of $100,000 so that funds are available to replace a fire truck in 2014 and again in 2016. iii. Police Department Expansion beginning in 2011 - 2012 1. The space needs study is just beginning; however, this plan provides for expansion at City Hall. An allocation of $825,000 is estimated to be spent for unspecified facilities but would include finishing vacant space at Public Works for relocation of a department from City Hall to make space for expanding the Police Department. No referendum is necessary to make this work. iv. Begin to reduce the Deficit in the Ambulance Fund 1. While this is not a capital expenditure issue, the continued shortfall in planning for the Ambulance Fund is addressed with this approach. An assumption by previous finance staff on revenues was discovered that creates some revenue revisions in 2011 and 2012. These policy decisions, combined with the continual shortfall in coverage by Medicare for up to 60% of the calls, created a cash shortfall in this fund. 2. This cash issue revolves around the write-off of millions of revenue dollars due to reimbursement expenses from Medicare. The lack of a write-off in 2009, created an assumption of extra funds, which need to be addressed. Without going into significant financial allocation funding techniques, this change creates a shortfall in the General Fund. 3. The proposal calls for a levy, possibly under the Public Safety / Emergency Services levy authority, that would be outside levy limits. A levy, of up to 2.0%, was considered as an assumption as part of this plan. This item will be reviewed in detail in June – July 2011 as part of the overall discussion of the 2012 Budget, but is an assumption of this plan as presented. The staff recognizes that the Ambulance Fund will begin a very slow revision to a positive cash flow and will begin a process to reduce the negative cash balance. 4. This allows for the replacement within this plan of an Ambulance in 2013 and a second ambulance in 2016. b. What is not in this plan? i. Fire Training Facility / Marshlands Proposal Packet Page Number 134 of 350 2012 – 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE FIVE 1. Due to the unknown funding status at the state, we have placed this proposal on hold. The sequence of the project requires that the MnDOT property be conveyed to Maplewood jurisdiction. This conveyance is necessary as a match for state bonding, but cannot occur until state bonding is received. Because the property is currently right of way, there is no property description number which means that comprehensive planning cannot occur. Without that planning and jurisdiction of the parcel, we cannot access the County grant funds for clean-up; and we do not want to accept the jurisdiction of the property because MnDOT wants us to create wetland credits in exchange for the parcel, of which funding is tied partially to the state grant funds. ii. Rehabilitation of Fire Station #2 1. As part of Chief Lukin’s proposal for the fire department, he identified needs for improvements at the three main fire stations. We have identified funding approach for two, but this project will need to be delayed to post 2016. An alternative would be to raise the levy an additional 1% above the recommended 2% to generate an estimated $175,000 per year for this need. iii. New Police Facility 1. This program expands the Police Department at City Hall in the amount of $825,000 to address immediate needs. A proposal for a newly expanded Police Department at an undisclosed location was proposed in the amount of +$10 million, but has been put on- hold; and will likely require a referendum question. The proposed improvements within this plan will be implemented to provide for immediate needs and could be used if a future referendum is passed and expansion is approved at the existing City Hall. i. Public Safety Program Cuts [to be reviewed in June – July] 2. Police: we have estimated that a reduction of $150,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Police Department; likely from the over-time allocation, as well as personnel expenses moving forward. 3. Fire: we have estimated that a reduction of $110,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Fire Department in the Ambulance Fund, likely from expenses and personnel cost savings; in addition a reduction of up to $100,000 will be needed from the General Fund portion of the Fire Department to reduce the growth in the program. These reductions will need additional evaluation within the next 2 – 3 months to determine the extent of reductions and level of service to be provided. 2. Additional Funds to cover Debt Service $250,000 a. What does this investment provide? i. Support for the Debt Service Fund on Previous Projects 1. The Debt Service Fund will peak in 2014 and begin decreasing in needs in 2015. With the revisions in state aid funding, the Packet Page Number 135 of 350 2012 – 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE SIX allocation for debt has been reduced and needs to be supplemented, in addition, the City debt incurred in 2007 – 2010 for the advanced street improvement program is coming due and this increase is necessary to maintain our top bond rating. ii. Continued investment in the Streets Program 1. The streets program is significantly reduced by this proposed CIP, but continues to invest and returns to recommended levels in 2015 – 2016. In the interim, projects such as TH 36 – English; the Gladstone project and overlay of MSAS streets are implemented that do not require significant impacts to debt service. b. What does this not provide? i. Public Works Program Cuts [to be reviewed in June – July] 1. Public Works: we have estimated that a reduction of $150,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Public Works Department; likely from expenses and personnel expenses. This reduction will make the 2012 Streets program net neutral to the 2012 budget, as that program is estimated to add $140,000 in extra levy expense. 3. Additional Funds for Operating and Facility Expenses $460,000 a. What does this investment provide? i. Support for new Operating Expenses in 2012 1. Three major expenses are anticipated in 2012 that will have an impact on the amount of funds available for capital expenses next year. Approved employment contracts and employee step increases will add approximately $125,000 to 2012’s budget; while we are assuming $4 per gallon fuel, which will add $75,000 in expenses; while the IT Fund has been used for advancing expenses and increased costs to return to sustainability [this is not an expansion of IT services] of $40,000 is required to remain net neutral to overall needs. i. New Capital for Improvements at MCC 2. The five-year sustainability plan proposed by staff and reviewed with the Council on April 11th is partially implemented with this plan. An allocation of $150,000 has already been proposed and an additional $100,000 will be allocated in 2012 to meet the requested $250,000 annual needs. 3. This plan will move significant additional funds into Parks and Recreation as follows: a. Levy for 2011: i. MCC Fund Levy - $340,000 ii. MCC Capital Levy - $ 0 iii. Rec Program Fund Levy - $225,000 iv. General Fund Transfers - $ 70,000* v. Total - $635,000 Packet Page Number 136 of 350 2012 – 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE SEVEN vi. * - Note this does not include the $150,000 for the Pool. b. Levy for 2012: i. MCC Fund Levy - $340,000 ii. MCC Capital Levy - $100,000 iii. Rec Program Fund Levy - $200,000 iv. General Fund Transfers - $ 70,000 v. Total - $710,000 ii. New Funds for CIP Fund for Facilities 4. In previous years, a levy was implemented for Capital expenses. It is proposed to re-instate that levy in the amount of $95,000 per year. These funds are used for improvements of existing Park equipment and Community Fields along with improvements to City Hall and departmental equipment. The 2012 proposed improvements include $100,000 to existing park facilities. 5. Future plans from this fund include replacement of Election Equipment, improvements at the Nature Center and carpet replacement at Public Works. b. What does this investment not provide? i. Additional identified needs at Maplewood Community Center 1. The requested improvements at MCC are significant. While a proposed allocation in 2011 of $150,000 for the pool is likely, the MCC staff has estimated a need of $250,000 annually beginning in 2012. Only $100,000 of funds has been proposed at this time. The staff recognizes that the MCC Fund still shows a negative balance, but additional steps will be taken and it is anticipated that eventually the fund will begin to show a positive cash flow in future years. ii. Additional Funds for Park Development 1. The number of projects proposed for improvement within Maplewood Parks will far exceed the funds projected to be available from PAC Funds. An annual levy of $140,000 would be necessary to meet these needs. This has not been proposed. Projects at Goodrich Park, Joy Park and Legacy Park have been delayed or reduced due to the lack of funding. iii. General Fund Program Cuts [to be reviewed in June – July] 1. Citizen Services - we have estimated that a reduction of $42,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Citizen Services Department; likely from expenses and personnel expenses. 2. Community Development: - we have estimated that a reduction of $60,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Community Development Department; likely from personnel expenses shifts and possibly an increase in permit revenue. 3. Executive/Legal/Finance - we have estimated that a reduction of Packet Page Number 137 of 350 2012 – 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PAGE EIGHT 4. $40,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Executive / Legal / Finance programs; likely from expenses and personnel expenses. 5. Park and Recreation Programs - we have estimated that a reduction of $50,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Park and Recreation Department; likely from expenses and personnel expenses. Budgetary Consideration As noted within the CIP Document and this memorandum, the proposed approach can be implemented with a 3 – 5 % projected levy increase. The final amount will depend upon the level of reserves that the Council wishes to have going into 2012, along with the estimate of revenues for 2012. We have assumed that 2011 revenues, other than the noted tax levy increase, will be equal to 2012 revenues; with no major increases or decreases. As reviewed with the Council on April 11th, the Finance Manager has some concerns with a couple of revenue assumptions and is monitoring the situation. Those items will be reviewed along with the impacts of cuts within the various departments and programs during the budget meetings in July 2011 as the Council moves forward with budget determinations and directions. As noted, these are the assumptions that the CIP was based upon for presentation to the City Council. The assumptions will be reviewed in detail as the process proceeds over the next months. Input from the Council on the assumptions, projects and adjustments made by management staff are requested. Recommended Action It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution which adopts the 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan as proposed. Attachments: 1. Draft 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan 2. Resolution for Adoption Packet Page Number 138 of 350 Carsgrove Meadows Area Improvements Hills and Dales Joy Park Shoreline Packet Page Number 139 of 350 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i SECTION I – INTRODUCTION Principal City Officials .......................................................................................................................... 1 City Manager's Letter of Transmittal .................................................................................................... 2 Highlights .............................................................................................................................................. 6 New Projects ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Projects by Category ............................................................................................................................. 8 Schedule for Construction and Financing of 2012 Projects ................................................................ 10 Schedule for 2012 Bond Issue ............................................................................................................. 11 Projects by Category for 2012 ............................................................................................................. 12 Projects Scheduled for 2012 ................................................................................................................ 13 Funding Sources for the Capital Improvement Plan ........................................................................... 15 General Community Development Information ................................................................................. 19 Undeveloped Land Map ...................................................................................................................... 20 Maplewood Population Statistics ........................................................................................................ 21 SECTION II – DEBT CAPACITY AND FINANCING STRATEGY Debt Capacity ..................................................................................................................................... 25 Debt Transactions Past Five Years and Next Five Years .................................................................... 26 C.I.P. Impact on City Debt .................................................................................................................. 27 Debt Per Capita ................................................................................................................................... 28 Debt to Market Value ......................................................................................................................... 30 Legal Debt Margin .............................................................................................................................. 32 Capital Improvement Plan Financing Strategy .................................................................................... 33 Impact on Property Taxes .................................................................................................................... 34 SECTION III – PROJECT DETAILS Project Details ..................................................................................................................................... 35 Map of City by Neighborhood ......................................................................................................... 37 Western Hills – Neighborhood #1 Map Legend and Population Data .................................................................................................... 38 Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 39 Parkside – Neighborhood #2 Map Legend and Population Data .................................................................................................... 40 Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 41 Arkwright/Sunrise Area Streets ........................................................................................................ 43 Kohlman Lake – Neighborhood #3 Map Legend and Population Data .................................................................................................... 44 Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 45 Hazelwood – Neighborhood #4 Map Legend and Population Data .................................................................................................... 46 Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 47 Legacy Park Improvements .............................................................................................................. 49 Packet Page Number 140 of 350 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ii SECTION III – PROJECT DETAILS (continued) Maplewood Heights – Neighborhood #5 Map Legend and Population Data .................................................................................................... 50 Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 51 Sherwood Glen – Neighborhood #6 Map Legend and Population Data .................................................................................................... 52 Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 53 Police Department Expansion .......................................................................................................... 55 Maplewood Community Center Improvements ............................................................................... 56 TH 36 – English Intersection Improvements ................................................................................... 57 Gladstone – Neighborhood #7 Map Legend and Population Data .................................................................................................... 58 Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 59 Gladstone Area Streetscape – Phase I .............................................................................................. 61 Gladstone – Phase II ........................................................................................................................ 62 Gladstone Savanna Improvements ................................................................................................... 63 Hillside – Neighborhood #8 Map Legend and Population Data .................................................................................................... 64 Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 65 Goodrich Park Improvements .......................................................................................................... 67 Beaver Lake – Neighborhood #9 Map Legend and Population Data .................................................................................................... 68 Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 69 Lions Park Improvements ................................................................................................................ 71 Gethsemane Park .............................................................................................................................. 72 City Landfill Closure ........................................................................................................................ 73 Bartelmy Meyer Area Streets ........................................................................................................... 74 Farrell/Ferndale Area Street Improvements ..................................................................................... 75 Battle Creek – Neighborhood #10 Map Legend and Population Data .................................................................................................... 76 Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 77 Dennis/McClelland Area Street Improvements ................................................................................ 79 Vista Hills – Neighborhood #11 Map Legend and Population Data .................................................................................................... 80 Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 81 Crestview/Highwood Area Streets ................................................................................................... 83 Highwood – Neighborhood #12 Map Legend and Population Data .................................................................................................... 84 Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 85 Fish Creek Open Space .................................................................................................................... 86 Lakewood/Sterling Area Streets ....................................................................................................... 87 Carver Ridge – Neighborhood #13 Map Legend and Population Data .................................................................................................... 88 Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 89 Sterling Street Bridge Replacement ................................................................................................. 91 Packet Page Number 141 of 350 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page iii SECTION III – PROJECT DETAILS (continued) Projects without a Neighborhood Designation .................................................................................... 92 Replacement of Fire Truck ............................................................................................................... 93 Replacement of Fire Truck ............................................................................................................... 94 Ambulance Replacement ................................................................................................................. 95 Ambulance Replacement ................................................................................................................. 96 Replacement of Fire Station ............................................................................................................. 97 Replacement of Fire Station ............................................................................................................. 98 Election Equipment .......................................................................................................................... 99 Public Works Carpeting ................................................................................................................. 100 Nature Center Building Improvements .......................................................................................... 101 Community Field Upgrades ........................................................................................................... 102 Park Equipment, Fence and Court Replacement ............................................................................ 103 Open Space Improvements ............................................................................................................ 104 Lift Station Upgrade Program ........................................................................................................ 105 Two Toro Lawn Mowers and Two Trailers ................................................................................... 106 One Tractor Loader and Three Wheel Truckster ........................................................................... 107 One Snow Plow Truck ................................................................................................................... 108 1-Ton Truck ................................................................................................................................... 109 Two Jacobsen Lawn Mowers ......................................................................................................... 110 Two Toro Lawn Mowers and One 4 Wheel Truckster .................................................................. 111 Two 1 Ton Trucks and One ½ Ton Trucks .................................................................................... 112 Jetter Truck .................................................................................................................................... 113 Parallelogram Lift .......................................................................................................................... 114 Single Axle Plow Truck ................................................................................................................. 115 Emergency Generator..................................................................................................................... 116 Mill and Overlays ........................................................................................................................... 117 MT-Trackless Maintenance Vehicle .............................................................................................. 118 Two ½ Ton Pickups ....................................................................................................................... 119 One Ton Truck ............................................................................................................................... 120 Crack Router .................................................................................................................................. 121 Grounds Sweeper ........................................................................................................................... 122 SECTION IV – APPENDIX Project Listings: Grouped by Department ................................................................................................................. 123 Grouped by Funding Source .......................................................................................................... 125 Grouped by Project Category ......................................................................................................... 129 Grouped by Neighborhood............................................................................................................. 130 Grouped by Department – Declined .............................................................................................. 132 Projects Deferred/Declined ............................................................................................................ 133 Financial Projections for Capital Project Funds and Fleet Management Fund: Ambulance Service Fund ............................................................................................................... 134 Capital Improvement Projects Fund ............................................................................................... 135 Packet Page Number 142 of 350 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page iv Community Center Operation Funds ............................................................................................. 136 Environmental Utility Fund ........................................................................................................... 137 Fire Truck Replacement Fund ........................................................................................................ 138 Fleet Management Fund ................................................................................................................. 139 Park Development Fund ................................................................................................................. 140 Sanitary Sewer Fund ...................................................................................................................... 141 Street Light Utility Fund ................................................................................................................ 142 Water Availability Charge Fund-St. Paul Water District ............................................................... 143 Packet Page Number 143 of 350 INTRODUCTION Packet Page Number 144 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA PRINCIPAL CITY OFFICIALS APRIL 2011 CITY COUNCIL WILLIAM ROSSBACH, MAYOR Term Expires 01-05-2014 KATHLEEN JUENEMANN, COUNCILMEMBER JAMES LLANAS, COUNCILMEMBER Term Expires 01-05-2014 Term Expires 01-05-2014 JOHN NEPHEW, COUNCILMEMBER MARV KOPPEN, COUNCILMEMBER Term Expires 01-02-2012 Term Expires 01-02-2012 CITY MANAGERIAL STAFF Employee Position Date Appointed James W. Antonen City Manager March 9, 2009 R. Charles Ahl Assistant City Manager March 24, 2009 R. Charles Ahl Director of Public Works March 5, 2001 R. Charles Ahl Director of Community & Economic Development January 1, 2011 Gayle Bauman Finance Manager May 10, 2010 DuWayne Konewko Director of Parks & Recreation January 1, 2011 Mychal Fowlds Information Technology Director February 6, 2006 Karen Guilfoile Citizen Services Director August 5, 1996 Steve Lukin Fire Chief March 17, 2000 Michael Thompson City Engineer/Deputy Director of Public Works March 30, 2009 Dave Thomalla Police Chief November 16, 2002 1 Packet Page Number 145 of 350 Mayor and City Council Honorable Mayor and Council Members: The 2012 – 2016 Proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the City of Maplewood is submitted herewith. The intent of this document is to coordinate the planning, financing and timing of major equipment purchases and construction projects. The document is divided into four sections: Introduction, Debt Capacity and Financing Strategy, Project Details, and Appendix. The focus of this CIP is on the maintenance and protection of the City’s existing assets, its buildings and streets/infrastructure, as well as to begin an investment into Public Safety facilities. This Public Safety facility investment is a major Council goal as established at the February 2011 City Council – Staff Retreat. The staff has spent numerous hours of analysis in an attempt to provide the most cost- effective and prioritized projects for 2012 - 2016 to meet that focus. This effort includes a summarized look forward at the 2012 Budget and provides an outlook for the budget based upon Council input on the level of a levy increase for the priorities within this plan. Highlights of the 2012 – 2016 CIP are: 1. The proposed construction of a new Fire Station in 2012 – 2013 within the Southern Leg of Maplewood near or possibly on the 3M Campus. This new Fire Station would replace the stations on Century Avenue, near Maryland Avenue, and the Fire Station at Londin Lane. This is part of a revamping and consolidation of fire service that provides for enhanced fire delivery over the next 40 – 50 years for Maplewood. As the construction of a new Fire Station allows for the abandonment of the stations on Century Avenue and on Londin Lane, the consolidation of service also provides for the abandonment of the Fire Station on McMenemy Road. The sale of these old stations and the property, that are in bad need of repair, will generate funds for the reconstruction in 2014 – 2015 of Fire Station #7, located at Hazelwood Avenue and County Road C. These proposed improvements are new to this year’s Capital Improvement Plan and will likely require a new 2.0% levy increase. 2. The proposed expansion of the Maplewood Police Department at City Hall. A space needs study will be performed during 2011 to determine the extent of improvements necessary for Police Department needs. The current plan calls for a 2012 – 2013 expansion of the Police Department wing of City Hall to provide unspecified needs that will be identified in the 2011 space needs study. Various functions at City Hall may be relocated to accommodate some of the Police Department needs. A proposal for a major expansion and new Police Department facility was reviewed but has been moved to the unmet needs area and a referendum will need to be considered for funding that large $10.0+ million expense. 3. In 2007 through 2010, the City Council was presented with plans to advance roadway reconstruction projects to take advantage of competitive pricing and to address a deteriorating roadway system. The plan called for an annual expenditure of $10,000,000 through 2012 for neighborhood street upgrades. This advanced plan resulted in very favorable bids in each of those years, saving the City millions of dollars in the program approaching 25-30% of the estimated costs. This expanded program has resulted in a major increase in debt service 2 Packet Page Number 146 of 350 payments in the current and future years. Due to the Council’s desire to reduce the amount of City debt and stabilize the tax levy for debt service, the CIP no longer reflects that expanded effort and a number of projects have been deferred to minimize debt levy increases. The City debt service levels are projected to begin a reduction but not until 2015, so this CIP reflects a major slowing down of the investment in infrastructure. The projections for expenses to this program begins to diminish in 2012 and is accompanied by an equivalent reduction in Public Works expenses to offset the debt needs in 2012, making the street project a revenue neutral proposal. This reduced investment in streets and infrastructure is being done to accommodate other facility needs within the City; but should not be extended for more than 2 – 3 years to avoid a repeat of the City’s lack of investment in infrastructure that occurred in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s that cost the city to embark on an expanded program through the first decade of the 21st Century. 4. The Gladstone redevelopment initiative is reflected in this plan. Major improvements totaling $6,000,000 are planned for Phase 1 in 2011 and 2012, plus an additional $1,100,000 for the Gladstone Savanna in 2012. The second phase of the redevelopment is estimated to occur in 2014-15 at $4,100,000 while the third phase has been delayed in this plan until post 2016 due to lack of funding. The staff reviewed redevelopment plans for other areas of the community and reviewed options for beginning the Hillcrest Area Redevelopment during this timeframe. Unfortunately, funding limitations required that the Hillcrest Area Redevelopment initiative not be started until Gladstone is completed, which delays that important project to post-2016 as well. In addition, proposals for a Housing Redevelopment Fund and a Commercial Property Redevelopment Fund are not funded. 5. Development of a Master Trail Plan was a priority for the City in 2008 to 2010. This Plan prioritizes the use of PAC fees for the acquisition and construction in existing parks and requires the delay of trail corridors and trail extensions. Construction of the transportation and recreational components to meet citizen needs and desires for trail connections and corridors throughout the community will remain within street projects as part of the reconstruction program and as a part of coordinated projects with Ramsey County and MnDOT, although due to the lack of funding being dedicated to the streets program, only minimal trail construction is proposed during the next five-year period. 6. It is proposed that $50,000 of tax levy funds be dedicated in 2012 for Community Field Upgrades, as well as an additional $50,000 in tax levy for Park Equipment replacements. There are no additional levy allocations beyond this allocation proposed for Park Improvements during the 2012 – 2016 planning period. This allocation is provided due to a commitment for a $50,000 reduction in operating expenses within the Parks Department operating expenditures in 2012. 7. Additional improvements are proposed to continue maintenance of City facilities at the Maplewood Community Center (MCC). The Maplewood Community Center has been unable to support operational costs over the past years. A 5-year plan has been proposed by the management staff to bring a definite operational component along with a facility investment component into the annual subsidy discussion. This plan proposes an investment of $150,000 in 2011 along with a $100,000 investment into capital replacement and upgrades at the MCC while also making financial adjustments to the MCC Fund that provides for more sustainable operations in 2012. This increased allocation to MCC comes at the expense of replacement funding for projects at City Hall as well as within the Park Development Fund. 3 Packet Page Number 147 of 350 8. An annual expenditure of $300,000 to $400,000 is proposed for the planning period for replacement of vehicles and equipment in the Fleet Management Fund. This investment is necessary to keep maintenance costs to a minimum. 9. The Park Development Fund, noted above, is continuing to show a slow down of revenues as the housing market and building of commercial industrial facilities slows due to the slowing economy. A number of projects have been delayed or deferred from the requests of the Park Commission. Improvements at Joy Park were delayed and the improvements of Legacy Park and Goodrich Park have been substantially reduced to reflect this reduced expectation of Park Availability Charge [PAC] revenue to fund the projects. The request for a levy increase for park funding was reviewed, but does not appear doable within the next 3 – 5 years due to the commitment to Public Safety Facilities and the Maplewood Community Center. 10. A new addition to the previous CIP was the planned Fire Training Facility. The East Metro area is lacking in a quality fire training facility. This facility will allow firefighters to enhance their skills in a safe environment. Much of the cost of this facility was proposed to be financed with grants including the grant of the land from MnDOT along with an allocation of state bonding funds. At this time, it is not believed that state bond funds will be available, so this project and the proposed expenditures for improvements to the site are being delayed. If funding becomes available, the project will need to be moved back into the active column. 11. TH 36 and English Street will be under pressure to be revised to an interchange due to the project that removed signals from TH 36 in North St. Paul. Funding is proposed for a major interchange project in 2014-2015. Most funding, $12,700,000 of the $14,000,000 total will need to come from grants and MnDOT sources. The total 2012 – 2016 CIP reflects a slight reduction in investment of capital assets. This CIP shows a 0.6% decrease from the previous year’s program. The $413,515 decrease is reflected in the changes and re-prioritization for new Fire Stations and an expansion of the Police Department as opposed to redevelopment. Significant re-prioritizing of funds shows that investment is proposed to decrease for redevelopment, equipment and parks and increase for buildings and public works infrastructure. The 2011 – 2015 CIP was a $65.7 Million plan, while the proposed 2012 – 2106 CIP is listed for $65.3 Million in expenditures. Some of this decreased cost is attributable to the delay and deferral of projects due to limited funding options. As with the previous year, Deferred Projects are listed within the Appendix section of this CIP. These are projects that were recommended by staff and Commissions and are significant needs within the City. An analysis of the impacts of these projects identified that funding is not available under current programs totaling $28,913,855. Due to the lack of funding dedicated to capital replacement and Council priorities established in February 2011, a number of projects were not proposed or have been removed, resulting in the decrease in the declined fund from last year’s plan. If other funds become available, these projects may be reconsidered in future years. The property tax impact of projects included in this CIP was evaluated. Estimates were prepared of the new tax levies that will be required to support these projects assuming that new bonds will be issued to finance CIP projects. For 2011, the city’s total tax levy was $17,503,454 and of that amount, $3,958,103 was for debt service on bond issues. The total Debt outstanding for Maplewood is proposed to reach $78,017,297 in 2011 based upon the current plan within this CIP. 2010 total debt 4 Packet Page Number 148 of 350 is $78,972,297. The City’s total debt is limited by statute to not more than 3% of market value of taxable property of the City. Very little of the debt of the City, approximately $4,550,000 in 2010, is actually subject to the legal debt margin. Staff continues to monitor total city debt as a percent of market value with the intention of keeping total debt within 2%. With the new debt projected by this CIP, the City will remain at or below that objective and declines to 1.6% by 2016. It is recommended that the CIP be formally adopted by the City Council following a Public Hearing that is required to be held by the Planning Commission. As part of this adoption process, a strong commitment is needed to follow the construction and financing schedule for the public improvement projects planned for 2012. This allows the City’s engineering staff to be fully utilized and will minimize the need for consultant engineers. Also, it will facilitate the planning for the year 2012 bond issue by the Finance Department. The CIP, by design, is a planning tool for City staff and elected officials. The CIP gives the City Council the flexibility to proceed with the proposed projects based on the political, economic, and financial realities of each year. After the CIP has been formally adopted by the City Council, the projects scheduled for 2012 will be included in the Proposed 2012 Budget document. This will provide the City Council another opportunity to review the proposed 2012 projects. The 2012 – 2016 CIP presents an excellent combination of maintenance and redevelopment projects. By proceeding with these scheduled improvements, the City Council can be assured the City’s infrastructure, facility and equipment needs meet those of its citizens. R. Charles Ahl James W. Antonen Assistant City Manager City Manager 5 Packet Page Number 149 of 350 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The five-year total expenditures within the 2012-2016 C.I.P. are $65,321,870. Changes by project category over the last C.I.P. are as follows: 2010-2014 C.I.P 2011-2015 C.I.P 2012-2016 C.I.P Increase Amount (Decrease) Percent Buildings $4,365,599 $3,849,000 $7,814,400 3,965,400 103.0% Redevelopment 10,625,000 14,550,000 5,375,000 (9,175,000) -63.1% Equipment 3,731,659 3,089,185 2,947,470 (141,715) -4.6% Parks 6,300,000 6,900,000 6,750,000 (150,000) -2.2% Public Works 52,741,499 37,347,200 42,435,000 5,087,800 13.6% TOTALS $77,763,757 $65,735,385 $65,321,870 (413,515) -0.6% The five largest projects within the C.I.P. are as follows: 1. TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements - $14,000,000 Contruction of this project is planned for 2013. With the recent improvements along TH36, this is the only remaining signaled intersection. $2.5 million of City funding is anticipated with the rest coming from grants and other state funding. 2. Crestview/Highwood Area Streets - $7,350,000 Contruction of this project is planned for 2016. The majority of the streets will require partial reconstruction while others will require full reconstruction due to utilities improvements. 3. Gladstone Area Streetscape Phase I - $6,000,000 Construction of this project is planned for 2011-2012. The majority of the project will include improvements that are coordinated with the redevelopment of the Tourist Cabin property. 4. Arkwright/Sunrise Area Streets - $4,480,000 Construction of this project is planned for 2013. Replacement will include upgrades to the area drainage system in coordination with the improvements to the area streets. 5. Dennis/McClelland Area Streets - $4,250,000 Contruction of this project is planned for 2015. These streets have continued to deteriorate and will require a full street reconstruction with the addition of concrete curb and gutter. Details regarding the projects included within the C.I.P. are in the third section of this document. The projects are grouped by neighborhoods and there is a separate page for each project. There are 49 projects in the current C.I.P. The 2011-2015 C.I.P. had 42 projects. 6 Packet Page Number 150 of 350 2011-2015 2012-2016 Year C.I.P.C.I.P.Amount Percent 2012 7,573,800 12,355,712 4,781,912 63.1% 2013 8,930,400 18,325,201 9,394,801 105.2% 2014 19,871,145 11,736,618 (8,134,527)-40.9% 2015 10,017,910 14,123,031 4,105,121 41.0% TOTALS $46,393,255 $56,540,562 $10,147,307 21.9% BUILDINGS $1,250,000 Maplewood Community Center Improvements 53,400 Nature Center Building Improvements $1,303,400 EQUIPMENT $125,000 Election Equipment $125,000 PARKS $75,000 Legacy Park Improvements $75,000 PUBLIC WORKS $2,140,000 Mill and Overlays 1,315,000 Sterling Street Bridge Replacement 110,000 MT-Trackless Maintenance Vehicle 58,026 Two 1/2 Ton Pickups 71,484 One Ton Truck 19,000 Crack Router 23,000 Grounds Sweeper $3,736,510 $5,239,910 Grand Total NEW PROJECTS IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Changes in project expenditures for the years 2012-2016 within this C.I.P. compared to the previous C.I.P. are as follows: Increase (Decrease) Some of the changes listed above are due to changes in the time schedule for projects. The new projects total $5,239,910. These projects are as follows: 7 Packet Page Number 151 of 350 2038170 374080 2038170 374080 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 ThousandsPROJECTS BY CATEGORY 2012-2016 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016ThousandsPROJECTS BY CATEGORY 2012-2016 BUILDINGS REDEVELOPMENT EQUIPMENT PARKS PUBLIC WORKS 8 Packet Page Number 152 of 350 PROJECT CATEGORY TOTAL 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 BUILDINGS $7,814,400 $4,300,000 $350,000 $2,503,400 $350,000 $311,000 REDEVELOPMENT 5,375,000 1,275,000 0 400,000 3,700,000 0 EQUIPMENT 2,947,470 395,712 545,201 773,218 313,031 920,308 PARKS 6,750,000 2,080,000 3,285,000 680,000 305,000 400,000 PUBLIC WORKS 42,435,000 4,305,000 14,145,000 7,380,000 9,455,000 7,150,000 TOTALS $65,321,870 $12,355,712 $18,325,201 $11,736,618 $14,123,031 $8,781,308 ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS BY PROJECT CATEGORY 9 Packet Page Number 153 of 350 SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING OF 2012 PROJECTS The Capital Improvement Plan coordinates the financing and timing of major equipment purchases and construction projects. Therefore, it is very important that the C.I.P. be followed as much as possible. This is especially important for the Public Works and Finance Departments. Public improvement projects need to be scheduled to avoid peaks and valleys in workloads. This will allow the engineering staff in the Public Works Department to provide the engineering services required and minimize the need to hire engineering consultants. A closely followed schedule for construction projects will also facilitate Finance Department planning for bond issues. The schedule that needs to be followed for construction of the public improvement projects listed in this document for 2012 is as follows: SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN 2012 August 2011 Begin Neighborhood Meetings November 2011 Council receives Engineer's Report and orders Public Hearing November 2011 Publish Legal Notice December thru February 2012 Public Hearings; Order Improvement and Preparation Plans and Specifications February 2012 Approve Plans and Specifications; Authorization to Advertise for Bids March 2012 Award Bids 10 Packet Page Number 154 of 350 It is planned that bonds will be sold in May 2012 to finance the capital improvement projects that will be constructed in 2012. The schedule for the issuance of these bonds is as follows: SCHEDULE FOR 2012 BOND ISSUE March 26, 2012 Last day for City Council to order projects to be financed by the bond issue March 30, 2012 Financial data on projects to be financed due to financial consultant April 13, 2012 Resolution setting bond sale due from bond council bond sale details due from financial consultant April 23, 2012 City Council adoption of resolution authorizing bond issue May 14, 2012 Official statement (prospectus) distributed to rating agency, City, and prospective bidders May 16, 2012 Bond rating due from Standard and Poor’s. May 21, 2012 Bid opening and award of bids June 18, 2012 Bond proceeds delivered to City 11 Packet Page Number 155 of 350 REDEVELOPMENT 10.32%BUILDINGS 34.80% EQUIPMENT 3.20% PARKS 16.83% PUBLIC WORKS 34.84% PROJECTS BY CATEGORY 2012 12 REDEVELOPMENT 10.32%BUILDINGS 34.80% EQUIPMENT 3.20% PARKS 16.83% PUBLIC WORKS 34.84% PROJECTS BY CATEGORY 2012 REDEVELOPMENT BUILDINGS EQUIPMENT PARKS PUBLIC WORKS 12. 12 Packet Page Number 156 of 350 PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CATEGORY COST FD10.010 Replacement of Fire Station Buildings $4,000,000 MT12.010 Maplewood Community Center Improvements Buildings 100,000 MT08.150 Police Department Expansion Buildings 200,000 $4,300,000 PW11.020 Jetter Truck Equipment $185,000 PW12.030 MT-Trackless Maintenance Vehicle Equipment 110,000 PW09.030 Two 1 Ton Trucks and 1 One 1/2 Ton Truck Equipment 100,712 $395,712 PM10.040 Gethsemane Park Parks $375,000 PM11.010 Fish Creek Open Space Parks 425,000 PM11.02 Lions Park Improvements Parks 50,000 PM03.010 Community Field Upgrades Parks 50,000 PM03.060 Park Equipment, Fence and Court Replacement Parks 50,000 PM07.010 Gladstone Savanna Improvements Parks 1,100,000 PM08.050 Open Space Improvements Parks 30,000 $2,080,000 PW11.090 Arkwright/Sunrise Area Streets Public Works $200,000 PW12.010 Mill and Overlays Public Works 875,000 PW02.120 City Landfill Closure Public Works 100,000 PW07.100 TH 36 & English Intersection Improvements Public Works 800,000 PW08.070 Bartelmy Meyer Area Streets Public Works 2,330,000 $4,305,000 CD04.010 Gladstone Area Streetscape - Phase 1 Redevelopment $1,275,000 $1,275,000 Grand Total $12,355,712 PROJECTS SCHEDULED FOR 2012 13 Packet Page Number 157 of 350 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 14 Packet Page Number 158 of 350 FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Bonds and Notes: Capital Notes – these are a form of short-term indebtedness that are backed by the full faith, credit, and taxing powers of the City of Maplewood. They are usually issued with a five-year term to finance large equipment purchases. General Obligation Bonds – G.O. bonds are backed by the full faith, credit, and taxing powers of the City of Maplewood. Within this C.I.P. document, general obligation bonds means bonds that are 100% supported by tax levies. Bonds that are more than 80% supported by tax levies require voter approval before they can be issued. General Obligation Improvement Bonds – these bonds are similar to General Obligation Bonds except they do not require voter approval for issuance. This is because they represent the portion of public improvement project costs that are not assessed. At least 20% of the project cost must be assessed to issue these bonds. Municipal State Aid Bonds – these bonds are issued to finance improvements to municipal state-aid streets. Under state law, future allotments of state street aid are pledged to pay the principal and interest on the bonds. The bonds are also backed by the full faith, credit, and taxing powers of the city.. Special Assessment Bonds – these bonds are payable from charges made to property owners who benefit from public improvements. These charges are referred to as special assessments and are billed to property owners with their property taxes. Under state law, special assessment bonds can be issued without voter approval provided that at least 20% of the improvement cost has been assessed. Special assessment bonds issued by Maplewood also are backed by the full faith, credit, and taxing powers of the city. Tax Increment Bonds – these bonds can be issued for housing, economic development (e.g., to pay for a site for a business), construction of public facilities or infrastructure, and redevelopment of blighted areas. The bonds can be revenue bonds or general obligation and are not subject to referendum approval. Ambulance Service Fund –this fund was established in 2005 to account for customer service charges that are used to finance emergency medical services. Capital Improvement Projects Fund – this fund was established to finance major capital outlay expenditures that cannot be easily financed by alternative revenue sources. Property taxes are levied annually for this fund. On the project detail pages in Section 3 this fund is referred to as the C.I.P. Fund. 15 Packet Page Number 159 of 350 Community Center Operations Fund – accounts for revenues and expenses related to the operation of the community center building and related activities. Electric Franchise Fee – the franchise agreement with Excel Energy allows the City to impose a franchise fee of not more than four percent of the company’s gross revenues. A franchise fee of $.50 per household has been imposed by the City. Environmental Utility Fund – this fund was established to finance maintenance and improvements to the storm water utility system. Revenues for the fund are generated by a utility charge for surface water runoff. Federal Aid – within this C.I.P. document this is used to identify a portion of public works improvement costs that are paid by the Federal Government. Fleet Management Fund – this fund accounts for the operating expenses of all city vehicles and major pieces of equipment (except for public safety vehicles). These operating expenses, including depreciation, are used as a basis to establish rental rates that are charged to the departments using the vehicles. The accounting procedures used in this fund result in a cash reserve for the replacement of vehicles and major pieces of equipment. On the project detail pages in Section 3 this fund is referred to as the V.E.M. Fund. Fire Truck Replacement Fund – this fund was established to finance all future purchases of fire trucks. Property taxes are levied annually as needed to provide for planned purchases. General Fund – this fund accounts for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund. The fund accounts for the majority of the City’s operating budget. Information Technology Fund – accounts for the maintenance, repair, and operation of the city’s computer hardware and software. Little Canada – within this C.I.P. document this is used to identify that portion of public works improvement costs that are paid by the City of Little Canada. When roads on the border between Maplewood and Little Canada are improved, the two governments jointly finance the cost of the improvement. MnDOT – within this C.I.P. document this is used to identify a portion of public works improvement costs that are paid by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. North St. Paul – within this C.I.P. document this is used to identify that portion of public works improvement costs that are paid by the City of North St. Paul. When roads on the border between Maplewood and North St. Paul are improved, the two governments jointly finance the cost of the improvement. Oakdale – within this C.I.P. document this is used to identify that portion of public works improvement costs that are paid by the City of Oakdale. When roads on the border between Maplewood and Oakdale are improved, the two governments jointly finance the cost of the improvement. 16 Packet Page Number 160 of 350 Open Space Land Acquisition Fund – this fund was established in 1994 with the proceeds from a bond issue. The balance left in the fund is from investment interest. Park Development Fund – this fund accounts for the receipt and disbursement of park availability charges. These charges are levied against all new buildings constructed and are paid when the building permit is issued. Money from P.A.C. on residential buildings can only be spent on park developments within the neighborhood where the building is constructed. Money from commercial park availability charges can be spent on any park development. Ramsey County – within this C.I.P. document this is used to identify that portion of public works improvement costs that are paid for by Ramsey County. When county roads within the city are improved, the cost of the improvements is jointly financed by the two governments. Redevelopment Fund – accounts for cash assets that are for a redevelopment and housing rehabilitation and replacement program that is designed to eliminate scattered blighted housing, provide new housing, and provide funds for rehabilitation and repair. Sewer Fund – this fund accounts for customer sanitary sewer service charges that are used to finance the sanitary sewer system operating expenses. St. Paul Water – within this C.I.P. document this is used to identify a portion of public works improvement costs that are paid by the St. Paul Regional Water Services. St. Paul Water Availability Charge Fund – this fund accounts for revenue from water connection charges and a water surcharge that is paid by the owners of property that receive water from St. Paul Regional Water Services. These revenues are used to finance water system costs that cannot be assessed. State Aid – within this C.I.P. document under project funding source on the project detail pages the term State Aid refers to money received from the state for street construction projects. State aid allotments for street construction are based on two factors: population and fiscal need. Fiscal need is determined by the estimated costs of construction and maintenance of the city’s state aid streets over 25 years. Street Light Utility Fund – this fund accounts for revenues established through a franchise agreement with electricity providers to property within the City. A charge is placed on all electric bills and the funds raised from that charge are provided to the City for the use on street light, power system and traffic control systems. Tree Preservation Fund – developers who are unable to comply with city policies on tree preservation may be allowed to deposit funds for furtherance of city tree goals in other parts of the city. Vadnais Heights – within this C.I.P. document this is used to identify a portion of public works improvement costs that are paid by the City of Vadnais Heights. When roads on the border between Maplewood and Vadnais Heights are improved, the two governments jointly finance the cost of the improvement. 17 Packet Page Number 161 of 350 FIVE - YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BY FUNDING SOURCES 20.7%BONDS-SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 5.1% 5.8% 6.6% 8.0% 11.0% 17.0% 20.7% C.I.P. FUND MN/DOT ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND BONDS-M.S.A. FEDERAL AID BONDS-G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS-SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 1.7% 1.9% 2.5% 2.9% 3.2% 4.1% 4.8% 5.1% 5.8% 6.6% 8.0% 11.0% 17.0% 20.7% COMMUNITY CENTER OPERATIONS STREET LIGHT UTILITY FUND FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND ST. PAUL WAC FUND GRANTS SANITARY SEWER FUND C.I.P. FUND MN/DOT ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND BONDS-M.S.A. FEDERAL AID BONDS-G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS-SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 0.4% 0.5% 0.8% 1.5% 1.5% 1.7% 1.9% 2.5% 2.9% 3.2% 4.1% 4.8% 5.1% 5.8% 6.6% 8.0% 11.0% 17.0% 20.7% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% AMBULANCE REPLACEMENT FUND RAMSEY COUNTY BONDS-TAX INCREMENT FIRE TRUCK REPLACEMENT FUND ST. PAUL WATER COMMUNITY CENTER OPERATIONS STREET LIGHT UTILITY FUND FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND ST. PAUL WAC FUND GRANTS SANITARY SEWER FUND C.I.P. FUND MN/DOT ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND BONDS-M.S.A. FEDERAL AID BONDS-G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS-SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS-SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 13,510,000 BONDS-G.O. IMPROVEMENT 11,119,900 FEDERAL AID 7,200,000 BONDS-M.S.A.5,216,800 0.4% 0.5% 0.8% 1.5% 1.5% 1.7% 1.9% 2.5% 2.9% 3.2% 4.1% 4.8% 5.1% 5.8% 6.6% 8.0% 11.0% 17.0% 20.7% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% AMBULANCE REPLACEMENT FUND RAMSEY COUNTY BONDS-TAX INCREMENT FIRE TRUCK REPLACEMENT FUND ST. PAUL WATER COMMUNITY CENTER OPERATIONS STREET LIGHT UTILITY FUND FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND ST. PAUL WAC FUND GRANTS SANITARY SEWER FUND C.I.P. FUND MN/DOT ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND BONDS-M.S.A. FEDERAL AID BONDS-G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS-SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ,, ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND 4,343,200 MN/DOT 3,800,000 C.I.P. FUND 3,339,400 SANITARY SEWER FUND 3,136,400 GRANTS 2,700,000 ST. PAUL WAC FUND 2,083,800 PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND 1,925,000 FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND 1,629,545 STREET LIGHT UTILITY FUND 1,225,000 COMMUNITY CENTER OPERATIONS 1 100 000COMMUNITY CENTER OPERATIONS 1,100,000 ST. PAUL WATER 949,900 FIRE TRUCK REPLACEMENT FUND 949,630 BONDS-TAX INCREMENT 500,000 RAMSEY COUNTY 350,000 AMBULANCE REPLACEMENT FUND 243,295 TOTAL $65,321,870 18 Packet Page Number 162 of 350 GENERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION Community Growth The population of Maplewood has been increasing steadily. The Metropolitan Council’s 2009 estimate for population exceeds what it had forecasted Maplewood’s population to be in 2010. The following table shows the recent and projected population and housing trends: Population, Households and Household Size 1990 2000 2009* 2010 2020 2030 Occupied Housing Units 11,496 13,758 15,094 15,600 16,650 18,150 Household Size (people per household) 2.69 2.56 2.50 2.40 2.31 2.25 Population 30,954 35,258 37,755 37,800 38,500 40,900 Sources: Metropolitan Council and City Staff * Metropolitan Council Estimate from April 1, 2009 Undeveloped Land Included on the next page is a map showing the location of the undeveloped land in the city. Most of the undeveloped residential land is in the south “leg” of the city. Nearly all of the undeveloped commercial land is in the north end of the city, near Maplewood Mall. In addition to retail and office development in this area, the city expects construction to continue at the 3M campus in south Maplewood. Projected Population City staff made the population estimates through the year 2020 based in part on the 2000 Census, Metropolitan Council data and from staff research. For the purposes of this document, staff assumed that population in Maplewood will increase at a rate of 100 people per year in 2010 through 2020, based on Metropolitan Council forecasts and projections. 19 Packet Page Number 163 of 350 Table 1. ESTIMATED POPULATION NEW OCCUPIED YEAR POPULATION GAIN DWELLING UNITS HOUSEHOLD UNITS 1995 32,935 515 284 12,826 1996 33,295 360 137 12,963 1997 33,943 648 372 13,335 1998 34,412 469 182 13,517 1999 34,723 311 139 13,656 2000 35,258 535 102 13,758 2001 35,773 515 129 13,887 2002 36,217 444 284 14,171 2003 36,618 401 92 14,263 2004 36,994 376 102 14,365 2005 37,238 244 71 14,436 2006 37,426 188 207 14,643 2007 37,581 155 108 14,751 2008 37,671 90 121 14,872 2009 37,755 84 121 14,993 2010 37,800 45 22 15,015 2011 37,850 50 21 15,036 2012 37,900 50 21 15,057 2013 37,950 50 21 15,078 2014 38,000 50 21 15,099 2015 38,050 50 21 15,120 2016 38,100 50 21 15,141 Sources: Estimated Population 2000 - U.S. CENSUS 1995-2010 - Met Council Estimates 2010-2016 - City of Maplewood Staff Estimates New Dwelling Units City of Maplewood Permit Applications Occupied Household Units 2000 - U.S. CENSUS 2000-2009 - Met Council Estimates MAPLEWOOD POPULATION STATISTICS 21 Packet Page Number 165 of 350 Chart 1 Chart 2 30000 31000 32000 33000 34000 35000 36000 37000 38000 39000 40000 PopulationYear Maplewood Estimated Population 2001 to 2016 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 2001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016PopulationYear Maplewood Population 2001 to 2016 estimated annual gains (persons per year) 22 Packet Page Number 166 of 350 1.461 1.241 1.107 1.027 0.660 0.505 0.414 0.239 0.223 0.119 0.132 0.132 0.132 0.132 0.132 0.131 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 2001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016GrowthYear Maplewood Population 2001- 2016 ANNUAL ESTIMATED RATES OF GROWTH (percentage population increase each year) 23 Packet Page Number 167 of 350 City of Maplewood Population by Neighborhood 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Beaver Lake Parkside Hillside Hazelwood Sherwood Glen Gladstone Highwood Maplewood Heights Vista Hills Kohlman Lake Western Hills Battle Creek Carver Ridge Fully Developed 2000 Census 2000 Census Fully Developed Beaver Lake 4,888 5,646 Parkside 4,658 5,028 Hillside 3,520 5,023 Hazelwood 3,290 3,895 Sherwood Glen 3,599 3,767 Gladstone 3,235 3,586 Highwood 2,706 3,106 Maplewood Heights 2,298 2,929 Vista Hills 2,519 2,805 Kohlman Lake 1,588 2,490 Western Hills 1,363 1,477 Battle Creek 1,138 1,470 Carver Ridge 145 724 Total 34,947 41,946 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Beaver Lake Parkside Hillside Hazelwood Sherwood Glen Gladstone Highwood Maplewood Heights Vista Hills Kohlman Lake Western Hills Battle Creek Carver Ridge Fully Developed 2000 Census 24 Packet Page Number 168 of 350 DEBT CAPACITY AND FINANCING STRATEGY Packet Page Number 169 of 350 DEBT CAPACITY During the preparation of this Capital Improvement Plan, the City's present and future debt capacity was evaluated. This was done to determine the amount of additional bonds that could be issued to finance the projects that were requested by departments for the Capital Improvement Plan. The primary emphasis of the debt capacity analysis was to determine the amount of debt that could be issued without causing a downgrading of the City's bond rating. Also, the analysis included a projection of the City's legal debt margin which is the difference between the maximum debt allowed under state law and the amount of debt outstanding. Bond ratings are based on economic, debt, administrative, and fiscal factors. Consequently, ratings are subjective and there is not a formula that can be followed to calculate a bond rating. However, there are two quantitative measures for comparing relative debt burdens: debt per capita and the ratio of debt to tax base. Unfortunately there are not any absolute benchmarks as to what these ratios should be. Until 1998 Moody's Investors Service annually published medians that indicated averages based upon population categories of cities. The analysis of Maplewood's debt capacity included a review of data for the past five years on debt ratios and bond ratings. Also, the analysis included a projection of future debt transactions, population changes, tax base growth, and debt ratios. The amount of debt anticipated to be issued in 2012-2016 is $32,540,000. Most of the bonds planned to be issued between 2012 and 2016 will be for public works improvements. Debt transactions and outstanding debt for 2007-2016 are shown on the next two pages. 25 Packet Page Number 170 of 350 DEBT TRANSACTIONS PAST FIVE YEARS AND NEXT FIVE YEARS New Less Debt Debt Debt Escrow Net Debt Year Issued Paid Outstanding Funds Outstanding 2007 Balance Forward 69,772,297 (2,560,000) 67,212,297 2008 11,040,000 (5,460,000) 75,352,297 (2,560,000) 72,792,297 2009 7,370,000 (10,105,000) 72,617,297 (2,560,000) 70,057,297 2010 15,840,000 (9,485,000) 78,972,297 (4,125,000) 74,847,297 2011 10,000,000 (10,955,000) 78,017,297 0 78,017,297 2012 8,563,000 (6,825,000) 79,755,297 0 79,755,297 2013 7,912,000 (8,182,458) 79,484,839 0 79,484,839 2014 2,451,000 (8,559,672) 73,376,167 0 73,376,167 2015 8,546,000 (8,375,537) 73,546,631 0 73,546,631 2016 5,068,000 (8,466,101) 70,148,530 0 70,148,530 26 Packet Page Number 171 of 350 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 $45,000,000 $50,000,000 $55,000,000 $60,000,000 $65,000,000 $70,000,000 $75,000,000 $80,000,000 C.I.P IMPACT ON CITY DEBT 2007 TO 2016 - CURRENT AND PROJECTED $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 $45,000,000 $50,000,000 $55,000,000 $60,000,000 $65,000,000 $70,000,000 $75,000,000 $80,000,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 C.I.P IMPACT ON CITY DEBT 2007 TO 2016 - CURRENT AND PROJECTED PROJECTED CURRENT 27 Packet Page Number 172 of 350 PROJECTED DEBT PER CAPITA Debt Outstanding Debt Per Capita Without With Without With New New Projected New New Year Debt Debt Population Debt Debt 2012 71,192,297 79,755,297 37,900 1,878 2,104 2013 63,639,839 79,484,839 37,950 1,677 2,094 2014 56,290,167 73,376,167 38,000 1,481 1,931 2015 49,284,631 73,546,631 38,050 1,295 1,933 2016 42,728,530 70,148,530 38,100 1,121 1,841 The data in the above table is displayed in the graph on the next page. Population projections for the next five years were made in order to project the debt per capita. (Debt per capita is calculated by dividing the outstanding debt by the population.) These projections are explained at the end of Section 1 under the heading General Community Development Information. The following table is a compilation of the preceding projections: 28 Packet Page Number 173 of 350 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 DEBT PER CAPITA 2007 TO 2016 - CURRENT AND PROJECTED 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 DEBT PER CAPITA 2007 TO 2016 - CURRENT AND PROJECTED MAPLEWOOD-CURRENT MAPLEWOOD-PROJECTED 29 Packet Page Number 174 of 350 PROJECTED DEBT TO MARKET VALUE Debt Outstanding Debt To Market Value Without With Projected Without With New New Tax Base New New Year Debt Debt Market Value Debt Debt 2012 71,192,297 79,755,297 3,859,329,000 1.8% 2.1% 2013 63,639,839 79,484,839 3,936,516,000 1.6% 2.0% 2014 56,290,167 73,376,167 4,015,246,000 1.4% 1.8% 2015 49,284,631 73,546,631 4,135,703,000 1.2% 1.8% 2016 42,728,530 70,148,530 4,259,774,000 1.0% 1.6% The data in the above table is graphically displayed on the next page. The ratio of debt to tax base was also analyzed. This ratio is calculated by dividing the debt outstanding by the estimated full market value of Maplewood's tax base. The estimated full market value of the City's tax base was projected for 2012-2016 based upon the assumption that it would not change in 2012 and increase by 2% in 2013, 2% in 2014, 3% in 2015 and 3% in 2016. The following table is a compilation of the preceding projections: 30 Packet Page Number 175 of 350 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 RATIO OF DEBT TO MARKET VALUE 2007 TO 2016 - Current and Projected MAPLEWOOD CURRENT MAPLEWOOD PROJECTED 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 RATIO OF DEBT TO MARKET VALUE 2007 TO 2016 - Current and Projected MAPLEWOOD-CURRENT MAPLEWOOD-PROJECTED 31 Packet Page Number 176 of 350 City bonds have an “Aa+” rating from Standard and Poor’s Investor Rating Service according to their report dated April 8, 2010. The previous rating was “Aa2” by Moody's Investors Service according to their report dated March 6, 2009. The switch in rating services results in a conversion to compare ratings. A rating of “Aa+” from Standard and Poor’s is comparable to an “Aa1” rating by Moody's which means an increase for the City. The last rating increase from “A-1” to “Aa” in 1989 was due to “continued growth and diversification of the City’s economy, strength and long-term stability of its dominant taxpayer and well maintained finances add to margins of protection for debt which poses a moderate burden.” The increase in the rating was partially due to a globalization by the rating industry to make ratings of government general obligation debt comparable to the ratings of corporate debt of equal risk. In addition, Standard and Poor’s noted continual strength and stability of Maplewood’s dominant tax payers and well maintained finances and investment in infrastructure as overall strength. Only about 8% of Standard and Poor's ratings nationwide are “Aa+” or better. The projected debt ratios indicate that Maplewood will probably be able to maintain its present bond ratings through 2016. Another important factor related to the City’s debt capacity is the State legal debt limit. This limit is 3.0% of the assessor’s market value of the City’s tax base. Bond issues covered by this limit are those that are financed by property taxes unless at least 20% of the annual debt service costs are financed by special assessments or tax increments. Maplewood has three debt issues that are subject to the debt limit in 2012-2016. The difference between the statutory debt limit and the bonds outstanding that are covered by the debt limit is referred to as the legal debt margin. The table below shows Maplewood’s legal debt margin for the years 2012-2016. It indicates that the City is currently and will be significantly under the legal debt limit for the entire period. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Market value of taxable property $3,859,329,000 $3,936,516,000 $4,015,246,000 $4,135,703,000 $4,259,774,000 Statutory debt limit: 3.0% of market value 115,779,870 118,095,480 120,457,380 124,071,090 127,793,220 Amount of debt applicable to debt limit: Open Space Refunding Bonds 2002D 725,000 365,000000 Fire Safety Refunding Bonds 2004A 2,145,000 1,935,000 1,715,000 1,495,000 1,270,000 Capital Improvement Plan Bonds 2004D 485,000 455,000 420,000 385,000 350,000 Total debt applicable to debt limit 3,355,000 2,755,000 2,135,000 1,880,000 1,620,000 Legal debt margin 112,424,870 115,340,480 118,322,380 122,191,090 126,173,220 Projection of Legal Debt Margin December 31 32 Packet Page Number 177 of 350 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FINANCING STRATEGY The five-year total for the projects in the C. I. P. is $65,321,870. Funding sources by year for the C.I.P. are as follows: FUNDING SOURCE TOTAL 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 AMBULANCE REPLACEMENT $243,295 $0 $119,850 $0 $0 $123,445 BONDS-G.O. IMPROVEMENT 11,119,900 2,783,400 2,525,200 1,285,600 2,423,300 2,102,400 BONDS-M.S.A.5,216,800 2,104,200 1,761,600 400,000 565,000 386,000 BONDS-SP. ASSESSMENT 13,510,000 3,051,000 2,691,000 765,000 4,423,000 2,580,000 BONDS-TAX INCREMENT 500,000 0 500,000 0 0 0 C.I.P. FUND 3,339,400 300,000 325,000 2,353,400 200,000 161,000 COMMUNITY CENTER OPERATIONS 1,100,000 100,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND 4,343,200 505,000 857,200 693,000 1,049,000 1,239,000 FEDERAL AID 7,200,000 0 4,200,000 3,000,000 0 0 FIRE TRUCK REPLACEMENT FUND 949,630 0 0 458,725 0 490,905 FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND 1,629,545 395,712 300,351 314,493 313,031 305,958 GRANTS 2,700,000 250,000 1,200,000 0 1,250,000 0 MnDOT 3,800,000 300,000 1,500,000 900,000 1,100,000 0 PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND 1,925,000 905,000 60,000 505,000 205,000 250,000 RAMSEY COUNTY 350,000 175,000 175,000 0 0 0 SANITARY SEWER FUND 3,136,400 445,600 1,236,200 444,600 635,000 375,000 SAINT PAUL W.A.C. FUND 2,083,800 318,600 489,400 283,400 733,600 258,800 SAINT PAUL WATER 949,900 97,200 134,400 83,400 376,100 258,800 STREET LIGHT UTILITY FUND 1,225,000 625,000 0 0 600,000 0 TOTALS $65,321,870 $12,355,712 $18,325,201 $11,736,618 $14,123,031 $8,781,308 ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS GROUPED BY FUNDING SOURCE The financial resources available and appropriate for each project are partly determined by its category. General obligation improvement bonds, municipal state aid bonds, special assessment bonds and St. Paul Water Availability Funds will be used for public works projects. Tax increment bonds, Special Assessment Bonds, and the Redevelopment Fund will be used for redevelopment projects. The Ambulance Service Fund can only be used for ambulances. The Environmental Utility Fund can only be used for storm water system improvements. The Fleet Management Fund can only be used for non-public safety vehicles and equipment. The Park Development Fund can only be used for park development projects and the Sanitary Sewer Fund can only be used for sanitary sewer utility system items. General obligation bonds and the Capital Improvement Projects Fund can be used for more than one type of project. General obligation bonds (that are not supported by special assessments) require voter approval and can be generally issued for any public purpose. Tax increment bonds and the tax increment funds can be used for redevelopment, park development and public works improvements provided they are done within a 33 Packet Page Number 178 of 350 reasonable proximity of the property development that created the increment. There should also be a relationship between the need for the improvement projects and the property development. The 2012-2016 C.I.P. assumes that no bond issue referendums will be held during this five-year period. Bonds totaling $32,540,000 are planned to be issued in 2012-2016 to finance project costs. Under state law, at least 20% of a project’s costs must be assessed in order to issue special assessment and general obligation improvement bonds without a referendum. Projects from 2012-2016 will have 40 - 50% of costs assessed. Several projects and major purchases in the C.I.P. will be financed by the Ambulance Service Fund, Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund, Community Center Operations Fund, Environmental Utility Fund, Fire Truck Replacement Fund, Fleet Management Fund, Information Technology Fund, Park Development Fund, Sanitary Sewer Fund, St. Paul Water Availability Charges (WAC) Fund and the Street Light Utility Fund. Financial resources have been and will be accumulated in these funds for the specified projects. Impact on Property Taxes General obligation improvement bonds are issued to finance public works project costs that are not assessed and not financed by other revenue sources (e.g., state aid, Sanitary Sewer Fund, Ramsey County, or other cities). The annual principal and interest payments on these bonds are financed by property taxes in the debt service portion of the city’s annual budget. These debt service property tax levies were $3,624,702 for 2010 and $3,958,103 for 2011. New general obligation improvement bonds totaling $11,120,000 are anticipated to be issued over the next five years to finance projects. The tax levies required for the principal and interest payments on existing and new bonds are listed in the table below. Property taxes are also levied for several funds to finance other projects in the Capital Improvement Plan. The property tax levies for projects by fund are also listed in the table below. FUND TOTAL 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 DEBT SERVICE: FOR BONDS ISSUED PRIOR TO 2011 $19,741,691 $4,249,711 $4,178,905 $4,136,118 $3,603,361 $3,573,596 FOR BONDS ISSUED IN 2011 1,381,753 276,922 276,320 274,670 276,170 277,671 FOR IMPROVEMENT BONDS ISSUED 2012-2016 1,823,000 0 214,000 408,000 507,000 694,000 DEBT SERVICE TOTAL 22,946,444 4,526,633 4,669,225 4,818,788 4,386,531 4,545,267 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1,325,000 295,000 295,000 295,000 295,000 145,000 FIRE TRUCK REPLACEMENT 500,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL $24,771,444 $4,921,633 $5,064,225 $5,213,788 $4,781,531 $4,790,267 Planned Levies Per CIP The financial resources within the Capital Improvement Projects Fund are derived primarily from property taxes. This fund is used to finance major capital outlay expenditures that cannot be easily financed by alternative methods and that individually cost in excess of $50,000. The tax levies for the Capital Improvement Projects Fund, Fire Truck Replacement Fund and Redevelopment Fund was $0 for 2011. In order to finance the 2012-2016 C.I.P., the tax levy for these three funds will need to total $1,825,000 over the next five years. Overall, the projects included within the 2012-2016 C.I.P. can be financed without depleting the City’s financial resources. Each year when a new C.I.P. is prepared, the financing plans will be reviewed and refined as necessary. 34 Packet Page Number 179 of 350 PROJECT DETAILS Packet Page Number 180 of 350 PROJECT DETAILS The pages in this section consist of a one-page summary for each project and maps showing the location of each project. The projects are grouped by neighborhood beginning with Western Hills-Neighborhood #1 which is in the northwest corner of the city. There are 13 neighborhoods in Maplewood and the location of each is shown on the map on the next page. The 14th part of this section consists of projects without a neighborhood designation. Most of these projects are large equipment purchases which will be used throughout the city. 35 Packet Page Number 181 of 350 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 36 Packet Page Number 182 of 350 37Packet Page Number 183 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 – 2016 Projects Located in Western Hills - Neighborhood #1 Map Legend Project Description C.I.P. Project # No projects are planned for this neighborhood. Neighborhood Population 2000 – 1,363 Breakdown by density: Fully developed – 1,477 567 – Low density 37 – medium density 873 – High density 38 Packet Page Number 184 of 350 JACKSON ST NKIN G STON AVE E FENTON A V E E ONACREST CT N JACKSON ST NWATER WORKS RD W ADOLPHUS ST NADOLPHUS ST NSUMMER AVE ABEL ST NBEAUMONT ST NDOWNS AVE E MOUNT VERNON AVE E MISSISSIPPI ST NBELLWOOD AVE E SKILLMAN AVE E AGATE ST NCITY HEIGHTS DR NO N A C R E ST CRVSYLVAN STGURNEY ST NRICE STLARPENTEUR AVE E ROSELAWN AVE E COUNTY ROAD B E LARPENTEUR AVE W ROSELAWN AVE W COUNTY ROAD B W 456730 456749 456725 §¨¦35E TroutBrookNeighborhood PreserveWestern Hills Park Western Hills Neighborhood #1 39 Packet Page Number 185 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 – 2016 Projects Located in Parkside - Neighborhood #2 Map Legend Project Description C.I.P. Project # A Arkwright/Sunrise Area Streets PW11.090 Neighborhood Population 2000 – 4,658 Breakdown by density: Fully developed – 5,028 3,572 – Low density 481 – medium density 975 – High density 40 Packet Page Number 186 of 350 SUM MER CT BELMON T LN EHENDRY PL NHIGHWAY DR SKILLMAN AVE E L A R P E N TEU R A V E E ELDRIDGE AVE E BURR ST NKIN G STON AVE EEDGEMONT STEDGEMONT STRIPLEY AVE V IKING DR E RIPLEY AVE ESLOAN ST NMCMENEMY ST NBRADLEY ST NBELLWOOD AVE E PAYNE AVE NMOUNT VER NON AVE E LAU RIE RD E BRADLEY ST NALLEN PL NSKILLMAN AVE E ARCADE ST NSEARLE ST NBELLWOOD AVE E JESSIE ST NBURKE CTMCMENEMY ST NBURKE AVE E DESOTO STVIKING DR ELDRIDGE AVE E PRICE AVECLARK ST NLARK AVE E ADOLPHUS ST NPAYNE AVE NBELLW OOD AVE E LEE ST NMCMENEMY ST NPAYNE AVE NMISSISSIPPI ST NSLOAN ST NBELMONT LN E GREENBRIER ST NBURR ST NKENWOOD CT NKENWOOD DR ESUMMER LNSLOAN PLSOPHIA AV E ARKWRIGHT ST NKINGSTON AVE ESUNRISE DR NDESOTO STEDGERTON ST NARCADE ST NCOUNTY R OAD B E ROSELAWN AVE E LARPENTEUR AVE E 456725 456758 456727 456730 £¤61WesternHillsParkRoselawn Park Edgerton Park KenwoodParkMaplecrestParkOehrline Lake M a p l e H i l l s P o n d Keller Lake !(A Parkside Neighborhood #2 41 Packet Page Number 187 of 350 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 42 Packet Page Number 188 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW11.090 PROJECT TITLE:Arkwright/Sunrise Area Streets DESCRIPTION:Neighborhood area street reconstruction JUSTIFICATION: The Arkwright and Sunrise area streets are very badly deteriorated and existing drainage conditions are poor. The streets in this area are in bad condition and are in need of major reconstruction. Replacement will include upgrades to the area drainage system in coordination with the improvements to the area streets. This area is a key neighborhood in need of improvement according to the Street Superintendent. Streets in this project area include: McMenemy St, Highway Dr, Lark Ave, Arkwright St, Clark St, Burr St, Hendry Pl, Desoto St, and Sunrise 2.2 miles of streets, Average PCI: 33 PROJECT STARTING DATE:August 2012 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:October 2013 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$200,000 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$4,280,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$4,480,000 TOTAL COST:$4,480,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Public Works NEIGHBORHOOD:02 - Parkside Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Bonds-G.O. Improvement 0 200,000 1,575,200 0 0 0 1,775,200 Bonds-Special Assessment 0 0 1,571,000 0 0 0 1,571,000 Environmental Utility Fund 0 0 448,000 0 0 0 448,000 Sanitary Sewer Fund 0 0 317,000 0 0 0 317,000 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund 0 0 234,400 0 0 0 234,400 St. Paul Water 0 0 134,400 0 0 0 134,400 43 Packet Page Number 189 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 – 2016 Projects Located in Kohlman Lake - Neighborhood #3 Map Legend Project Description C.I.P. Project # No projects are planned for this neighborhood. Neighborhood Population 2000 – 1,588 Breakdown by density: Fully developed – 2,490 2,133 – Low density 357 – medium density 0 – High density 44 Packet Page Number 190 of 350 C O N N O R AVE CONNOR CT KNOLLWOOD CT CAREY HEIGHTS DREDWARD STCOUN T Y ROAD D CIR KELLER PKWYPALM C T P A L M C IRLINDEN LNKOHLMAN LNFOREST STB RO O K S C T MERIDIAN DRBELLECR EST D R HIGHRIDGE C T BEAM AVE PLAZA C IR LY DIA AV E E ARCADE ST ND EAUVILLE DR ALVERADO DR BEAM AVE GERVAIS AVECYPRESS STCOUNTY ROAD D EADELE STDEMON T A V E M A P L E W O O D D RDULUTH STHIGHWAY 61GULDEN RDFRANK STWALTER S T COUNTY ROAD D E ARCADE ST NCOUNTY ROAD C E 456722 456719 456723 £¤61 KOHLMAN MARSH OPEN SPACEHidden MarshNeighborhoodPreserveFishers Corner Neighborhood Preserve Spoon Lake Neighborhood Preserve Sunset Ridge Park Kohlman Park Lower Sunset Ridge Park Spoon Lake Gervais Lake Kohlman Lake Kohlman Lake Neighborhood #3 45 Packet Page Number 191 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 – 2016 Projects Located in Hazelwood - Neighborhood #4 Map Legend Project Description C.I.P. Project # A Legacy Park Improvements PM12.010 Neighborhood Population 2000 – 3,290 Breakdown by density: Fully developed – 3,895 2,538 – Low density 228 – medium density 1,129 – High density 46 Packet Page Number 192 of 350 HAZELWOOD STBEAM AVE COUNTY ROAD C E WHITE BEAR AVE456765 456723 456765 456723 456719 Æ%36 Hazelwood Park Harvest Park FourSeasons ParkLegacy Park Kohlman Creek Neighborhood Preserve KOHLMAN CRE E K OPEN SPACE !(A Hazelwood Neighborhood #4 Portion of Sherwood Glen CIP Project PW07.100 47 Packet Page Number 193 of 350 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 48 Packet Page Number 194 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PM12.010 PROJECT TITLE:Legacy Park Improvements DESCRIPTION:Improve Legacy Park JUSTIFICATION: Legacy Park is a 10 acre dedicated park wetland area. It has a internal trail system, with several rest areas around the trail. It is located west of Maplewood Mall between County Road D and Beam Avenue. The 10 acre park holds storm water in several holding ponds. The park is in need of a master plan and improvements. The sculptures and gazebo are in disrepair and need complete replacement. This will be a joint collaboration with both private and public entities. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2014 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:December 2016 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$75,000 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$75,000 TOTAL COST:$75,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Parks NEIGHBORHOOD:04 - Hazelwood Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Environmental Utility Fund 0 0 0 25,000 0 0 25,000 Park Development Fund 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 49 Packet Page Number 195 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 – 2016 Projects Located in Maplewood Heights - Neighborhood #5 Map Legend Project Description C.I.P. Project # No projects are planned for this neighborhood. Neighborhood Population 2000 – 2,298 Breakdown by density: Fully developed – 2,929 1,549 – Low density 1,300 – medium density 80 – High density 50 Packet Page Number 196 of 350 !( BRENNER A V E DORLAND RD NGALL AVE STANDRIDGE PLMAPLE LN E ME Y E R CT NBARTELMY LNS T A N D RIDGE AVE BARTELMY CT NW INTHROP DRM ARY LNRADATZ AVEFREDERICK STCHIPPEWA CT NWOODLYNN AVECHISHOLM CT NARIEL STMAPLE LN LAKE STLAKEW O O D DR NCHIPPEWA AVEFURNESS STM A RY STHOWARD ST NWOODLYNN AVE BELLAIRE AVEMAPLEVIEW AVE L A K E B L VDJOY RDWHITE BEAR AVEBEAM AVE COUNTY ROAD D E MCKNIGHT RD N456765 45671094567107 456768 456719 Æ%120 §¨¦694 Joy Park Playcrest Park Maplewood Heights Park Joy Park Neighborhood Preserve Prairie Farm Neighborhood Preserve Maplewood Heights Neighborhood #5 51 Packet Page Number 197 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 – 2016 Projects Located in Sherwood Glen - Neighborhood #6 Map Legend Project Description C.I.P. Project # A Police Department Expansion MT08.150 B Maplewood Community Center Improvements MT12.010 C TH 36 – English Intersection Improvements PW07.100 Neighborhood Population 2000 – 3,599 Breakdown by density: Fully developed – 3,767 2,721 – Low density 712 – medium density 334 – High density 52 Packet Page Number 198 of 350 HAZELWOOD STENGLISH STWHITE BEAR AVE456765 456725 456725 £¤61 Æ%36 FootprintLakeWicklander'sPondTimberParkRobinhood Park Sherwood Park City Hall Campus Park !(C !(B !(A Sherwood Glen Neighborhood #6 Portion of Gladstone CIP Project PW04.010 53 Packet Page Number 199 of 350 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 54 Packet Page Number 200 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:MT08.150 PROJECT TITLE:Police Department Expansion DESCRIPTION:Expansion of the Current Police Department JUSTIFICATION: This project is to expand the current Police department over the next 1 to 7 years, in the current location (or alternative location on campus) with the addition of interior Squad Car Parking. The Police Department has been working in restrictive space and the expansion will be needed due to anticipated growth. This project will have possible other funding sources which will need to be researched. Planning should be started to help prevent delay and review other facilities to utilize the best cost effective design. This is to start thinking of the future needs of the Police Department and the growth anticipated along with the need to have the police vehicles protected from the elements allowing for a quicker response to needs and vehicle condition when not exposed to the elements. The work in 2011-2012 is to re-align space within City Hall and Public Works to provide for short-term Police Department needs within areas of the City Hall where space is currently available. PROJECT STARTING DATE:April 2011 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:December 2015 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$825,000 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$825,000 TOTAL COST:$825,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Building Maintenance NEIGHBORHOOD:06 - Sherwood Glen Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total C.I.P. Fund 225,000 200,000 100,000 200,000 100,000 0 825,000 55 Packet Page Number 201 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:MT12.010 PROJECT TITLE:Maplewood Community Center Improvements DESCRIPTION:MCC Master Project List Repairs, Replacement, Improvements and Upgrades JUSTIFICATION: These items are from the Maplewood Community Center Building and Maintenance Long Range Project List that has been compiled from past, current and future repairs, replacement, improvements, and upgrades. The goal is to do the listed items over the next five (5) years while limiting the expenses to $250,000 per year. The items listed below along with their anticipated expense are for this project year (2012). Aquatic Area Theme Phase 2 of 5 - $40,000/ Banquet Area Strorage - $8,600/ Carpeting Phase 1 of 5 - 1st floor and 2nd floor Rotunda - $34,680/ Concession Area Cabinets - $11,400/ Cooling Condenser Compressor #2 - $19,486/ Exterior Metal Painting Phase 1 of 2 - $60,000/ Heating system valve replacement - $17,100/ Interior metal painting Phase 1 of 2 doors, windows, railings - $7,200/ Theater area north exterior door replacement - $7,900/ Scissor Lift shared with other facilities - $6,000 of $14,600/ Painting 2nd floor hallways and Rotunda - 11,400, Painting Racquet Ball Court Area - $6,597/ Theater Area painted - $18,600. Staff will submit a list of proposed projects for years 2013 -2016 for Council's review at the beginning of each year. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2012 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:December 2016 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$1,250,000 Project Costs:$1,250,000 TOTAL COST:$1,250,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Building Maintenance NEIGHBORHOOD:06 - Sherwood Glen Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Community Center Operations Fund 150,000 100,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 56 Packet Page Number 202 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW07.100 PROJECT TITLE:TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements DESCRIPTION:Lane Improvements and Interchange Study JUSTIFICATION: The TH 36 Access Management Project involves removing the last at-grade intersections along Highway 36 between the eastern Ramsey County line in North Saint Paul and Interstate 35W in Roseville. The project involves access improvements along Highway 36 at English Street, Atlantic Street, and Hazelwood Street. The preferred alternative includes construction of a diamond interchange at English Street and Highway 36. Other improvements include auxiliary lanes between the English Street ramps and the TH 61 ramps, reconstructing a portion of English Street, installation of traffic signals, eliminating right-in/right-out access points at Atlantic Street and Hazelwood Street, a new bridge over TH 36 for the Ramsey County Bruce Vento Trail, and local roadway improvements to enhance local circulation. Grant funding would be from a potential partnership with Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District. PROJECT STARTING DATE:April 2005 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:October 2014 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$2,200,000 Land Acquisition:$1,000,000 Construction:$10,800,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$14,000,000 TOTAL COST:$14,000,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Public Works NEIGHBORHOOD:06 - Sherwood Glen Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Environmental Utility Fund 50,000 50,000 100,000 100,000 0 0 300,000 Bonds-M.S.A. 450,000 450,000 700,000 400,000 0 0 2,000,000 Mn/DOT 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 900,000 0 0 3,000,000 Bonds-Special Assessment 0 0 420,000 0 0 0 420,000 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 Sanitary Sewer Fund 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 50,000 Federal Aid 0 0 4,200,000 3,000,000 0 0 7,200,000 Grants 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 500,000 Bonds-Tax Increment 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 500,000 57 Packet Page Number 203 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 – 2016 Projects Located in Gladstone - Neighborhood #7 Map Legend Project Description C.I.P. Project # A Gladstone Area Streetscape – Phase I CD04.010 B Gladstone – Phase II CD09.020 C Gladstone Savanna Improvements PM08.050 Neighborhood Population 2000 – 3,235 Breakdown by density: Fully developed – 3,586 3,027 – Low density 422 – medium density 137 – High density 58 Packet Page Number 204 of 350 !( GORDO N A V E EDWARD STRIPLE Y A V E ROSEWOOD A VE SPHALEN PLADELE STWALTER STSOPHIA AVE FRANK STCLARENCE STRYAN AVE SUMMER AVE BIRMINGHAM STSOPHIA AVE DIETER STIDE STFRISBIE AVE HAZELWOOD STKENNARD STDULUTH STHAGEN DRBARCLAY STMANTON STROSE WOOD AVE N SUMMER AV E E A S T S HO R E D R FLANDRAU STGUL D E N P LATLANTIC STBARCLAY STMARYKNOLL AVEPROSPERITY RDPROSPERITY RDRIPLEY AVE PRICE AVE LARPENTEUR AVE E FROST AVE FROST AVE ENGLISH STWHITE BEAR AVEHAZELWOOD ST456729 456727 456728 456762 456728 456730 456765 Wakefield Lake Lake PhalenRoundLake Gladstone Savanna Neighborhood Preserve Flicek Park GlosterParkRobinhood Park Wakefield ParkL o o k o u t P a r k !(C !(B!(A Gladstone Neighborhood #7 59 Packet Page Number 205 of 350 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 60 Packet Page Number 206 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:CD04.010 PROJECT TITLE:Gladstone Area Streetscape- Phase I DESCRIPTION:Gladstone Area (Frost and English Streets) Improvements JUSTIFICATION: The redevelopment of the Gladstone area was proposed to begin in 2008. A failure of the original development proposal delayed the project 3+ years. This project will include street improvements as part of Phase I at the former St. Paul Tourist Cabin Site. Proposed improvements include installation of sidewalks, decorative streetlights, entry monuments, street side landscaping, and colored concrete crosswalks. A portion of the project will begin in 2011 with completion in 2012. The level of the improvements require an agreement with the Developer of The Shores project and are TIF supported in order to accomplish the goals as noted within the Master Plan. Major storm water improvements and improvements to the Savanna are included in various stages of the project elsewhere in the Capital Improvement Plan. PROJECT STARTING DATE:April 2011 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:November 2012 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$800,000 Land Acquisition:$1,000,000 Construction:$4,200,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$6,000,000 TOTAL COST:$6,000,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Redevelopment NEIGHBORHOOD:07 - Gladstone Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Environmental Utility Fund 400,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 500,000 Street Light Utility Fund 0 625,000 0 0 0 0 625,000 Bonds-Special Assessment 1,800,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,800,000 Mn/DOT 1,600,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,600,000 Sanitary Sewer Fund 0250,0000000250,000 Bonds-G.O. Improvement 275,000 0 0 0 0 0 275,000 Bonds-M.S.A. 650,000 300,000 0 0 0 0 950,000 61 Packet Page Number 207 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:CD09.020 PROJECT TITLE:Gladstone - Phase II DESCRIPTION:Redevelopment of Gladstone JUSTIFICATION: The second phase of Gladstone is proposed to include improvements from Walter Street (the terminus of Phase I) and extend easterly through and include English Street. The improvements will include burial of power lines, streetscape, new roadways for development, new storm water initiatives and utility extensions. It is proposed that this be a cooperative project with a developer although it may be necessary for the City to show investment to spur the development community. The grants are not secured at this time but are part of the future proposed financing needs to proceed with projects. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2014 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:November 2015 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$1,000,000 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$3,100,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$4,100,000 TOTAL COST:$4,100,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Redevelopment NEIGHBORHOOD:07 - Gladstone Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Bonds-Special Assessment 0 0 0 0 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 Bonds-M.S.A. 0 0 0 0 350,000 0 350,000 Grants 0 0 0 0 1,250,000 0 1,250,000 Sanitary Sewer Fund 0 0 0 250,000 0 0 250,000 Environmental Utility Fund 0 0 0 150,000 0 0 150,000 Street Light Utility Fund 0 0 0 0 600,000 0 600,000 62 Packet Page Number 208 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PM08.050 PROJECT TITLE:Gladstone Savanna Improvements 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. PROJECT STARTING DATE:July 2012 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:November 2016 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$300,000 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$1,400,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$1,700,000 TOTAL COST:$1,700,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Parks NEIGHBORHOOD:07 - Gladstone Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Environmental Utility Fund 0 100,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 200,000 Bonds-Special Assessment 0 400,000 0 0 0 0 400,000 Grants 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 Bonds-G.O. Improvement 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 Park Development Fund 0 200,000 0 250,000 0 250,000 700,000 63 Packet Page Number 209 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 – 2016 Projects Located in Hillside - Neighborhood #8 Map Legend Project Description C.I.P. Project # A Goodrich Park Improvements PM11.020 Neighborhood Population 2000 – 3,520 Breakdown by density: Fully developed – 5,023 2,257 – Low density 2,517 – medium density 249 – High density 64 Packet Page Number 210 of 350 ANGLE DISTANCE RADIUS DELTA TANGENT ARCLENGTH SIDE DXF_CURVE STREET 0 HENDRY PL N HENDRY PL N 2219 2205 2204 2218 55117 55117 0 0 0 0 0 35 2 0 A N ORTH SAINT PAUL R DCENTURY AVE NLARPENTEUR AVE E HOLLOWAY AVE MCKNIGHT RD N456768 456730 456729 456730 Æ%120 HOLLOWAY M AR SH OPEN SPACE Priory Neighborhood Preserve Goodrich Park HillsideParkNebraska Park Sterlin g Oaks P ar k !(A Hillside Neighborhood #8 65 Packet Page Number 211 of 350 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 66 Packet Page Number 212 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PM11.020 PROJECT TITLE:Goodrich Park Improvements DESCRIPTION:Goodrich Park Improvements JUSTIFICATION: Goodrich Park is a 25 Acre Park located at 1980 No. St. Paul Rd. The park is in extremely poor condition. It is the host site for our adult softball program. The park has significant erosion, standing water, and major water drainage problems throughout the park. Parking has also become a increasing issue. The playground equipment is in extremely poor condition. The expenditure will provide for development of the parks master plan that will be completed in 2011. PROJECT STARTING DATE:April 2011 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:April 2015 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$18,000 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$450,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$468,000 TOTAL COST:$468,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Parks NEIGHBORHOOD:08 - Hillside Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Park Development Fund 118,000 0 0 175,000 175,000 0 468,000 67 Packet Page Number 213 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 – 2016 Projects Located in Beaver Lake - Neighborhood #9 Map Legend Project Description C.I.P. Project # A Lions Park Improvements PM03.010 B Gethsemane Park PM10.040 C City Landfill Closure PW02.120 D Bartelmy/Meyer Area Streets PW08.070 E Farrell/Ferndale Area Street Improvements PW09.080 Neighborhood Population 2000 – 4,888 Breakdown by density: Fully developed – 5,646 2,173 – Low density 2,958 – medium density 515 – High density 68 Packet Page Number 214 of 350 !( MARYLAND AVE S T ILLW A TE R R D CENTURY AVE NCENTURY AVE N456768 456731 456734 Æ%120 Æ%5 Æ%120 §¨¦94 Beaver Lake County P ark Michael Lake Beaver Lake 3M Lake Jims Prairi e Neighb orh o od Preserv e Nature Center Neighborhood PreserveBeaver CreekNeighborhoodPreserveGeranium Park Gethsemane Park Lions Park !(C !(B !(D !(E !(A Beaver Lake Neighborhood #9 69 Packet Page Number 215 of 350 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 70 Packet Page Number 216 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PM03.010 PROJECT TITLE:Lions Park Improvements 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. This expenditure will provide for development of a park plan and application for grants. The improvements will be complete by December 2012. PROJECT STARTING DATE:May 2008 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:December 2012 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$125,000 Equipment and Other:$275,000 Project Costs:$400,000 TOTAL COST:$400,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Parks NEIGHBORHOOD:09 - Beaver Lake Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Environmental Utility Fund 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 Park Development Fund 325,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 375,000 71 Packet Page Number 217 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PM10.040 PROJECT TITLE:Gethsemane Park DESCRIPTION:Gethsemane Park Purchase and Renovations JUSTIFICATION: Gethsemane Park is a local neighborhood park that the City has leased from Gethsemane Lutheran Church for the past 28 years. A purchase agreement has been negotiated for a portion of the park in conjunction with a senior housing project that the Church is pursuing. The funds requested in 2012 will be to purchase the final two acre's. In 2013, that the $250,000 requested will be matched by the church for redevelopment of the 4 acre park. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2011 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:November 2013 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$747,400 Construction:$500,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$1,247,400 TOTAL COST:$1,247,400 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Parks NEIGHBORHOOD:09 - Beaver Lake Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Park Development Fund 372,400 375,000 0 0 0 0 747,400 Bonds-Special Assessment 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 Bonds-G.O. Improvement 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 72 Packet Page Number 218 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW02.120 PROJECT TITLE:City Landfill Closure DESCRIPTION:Closure of city dump west of Century, north of Ivy JUSTIFICATION: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is requiring the City of Maplewood to properly close the old city dump site. Closure will include a liner and stabilization channel for a drainage ditch to cross the site. This will eliminate storm water from inundating the waste and transferring leachate to other locations within the community. This project has been delayed from 2007 to 2012 due to funding limitations. The Grant is proposed to be a cooperative venture with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. PROJECT STARTING DATE:June 2012 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:December 2013 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$50,000 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$325,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$375,000 TOTAL COST:$375,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Public Works NEIGHBORHOOD:09 - Beaver Lake Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Grants 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 Environmental Utility Fund 0 50,000 275,000 0 0 0 325,000 73 Packet Page Number 219 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW08.070 PROJECT TITLE:Bartelmy Meyer Area Streets DESCRIPTION:Neighborhood Area Street Improvements and Full Reconstruction of State Aid Street JUSTIFICATION: Bartelmy Street, a state aid route from Minnehaha Avenue to Stillwater Road, is in poor condition. This section of roadway does not currently have curb and gutter. The northern half of the roadway has minimal storm sewer. A full reconstruction is necessary. The neighborhood streets north of Minnehaha Avenue and east of Stillwater Road are beginning to fail and are in need of improvement. The streets include Brand Street, Meyer Street, Mary Street, and 7th Street. 1.3 miles of streets, Average PCI: 36/100 PROJECT STARTING DATE:July 2011 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:October 2012 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$100,000 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$2,330,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$2,430,000 TOTAL COST:$2,430,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Public Works NEIGHBORHOOD:09 - Beaver Lake Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Bonds-G.O. Improvement 100,000 183,400 0 0 0 0 283,400 Bonds-Special Assessment 0 851,000 0 0 0 0 851,000 Sanitary Sewer Fund 0172,0000000172,000 St. Paul Water 0 97,200 0 0 0 0 97,200 Environmental Utility Fund 0 175,000 0 0 0 0 175,000 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund 0 297,200 0 0 0 0 297,200 Bonds-M.S.A. 0554,2000000554,200 74 Packet Page Number 220 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW09.080 PROJECT TITLE:Farrell/Ferndale Area Street Improvements DESCRIPTION:Neighborhood Area Street Reconstruction JUSTIFICATION: The streets just east of 3M and south of Minnehaha Ave are in need of full street reconstruction including significant drainage improvements. Most streets have no curbing and water cannot properly be channeled out of the street section. Storm water pipe and BMPs will be required in the neighborhood. Infiltration basins, rainwater gardens, and other techniques will have to be explored to address drainage and treatment deficiencies. The following streets are included in the improvements: Margaret Ave, 5th Ave, Fremont Ave, Farrell St, Ferndale St, and Conway Service Dr. 2.1 miles of street, Average PCI: 43/100. PROJECT STARTING DATE:July 2014 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:October 2015 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$200,000 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$3,890,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$4,090,000 TOTAL COST:$4,090,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Public Works NEIGHBORHOOD:09 - Beaver Lake Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Bonds-G.O. Improvement 0 0 0 200,000 1,230,800 0 1,430,800 Bonds-Special Assessment 0 0 0 0 1,433,000 0 1,433,000 Sanitary Sewer Fund 0 0 0 0 290,000 0 290,000 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund 0 0 0 0 363,600 0 363,600 Environmental Utility Fund 0 0 0 0 409,000 0 409,000 St. Paul Water 0 0 0 0 163,600 0 163,600 75 Packet Page Number 221 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 – 2016 Projects Located in Battle Creek - Neighborhood #10 Map Legend Project Description C.I.P. Project # A Dennis/McClelland Area Street Improvements PW09.100 Neighborhood Population 2000 – 1,138 Breakdown by density: Fully developed – 1,470 1,270 – Low density 0 – medium density 200 – High density 76 Packet Page Number 222 of 350 BROOKVIEW CTH UDSON PL CRESTVIEW DR NBROOK V I E W D R MAYER LN HUDSON PL ODAY ST NHUDSON RD JAMES DRSTERLING ST NFARRELL STDENNIS LNFERNDALE ST NMCCLELLAND ST NMAYHILL RDLOWER AFTON RDMCKNIGHT RD NUPPER AFTON RD CENTURY AVE SCENTURY AVE NL OWE R A FTON RD 456739 456768 456772 Æ%120 §¨¦94 Afton Heights Park !(A Battle Creek Neighborhood #10 77 Packet Page Number 223 of 350 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 78 Packet Page Number 224 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW09.100 PROJECT TITLE:Dennis/McClelland Area Street Improvements DESCRIPTION:Neighborhood Area Street Reconstruction JUSTIFICATION: These streets have continued to deteriorate and will require a full street reconstruction with the addition of concrete curb and gutter. The following streets are included in the improvements: Sterling St, James Dr, McClelland St, Ferndale St, Dennis Ln, O'Day St, Mayer Ln, Farrell St, and Mayhill Rd. Unique storm water treatment methods will be required in this area near Battle Creek along with installation of drainage infrastructure. 2 miles of streets, Average PCI: 54/100 PROJECT STARTING DATE:July 2014 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:October 2015 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$200,000 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$4,050,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$4,250,000 TOTAL COST:$4,250,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Public Works NEIGHBORHOOD:10 - Battle Creek Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Bonds-G.O. Improvement 0 0 0 200,000 992,500 0 1,192,500 Bonds-Special Assessment 0 0 0 0 1,490,000 0 1,490,000 Sanitary Sewer Fund 0 0 0 0 345,000 0 345,000 St. Paul Water 0 0 0 0 212,500 0 212,500 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund 0 0 0 0 370,000 0 370,000 Environmental Utility Fund 0 0 0 0 640,000 0 640,000 79 Packet Page Number 225 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 – 2016 Projects Located in Vista Hills - Neighborhood #11 Map Legend Project Description C.I.P. Project # A Crestview/Highwood Area Streets PW08.060 Neighborhood Population 2000 – 2,519 Breakdown by density: Fully developed – 2,805 1,143 – Low density 1,642 – medium density 20 – High density 80 Packet Page Number 226 of 350 O D A Y ST S POND AVE LINWOOD CT OAKRIDG E L N KIN G AVE PO ND AVE OAKRIDGE CT HILLW O O D D RFERN D ALE STDORL AND DRDORLAND LN LONDIN LN SPRINGSIDE D R HILLWOOD DR MAILAND RD MARY L N BETH CTODAY C IR DOR L A ND PLHUNTINGTON CTLAKEWOOD DR SMAILAND CTTEAKWOOD DR OAKRIDGE DR LONDIN CT HIGHPOINT CRVPARKVI E W LN STERLING ST SMARNIE STDEER RIDGE LN SCRESTVIEW DR SMARY STDORLAN D CT DORL A N D RD SLOWER AFT ON RDCRESTVIE W F O R EST DRDORLAND RD SMCKNIGHT RD SLINWOOD AVE LOWER AFTON RD 456768 456739 456725 ApplewoodNeighborhoodPreserveMailandParkCrestview Park Vista Hills Park !(A Vista Hills Neighborhood #11 81 Packet Page Number 227 of 350 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 82 Packet Page Number 228 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW08.060 PROJECT TITLE:Crestview/Highwood Area Streets DESCRIPTION:Neighborhood Street Improvement JUSTIFICATION: Many streets south of Lower Afton Road, north of Linwood Avenue are deterioriating and are in need of improvements. Streets included in the project area include Marnie Street, Lakewood Drive, Teakwood (Drive and Court), Oakridge Drive, Crestview Drive, Hillwood Drive, Pond Avenue, Dorland Road (from Mailand to Londin Lane), Highpoint Curve, King Avenue, Mary (Street and Lane), O'Day (Street, Circle, and Lane), and Marnie Street. These streets have curb and gutter, but the pavement is beginning to fail. Most streets will require a partial reconstruction, while others may require full reconstruction due to utilities improvements. This project will also include the reconstruction of Sterling St. (from Londin Lane to Crestview Forest). The pavement on this section of roadway is in poor condition and needs to be rehabilitated. It is a collector street for the adjacent neighborhoods. 4.0 miles of streets, Average PCI: 46/100 PROJECT STARTING DATE:July 2015 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:October 2016 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$200,000 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$7,150,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$7,350,000 TOTAL COST:$7,350,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Public Works NEIGHBORHOOD:11 - Vista Hills Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Bonds-M.S.A. 0 0 0 0 0 386,000 386,000 St. Paul Water 0 0 0 0 0 258,800 258,800 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund 0 0 0 0 0 258,800 258,800 Environmental Utility Fund 0 0 0 0 0 1,189,000 1,189,000 Sanitary Sewer Fund 0 0 0 0 0 375,000 375,000 Bonds-G.O. Improvement 0 0 0 0 200,000 2,102,400 2,302,400 Bonds-Special Assessment 0 0 0 0 0 2,580,000 2,580,000 83 Packet Page Number 229 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 – 2016 Projects Located in Highwood - Neighborhood #12 Map Legend Project Description C.I.P. Project # A Fish Creek Open Space PM11.010 B Lakewood/Sterling Area Streets PW08.050 Neighborhood Population 2000 – 2,706 Breakdown by density: Fully developed – 3,106 2,906 – Low density 200 – medium density 0 – High density 84 Packet Page Number 230 of 350 LINWOOD AVE HIGHWOOD AVE MCKNIGHT RD S456772 456725 456743 456768 §¨¦494 Carver Neighborhood Preserve Applewood Neighborhood Preserve Applewood Park Pleasantview Park Fis h Creek O p e n Space!(B !(A Highwood Neighborhood #12 85 Packet Page Number 231 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PM11.010 PROJECT TITLE:Fish Creek Open Space DESCRIPTION:Fish Creek Open Space JUSTIFICATION: The City Council approved a Joint Powers Agreement with Ramsey County and RWMWD to acquire a 70- acre site south of Carver Avenue. Commitments include: $505,000 from City of Maplewood, $525,000 from Ramsey County, and $175,000 from RWMWD. Staff is seeking grants and other funding for the remaining funds needed for this $2-$2.2 million acquisition. It is proposed that the northern 20-25 acres will be developed in 2013 to accomplish payment of a portion of the initial purchase. PROJECT STARTING DATE:June 2011 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:December 2013 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$300,000 Land Acquisition:$2,000,000 Construction:$1,355,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$3,655,000 TOTAL COST:$3,655,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Parks NEIGHBORHOOD:12 - Highwood Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Ramsey County 175,000 175,000 175,000 0 0 0 525,000 Bonds-G.O. Improvement 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 500,000 Grants 175,000 0 700,000 0 0 0 875,000 Sanitary Sewer Fund 0 0 600,000 0 0 0 600,000 Park Development Fund 225,000 250,000 30,000 0 0 0 505,000 Bonds-Special Assessment 0 0 450,000 0 0 0 450,000 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 86 Packet Page Number 232 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW08.050 PROJECT TITLE:Lakewood/Sterling Area Streets DESCRIPTION:Neighborhood Area Street Reconstruction JUSTIFICATION: Streets south of Highwood and north of Carver Avenue are in poor condition and in need of repair. The streets include Moreland Court, Snowshoe Lane, Lakewood Drive, Schadt Drive, Sterling Street, Oak Heights Court, Mamie Avenue, Mary Place, Marnie Court, Snowshoe Court, and Crestview Court. These streets have curb and gutter except Sterling Street. The existing curb will be maintained and the streets will be partially reconstructed. 1.7 miles of street, Average PCI 38/100 PROJECT STARTING DATE:July 2013 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:October 2014 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$200,000 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$2,580,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$2,780,000 TOTAL COST:$2,780,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Public Works NEIGHBORHOOD:12 - Highwood Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Bonds-G.O. Improvement 0 0 200,000 885,600 0 0 1,085,600 Bonds-Special Assessment 0 0 0 765,000 0 0 765,000 Sanitary Sewer Fund 0 0 0 194,600 0 0 194,600 St. Paul Water 0 0 0 83,400 0 0 83,400 Environmental Utility Fund 0 0 0 368,000 0 0 368,000 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund 0 0 0 283,400 0 0 283,400 87 Packet Page Number 233 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 – 2016 Projects Located in Carver Ridge - Neighborhood #13 Map Legend Project Description C.I.P. Project # A Sterling Street Bridge Replacement PW12.020 Neighborhood Population 2000 – 145 Breakdown by density: Fully developed – 724 724 – Low density 0 – medium density 0 – High density 88 Packet Page Number 234 of 350 H ALLER CTHENRY LNHALLER LN STERLING ST SCARVER AVE 456772 §¨¦494 Fish Creek Open Space!(A Carver Ridge Neighborhood #13 Portion of Highwood CIP Project PM11.010 89 Packet Page Number 235 of 350 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 90 Packet Page Number 236 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW12.020 PROJECT TITLE:Sterling Street Bridge Replacement DESCRIPTION:Replacement of bridge JUSTIFICATION: The bridge on Sterling Street in south Maplewood is in need of replacement in the coming years and programmed for a 2015 replacement in accordance with the council adopted bridge program. State Bridge Funds are expected to pay for the majority of the cost of the project. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2015 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:October 2015 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$100,000 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$1,215,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$1,315,000 TOTAL COST:$1,315,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Public Works NEIGHBORHOOD:13 - Carver Ridge Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Bonds-M.S.A. 0 0 0 0 215,000 0 215,000 Mn/DOT 0 0 0 0 1,100,000 0 1,100,000 91 Packet Page Number 237 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 – 2016 Projects without a Neighborhood Designation Project Description CIP Project # Replacement of Fire Truck FD03.020 Replacement of Fire Truck FD06.020 Ambulance Replacement FD08.010 Ambulance Replacement FD09.020 Replacement of Fire Station FD10.010 Replacement of Fire Station FD10.011 Election Equipment IT12.010 Public Works Carpeting MT08.130 Nature Center Building Improvements MT12.020 Community Field Upgrades PM07.010 Park Equipment, Fence and Court Replacement PM08.040 Open Space Improvements PM08.060 Lift Station Upgrade Program PW03.210 Two Toro Lawn Mowers and Two Trailers PW06.010 One Tractor Loader and One 3 Wheel Truckster PW06.060 One Snow Plow Truck PW06.070 1-Ton Truck PW07.030 Two Jacobsen Lawn Mowers PW08.020 Two Toro Mowers and One 4-Wheel Truckster PW09.020 Two 1 Ton Truck and One ½ Ton Truck PW09.030 Jetter Truck PW11.020 Parallelogram Lift PW11.030 Single Axle Plow Truck PW11.040 Emergency Generator PW11.050 Mill and Overlays PW12.010 MT-Trackless Maintenance Vehicle PW12.030 Two ½ Ton Pickups PW12.040 One Ton Truck PW12.050 Crack Router PW12.060 Grounds Sweeper PW12.070 92 Packet Page Number 238 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:FD03.020 PROJECT TITLE:Replacment of Fire Truck DESCRIPTION:1500GPM fire truck JUSTIFICATION: This fire truck will replace a 27 year old piece of apparatus whose body has significant rust issues. The truck will have more cabinet spce than the present one and it will also have additional technology. This truck will be designed as a fire/rescue truck and will be developed to meet our needs over the next 20 years. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2014 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:December 2014 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$458,725 Project Costs:$458,725 TOTAL COST:$458,725 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fire Truck Replacement Fund 0 0 0 458,725 0 0 458,725 93 Packet Page Number 239 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:FD06.020 PROJECT TITLE:Replacement of Fire Truck DESCRIPTION:1500-GPM fire truck JUSTIFICATION: This fire truck will replace a 26 year old piece of apparatus with sufficient rust issues. The truck will have more cabinet space than the present one and it will also have additional technology. This truck will be designed as a fire/rescue truck and will be developed to meet our needs over the next 20 years. This truck is the last truck in our fleet that is not equipped with an automatic transmission. Fewer and fewer people have the capabilities of driving a standard transmission which is making it more difficult to respond on calls. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2016 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:December 2016 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$490,905 Project Costs:$490,905 TOTAL COST:$490,905 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fire Truck Replacement Fund 0 0 0 0 0 490,905 490,905 94 Packet Page Number 240 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:FD08.010 PROJECT TITLE:Ambulance Replacement DESCRIPTION:Modular ALS Ambulance JUSTIFICATION: Replacement or refurbishment of a 1999 ambulance. This keeps us on track with our replacement program for the six ambulances we currently have in place. This ambulance will have over 100,000 miles on it at the time of its replacement/refurbishment. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2013 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:December 2013 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$119,850 Project Costs:$119,850 TOTAL COST:$119,850 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Ambulance Service Fund 0 0 119,850 0 0 0 119,850 95 Packet Page Number 241 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:FD09.020 PROJECT TITLE:Ambulance Replacement DESCRIPTION:A Modular ALS Ambulance JUSTIFICATION: Replacement or refurbishment of a 2000 ambulance. This keeps us on track with our replacement program for the six ambulances we currently have in place. This ambulance will have over 100,000 miles on it at the time of its replacement/refurbishment. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2016 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:September 2016 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$123,445 Project Costs:$123,445 TOTAL COST:$123,445 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Ambulance Service Fund 0 0 0 0 0 123,445 123,445 96 Packet Page Number 242 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:FD10.010 PROJECT TITLE:Replacement of Fire Station DESCRIPTION:New Fire Station JUSTIFICATION: Over the next five years, we will be investigating the need to replace one or all of the existing stations or downsize the number needed and/or rebuild in new locations. The oldest of the five stations is in need of some major work within the next five years, with the possibility of total replacement in order to make it cost effective. Four out of the five stations are over 30 years old and were built when the city was just starting to expand in its commerical and residential growth. In the last 10 years, the city has taken on a new look with the addition of senior housing, more multi-family housing and is changing the way we have to deliver the services in order to keep up with the increase in demand and at the same time, plan for the next 30+ years. This proposal assumes a new firestation within southern Maplewood in 2012. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2012 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:December 2012 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$3,700,000 Equipment and Other:$300,000 Project Costs:$4,000,000 TOTAL COST:$4,000,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Building Maintenance NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Bonds-G.O. Improvement 0 2,200,000 0 0 0 0 2,200,000 Bonds-Special Assessment 0 1,800,000 0 0 0 0 1,800,000 97 Packet Page Number 243 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:FD10.011 PROJECT TITLE:Replacement of Fire Station DESCRIPTION:New Fire Station JUSTIFICATION: Over the next five years, we will be investigating the need to replace one or all of the existing stations or downsize the number needed and/or rebuild in new locations. The oldest of the five stations is in need of some major work within the next five years, with the possibility of total replacement in order to make it cost effective. Four out of the five stations are over 30 years old and were built when the city was just starting to expand in its commerical and residential growth. In the last 10 years, the city has taken on a new look with the addition of senior housing, more multi-family housing and is changing the way we have to deliver the services in order to keep up with the increase in demand and at the same time, plan for the next 30+ years. This proposal assumes that firestation #7 will be rebuilt in 2014. Financing will be provided by the sale of firestations #1, #3 and #4. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2014 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:December 2014 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$2,000,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$2,000,000 TOTAL COST:$2,000,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Building Maintenance NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total C.I.P. Fund 0 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 2,000,000 98 Packet Page Number 244 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:IT12.010 PROJECT TITLE:Election Equipment DESCRIPTION:Purchase of New Election Equipment JUSTIFICATION: Existing equipment will be replaced to upgrade computer capabilities and to meet state statute requirements. PROJECT STARTING DATE:February 2013 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:February 2013 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$125,000 Project Costs:$125,000 TOTAL COST:$125,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total C.I.P. Fund 0 0 125,000 0 0 0 125,000 99 Packet Page Number 245 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:MT08.130 PROJECT TITLE:Public Works Carpeting DESCRIPTION:Public Works Carpeting JUSTIFICATION: The carpet at Public Works is wearing out or failing due to age and usage and needs to be replaced. The carpet will be evaluated each year to determine which areas need to be replaced. This is the tentative review year moved to 2016. PROJECT STARTING DATE:June 2016 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:July 2016 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$61,000 Project Costs:$61,000 TOTAL COST:$61,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Building Maintenance NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total C.I.P. Fund 0 0 0 0 0 61,000 61,000 100 Packet Page Number 246 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:MT12.020 PROJECT TITLE:Nature Center Building Improvements DESCRIPTION:Exterior Siding Repair/Replacement, Roof Repair, Interior Improvements, Furnace Upgrade JUSTIFICATION: The Nature Center is a educational facility that is enjoyed by the surrounding communities and benefits the youth and adults alike in learning about nature and to appreciate, preserve, and protect our environment. The building needs to have the cedar siding replaced in areas due to rotting, the shake roof shakes are deteriorating, splitting, and sliding out which may require either repairing or replacing upon further investigation. The flat roof areas need to be inspected, repaired or replaced due to interior leaking along with extending the drain scuppers and flashing correctly in such a way as to shed water away from the building siding. The interior improvements include carpet replacement, updating the rooms, furnace / airconditioning unit number two (2) replaced, and energy saving improvements. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2014 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:December 2014 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$53,400 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$53,400 TOTAL COST:$53,400 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Building Maintenance NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total C.I.P. Fund 0 0 0 53,400 0 0 53,400 101 Packet Page Number 247 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PM07.010 PROJECT TITLE:Community Field Upgrades DESCRIPTION:Community Field Upgrades JUSTIFICATION: General upgrades of various community fields. This proposal will provide the City with resources to begin updating and/or replacing basketball and tennis courts, fields and fences. Included in this proposal are upgrades to Goodrich and Wakefield fences, restoration of ball fields at Goodrich and site enhancements to each of these parks. Additional upgrades of other parks determined by the Park Commission is also included in this fund. PROJECT STARTING DATE:March 2009 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:September 2016 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$275,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$275,000 TOTAL COST:$275,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Parks NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total C.I.P. Fund 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 275,000 102 Packet Page Number 248 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PM08.040 PROJECT TITLE:Park Equipment, Fence and Court Replacement DESCRIPTION:General Replacement of Park Equipment, Fences, Courts, etc. JUSTIFICATION: This project will provide for the periodic replacement of equipment in the City's park system. It will be used for park equipment, fences, basketball and tennis courts requiring replacement over time. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2009 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:October 2016 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$270,000 Project Costs:$270,000 TOTAL COST:$270,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Parks NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total C.I.P. Fund 20,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 270,000 103 Packet Page Number 249 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PM08.060 PROJECT TITLE:Open Space Improvements DESCRIPTION:Provide funding for open space improvements JUSTIFICATION: This project covers ongoing improvements at open space sites. In 2008-2010, trails and buckthorn removal were done at Applewood Preserve. In 2011-2012, prairie and woodland restoration is being done at Beaver Creek Preserve. Future projects include trails and natural resources management. Rustic trails will be constructed at: Joy Park (preserve, not park), Prairie Farm (short segment), Kohlman Creek (short segment), Spoon Lake (full system). Natural areas will be restored and enhanced at: 1) Jim's Prairie--buffer restoration; 2) Joy Park (park, not preserve)--woodland and wetland restoration; 3) Priory--woodlands, savanna, wetland, prairie restoration; 4) Prairie Farm--savanna and woodland edge plantings, 5) Kohlman Creek--woodland planting, 6) Carver preserve--buckthorn removal, 7) Spoon Lake preserve--phase I buckthorn removal. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2012 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:October 2015 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$120,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$120,000 TOTAL COST:$120,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Parks NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Park Development Fund 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 120,000 104 Packet Page Number 250 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW03.210 PROJECT TITLE:Lift Station Upgrade Program DESCRIPTION:Annual program to refurbish lift stations JUSTIFICATION: This program involves the refurbishing of lift stations. This expenditure is a preventive maintenance expenditure to help reduce backups and failures due to emergency situations. The program includes pump rebuilds, wet well inspections, and general site improvements for the nine lift stations located throughout the City. In 2013 upgrades are planned for Lift Station 14 1t 1080 County Road C East. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2013 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:October 2013 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$25,000 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$225,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$250,000 TOTAL COST:$250,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Public Works NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Sanitary Sewer Fund 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 105 Packet Page Number 251 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW06.010 PROJECT TITLE:Two Toro Lawn Mowers and Two Trailers DESCRIPTION:Replacement of two Toro lawn mowers and two trailers JUSTIFICATION: Replacement is scheduled for two Toro lawn mowers with attachments.($63,098) Toro units 653 and 654 Replacement of two12,000 lb. capacity trailers. ($23,100) Trailer units 721 and 722 PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2013 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:July 2013 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$86,198 Project Costs:$86,198 TOTAL COST:$86,198 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fleet Management Fund 0 0 86,198 0 0 0 86,198 106 Packet Page Number 252 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW06.060 PROJECT TITLE:One Tractor Loader and Three Wheel Truckster DESCRIPTION:Replacement of one tractor and one truckster for grooming ballfields JUSTIFICATION: Replacement is scheduled for Parks tractor loader. ($62,123) Unit 712 Replacement is scheduled for one three wheel truckster ($20,039) Unit 655 PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2013 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:July 2013 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$82,162 Project Costs:$82,162 TOTAL COST:$82,162 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fleet Management Fund 0 0 82,162 0 0 0 82,162 107 Packet Page Number 253 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW06.070 PROJECT TITLE:One Snow Plow Truck DESCRIPTION:Replace one single-axle dump truck with plow, wing & sander JUSTIFICATION: This 1995 model year truck is scheduled for replacement unit 534. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2014 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:December 2014 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$171,160 Project Costs:$171,160 TOTAL COST:$171,160 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fleet Management Fund 0 0 0 171,160 0 0 171,160 108 Packet Page Number 254 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW07.030 PROJECT TITLE:1-Ton Truck DESCRIPTION:Replacement of one 1-ton truck with plow attachment JUSTIFICATION: Replacement is scheduled for one 1-ton truck with dump body for snow plowing and hauling material, etc. Unit 646 is scheduled to be replaced in 2013. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2013 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:August 2013 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$71,209 Project Costs:$71,209 TOTAL COST:$71,209 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fleet Management Fund 0 0 71,209 0 0 0 71,209 109 Packet Page Number 255 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW08.020 PROJECT TITLE:Two Jacobsen Lawn Mowers DESCRIPTION:Replace two park lawn mowers JUSTIFICATION: Replacement is scheduled for two Jacobsen lawn mowers with attachments (Units 658 and 659) PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2016 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:September 2016 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$122,474 Project Costs:$122,474 TOTAL COST:$122,474 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fleet Management Fund 0 0 0 0 0 122,474 122,474 110 Packet Page Number 256 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW09.020 PROJECT TITLE:Two Toro Mowers and One 4-Wheel Truckster DESCRIPTION:Replace two Toro lawn mowers and one ballfield grooming truckster JUSTIFICATION: Replacement is scheduled for two toro mowers $73,494 Units 652 and 545 Replacement is scheduled for one 4 wheel truckster $24,790 Unit 656 PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2015 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:July 2015 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$98,284 Project Costs:$98,284 TOTAL COST:$98,284 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fleet Management Fund 0 0 0 0 98,284 0 98,284 111 Packet Page Number 257 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW09.030 PROJECT TITLE:Two 1 ton Trucks and One 1/2 ton Truck DESCRIPTION:Replace two 1 ton trucks with plow attachments and one 1/2 ton pickup truck JUSTIFICATION: In 2012, replacement is scheduled for: One 1 ton series 4500 truck with plow and dump body $60,712 (Unit 644) and One 1/2 ton pickup truck with engineering survey body $40,000 (Unit 502). In 2013, replacement is scheduled for: One 1 ton truck with plow and flatbed body $60,782 (Unit 643). PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2012 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:September 2013 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$161,494 Project Costs:$161,494 TOTAL COST:$161,494 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fleet Management Fund 0 100,712 60,782 0 0 0 161,494 112 Packet Page Number 258 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW11.020 PROJECT TITLE:Jetter Truck DESCRIPTION:Replacement of Jetter Truck JUSTIFICATION: The city operates one sewer jetting truck for its 155 miles of sewer. This piece of equipment's replacement is based on engine hours rather than odometer miles. The current jetter truck has 6,640 engine hours. That equates to having 298,800 miles driven on that engine. It is in need of replacement to ensure its reliability for maintaining the city's sewer system. (Unit 615) PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2012 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:August 2012 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$185,000 Project Costs:$185,000 TOTAL COST:$185,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fleet Management Fund 0 185,000 0 0 0 0 185,000 113 Packet Page Number 259 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW11.030 PROJECT TITLE:Parallelogram Lift DESCRIPTION:Replacement of Vehicle/Equipment Parallelogram Lift JUSTIFICATION: The mechanics' large parallelogram lift is in need of replacement. The right rail of the lift is bending and needs to be replaced. This lift is used daily for maintenance of trucks that are 1-ton or larger and equipment including, but not limited to: dump trucks, fire trucks, ambulances, plow trucks and loaders. The current lift is mounted at the floor level. Due to new snow plow operations utilizing underbody plow equipment, the new hoist will need to be installed below floor level. This will allow the lift to be flush with the floor. Equipment can then be driven onto the lift without getting hung up and possibly damaging the hoist and/or the equipment. The cost to replace the current lift is $102,130. For an additional $12,190 a lift that is more heavy-duty could be installed. This lift would have the capacity to lift 14,000 more pounds. This additional lifting capacity would allow for unforeseen changes in future Fire and Public Works equipment. It is recommended that the larger 50,000 pound capacity lift be purchased and installed for $114,320. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2014 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:October 2014 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$114,320 Project Costs:$114,320 TOTAL COST:$114,320 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fleet Management Fund 0 0 0 114,320 0 0 114,320 114 Packet Page Number 260 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW11.040 PROJECT TITLE:Single Axle Plow Truck DESCRIPTION:Replace Single Axle Plow Truck JUSTIFICATION: The 2000 model year plow truck is due for replacement. (Unit 535) PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2015 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:August 2015 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$185,734 Project Costs:$185,734 TOTAL COST:$185,734 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fleet Management Fund 0 0 0 0 185,734 0 185,734 115 Packet Page Number 261 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW11.050 PROJECT TITLE:Emergency Generator DESCRIPTION:Replacement of Caterpillar Emergency Generator JUSTIFICATION: The 1975 sanitary sewer lift station emergency generator is due for replacement. PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2016 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:August 2016 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$70,000 Project Costs:$70,000 TOTAL COST:$70,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fleet Management Fund 0 0 0 0 0 70,000 70,000 116 Packet Page Number 262 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW12.010 PROJECT TITLE:Mill and Overlays DESCRIPTION:Mill and Overlay of Collector Streets JUSTIFICATION: The following collector streets are in need of mill and overlay to rehabilitate the deteriorating surface of the pavement: Highwood Avenue (from McKnight to New Century), Southlawn Drive (from Legacy Parkway to Beam Avenue), Maryland Avenue (from McKnight to Lakewood), Conway Avenue (from McKnight to Century), Linwood Avenue (from McKnight to Century), Roselawn Avenue (from Highway 61 to Rice Street), and Stillwater Avenue (from McKnight to Lakewood) 5.7 miles of street, Average PCI: 63 PROJECT STARTING DATE:June 2011 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:October 2013 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$300,000 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$1,840,000 Equipment and Other:$0 Project Costs:$2,140,000 TOTAL COST:$2,140,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Public Works NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total St. Paul W.A.C. Fund 0 21,400 25,000 0 0 0 46,400 Environmental Utility Fund 0 30,000 34,200 0 0 0 64,200 Sanitary Sewer Fund 0 23,600 19,200 0 0 0 42,800 Bonds-M.S.A. 125,000 800,000 1,061,600 0 0 0 1,986,600 117 Packet Page Number 263 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW12.030 PROJECT TITLE:MT-Trackless Maintenance Vehicle DESCRIPTION:Purchase of MT-Trackless Series 6 Maintenance Vehicle JUSTIFICATION: Due to the additional 5 miles of sidewalk the city has acquired over the last two years, and forecasted future sidewalk installation, a new piece of equipment is needed to maintain them. With our current snow removal equipment we are unable to keep up with large snowfalls and are unable to meet the city's sidewalk snow removal policy. This machine will also have the capability to be used for the street and some parks department summer mowing operations. $110,000 (Unit 731) PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2012 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:June 2012 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$110,000 Project Costs:$110,000 TOTAL COST:$110,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fleet Management Fund 0 110,000 0 0 0 0 110,000 118 Packet Page Number 264 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW12.040 PROJECT TITLE:Two1/2 Ton Pickups DESCRIPTION:Replacement of two 1/2 ton pickups JUSTIFICATION: Two 1997 1/2 ton pickups are due for replacement. Unit 501 in 2014 and Unit 508 in 2015 PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2014 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:June 2015 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$58,026 Project Costs:$58,026 TOTAL COST:$58,026 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fleet Management Fund 0 0 0 29,013 29,013 0 58,026 119 Packet Page Number 265 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW12.050 PROJECT TITLE:One Ton Truck DESCRIPTION:Replacement of 1 ton utility dump/plow truck JUSTIFICATION: The 1999 1-ton utility dump/plow truck is due for replacement. $71,484 (Unit 613) PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2016 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:July 2016 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$71,484 Project Costs:$71,484 TOTAL COST:$71,484 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fleet Management Fund 0 0 0 0 0 71,484 71,484 120 Packet Page Number 266 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW12.060 PROJECT TITLE:Crack Router DESCRIPTION:Replacement of crack router JUSTIFICATION: The 1995 crack router used for repairing city streets is scheduled for replacement. $19,000 (Unit 713) PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2016 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:July 2016 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$19,000 Project Costs:$19,000 TOTAL COST:$19,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fleet Management Fund 0 0 0 0 0 19,000 19,000 121 Packet Page Number 267 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER:PW12.070 PROJECT TITLE:Grounds Sweeper DESCRIPTION:Replacement of Grounds Sweeper JUSTIFICATION: The 1998 Grounds Sweeper used to maintain city parks, city hall, and other city campuses is scheduled for replacement. $23,000 (Unit 657) PROJECT STARTING DATE:January 2016 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:July 2016 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Preliminaries:$0 Land Acquisition:$0 Construction:$0 Equipment and Other:$23,000 Project Costs:$23,000 TOTAL COST:$23,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016 PROJECT CATEGORY:Equipment NEIGHBORHOOD:Not Designated Funding Source Prior Years 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding Total Fleet Management Fund 0 0 0 0 0 23,000 23,000 122 Packet Page Number 268 of 350 APPENDIX Packet Page Number 269 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT TITLE TOTAL COST PRIOR YEARS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS GROUPED BY DEPARTMENT Status:Proposed Gladstone Area Streetscape- Phase I 6,000,000 4,725,000 1,275,000 0 0 0 0CD04.010 Gladstone - Phase II 4,100,000 0 0 0 400,000 3,700,000 0CD09.020 4,725,000 1,275,000 0 400,000 3,700,000 010,100,000 Replacement of Fire Station 4,000,000 0 4,000,000 0 0 0 0FD10.010 Replacement of Fire Station 2,000,000 0 0 0 2,000,000 0 0FD10.011 Replacment of Fire Truck 458,725 0 0 0 458,725 0 0FD03.020 Replacement of Fire Truck 490,905 0 0 0 0 0 490,905FD06.020 Ambulance Replacement 119,850 0 0 119,850 0 0 0FD08.010 Ambulance Replacement 123,445 0 0 0 0 0 123,445FD09.020 0 4,000,000 119,850 2,458,725 0 614,3507,192,925 Election Equipment 125,000 0 0 125,000 0 0 0IT12.010 0 0 125,000 0 0 0125,000 Maplewood Community Center Improvements 1,250,000 150,000 100,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000MT12.010 Nature Center Building Improvements 53,400 0 0 0 53,400 0 0MT12.020 Public Works Carpeting 61,000 0 0 0 0 0 61,000MT08.130 Police Department Expansion 825,000 225,000 200,000 100,000 200,000 100,000 0MT08.150 375,000 300,000 350,000 503,400 350,000 311,0002,189,400 Gethsemane Park 1,247,400 372,400 375,000 500,000 0 0 0PM10.040 Fish Creek Open Space 3,655,000 575,000 425,000 2,655,000 0 0 0PM11.010 Goodrich Park Improvements 468,000 118,000 0 0 175,000 175,000 0PM11.020 Legacy Park Improvements 75,000 0 0 0 75,000 0 0PM12.010 Lions Park Improvements 400,000 350,000 50,000 0 0 0 0PM03.010 Community Field Upgrades 275,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000PM07.010 Park Equipment, Fence and Court Replacement 270,000 20,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000PM08.040 Gladstone Savanna Improvements 1,700,000 0 1,100,000 0 300,000 0 300,000PM08.050 Open Space Improvements 120,000 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 0PM08.060 1,460,400 2,080,000 3,285,000 680,000 305,000 400,0008,210,400 Jetter Truck 185,000 0 185,000 0 0 0 0PW11.020 Parallelogram Lift 114,320 0 0 0 114,320 0 0PW11.030 Single Axle Plow Truck 185,734 0 0 0 0 185,734 0PW11.040 Emergency Generator 70,000 0 0 0 0 0 70,000PW11.050 Arkwright/Sunrise Area Streets 4,480,000 0 200,000 4,280,000 0 0 0PW11.090 Mill and Overlays 2,140,000 125,000 875,000 1,140,000 0 0 0PW12.010 Sterling Street Bridge Replacement 1,315,000 0 0 0 0 1,315,000 0PW12.020 MT-Trackless Maintenance Vehicle 110,000 0 110,000 0 0 0 0PW12.030 Two1/2 Ton Pickups 58,026 0 0 0 29,013 29,013 0PW12.040 One Ton Truck 71,484 0 0 0 0 0 71,484PW12.050 Crack Router 19,000 0 0 0 0 0 19,000PW12.060 Grounds Sweeper 23,000 0 0 0 0 0 23,000PW12.070 City Landfill Closure 375,000 0 100,000 275,000 0 0 0PW02.120 Lift Station Upgrade Program 250,000 0 0 250,000 0 0 0PW03.210 Two Toro Lawn Mowers and Two Trailers 86,198 0 0 86,198 0 0 0PW06.010 One Tractor Loader and Three Wheel Truckster 82,162 0 0 82,162 0 0 0PW06.060 One Snow Plow Truck 171,160 0 0 0 171,160 0 0PW06.070 1-Ton Truck 71,209 0 0 71,209 0 0 0PW07.030 TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements 14,000,000 800,000 800,000 8,000,000 4,400,000 0 0PW07.100 Two Jacobsen Lawn Mowers 122,474 0 0 0 0 0 122,474PW08.020 Lakewood/Sterling Area Streets 2,780,000 0 0 200,000 2,580,000 0 0PW08.050 Crestview/Highwood Area Streets 7,350,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 7,150,000PW08.060 Bartelmy Meyer Area Streets 2,430,000 100,000 2,330,000 0 0 0 0PW08.070 Two Toro Mowers and One 4-Wheel Truckster 98,284 0 0 0 0 98,284 0PW09.020 Two 1 ton Trucks and One 1/2 ton Truck 161,494 0 100,712 60,782 0 0 0PW09.030 Farrell/Ferndale Area Street Improvements 4,090,000 0 0 0 200,000 3,890,000 0PW09.080 Dennis/McClelland Area Street Improvements 4,250,000 0 0 0 200,000 4,050,000 0PW09.100 1,025,000 4,700,712 14,445,351 7,694,493 9,768,031 7,455,95845,089,545 123 Packet Page Number 270 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT TITLE TOTAL COST PRIOR YEARS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS GROUPED BY DEPARTMENT Status:Proposed 7,585,400 12,355,712 18,325,201 11,736,618 14,123,031 8,781,30872,907,270 124 Packet Page Number 271 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT TITLE TOTAL COST PRIOR YEARS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR FUNDING SOURCE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS GROUPED BY FUNDING SOURCE Status:Proposed Ambulance Replacement 119,850 0 0 119,850 0 0 0FD08.010 Ambulance Service Fund Ambulance Replacement 123,445 00000123,445FD09.020 Ambulance Service Fund 0 0 119,850 0 0 123,445243,295 Gladstone Area Streetscape- Phase I 275,000 275,000 00000CD04.010 Bonds-G.O. Improvement Replacement of Fire Station 2,200,000 02,200,0000000FD10.010 Bonds-G.O. Improvement Gethsemane Park 250,000 0 0 250,000 0 0 0PM10.040 Bonds-G.O. Improvement Fish Creek Open Space 500,000 0 0 500,000 0 0 0PM11.010 Bonds-G.O. Improvement Gladstone Savanna Improvements 200,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 0PM08.050 Bonds-G.O. Improvement Arkwright/Sunrise Area Streets 1,775,200 0 200,000 1,575,200 0 0 0PW11.090 Bonds-G.O. Improvement Lakewood/Sterling Area Streets 1,085,600 0 0 200,000 885,600 0 0PW08.050 Bonds-G.O. Improvement Crestview/Highwood Area Streets 2,302,400 0 0 0 0 200,000 2,102,400PW08.060 Bonds-G.O. Improvement Bartelmy Meyer Area Streets 283,400 100,000 183,400 0 0 0 0PW08.070 Bonds-G.O. Improvement Farrell/Ferndale Area Street Improvements 1,430,800 0 0 0 200,000 1,230,800 0PW09.080 Bonds-G.O. Improvement Dennis/McClelland Area Street Improvements 1,192,500 0 0 0 200,000 992,500 0PW09.100 Bonds-G.O. Improvement 375,000 2,783,400 2,525,200 1,285,600 2,423,300 2,102,40011,494,900 Gladstone Area Streetscape- Phase I 950,000 650,000 300,000 0 0 0 0CD04.010 Bonds-M.S.A. Gladstone - Phase II 350,000 0 0 0 0 350,000 0CD09.020 Bonds-M.S.A. Mill and Overlays 1,986,600 125,000 800,000 1,061,600 0 0 0PW12.010 Bonds-M.S.A. Sterling Street Bridge Replacement 215,000 0 0 0 0 215,000 0PW12.020 Bonds-M.S.A. TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements 2,000,000 450,000 450,000 700,000 400,000 0 0PW07.100 Bonds-M.S.A. Crestview/Highwood Area Streets 386,000 00000386,000PW08.060 Bonds-M.S.A. Bartelmy Meyer Area Streets 554,200 0 554,200 0 0 0 0PW08.070 Bonds-M.S.A. 1,225,000 2,104,200 1,761,600 400,000 565,000 386,0006,441,800 Gladstone Area Streetscape- Phase I 1,800,000 1,800,000 00000CD04.010 Bonds-Special Assessment Gladstone - Phase II 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 1,500,000 0CD09.020 Bonds-Special Assessment Replacement of Fire Station 1,800,000 01,800,0000000FD10.010 Bonds-Special Assessment Gethsemane Park 250,000 0 0 250,000 0 0 0PM10.040 Bonds-Special Assessment Fish Creek Open Space 450,000 0 0 450,000 0 0 0PM11.010 Bonds-Special Assessment Gladstone Savanna Improvements 400,000 0 400,000 0 0 0 0PM08.050 Bonds-Special Assessment Arkwright/Sunrise Area Streets 1,571,000 0 0 1,571,000 0 0 0PW11.090 Bonds-Special Assessment TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements 420,000 0 0 420,000 0 0 0PW07.100 Bonds-Special Assessment Lakewood/Sterling Area Streets 765,000 0 0 0 765,000 0 0PW08.050 Bonds-Special Assessment Crestview/Highwood Area Streets 2,580,000 000002,580,000PW08.060 Bonds-Special Assessment Bartelmy Meyer Area Streets 851,000 0 851,000 0 0 0 0PW08.070 Bonds-Special Assessment Farrell/Ferndale Area Street Improvements 1,433,000 0 0 0 0 1,433,000 0PW09.080 Bonds-Special Assessment Dennis/McClelland Area Street Improvements 1,490,000 0 0 0 0 1,490,000 0PW09.100 Bonds-Special Assessment 1,800,000 3,051,000 2,691,000 765,000 4,423,000 2,580,00015,310,000 TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements 500,000 0 0 500,000 0 0 0PW07.100 Bonds-Tax Increment 00500,000000500,000 Replacement of Fire Station 2,000,000 0 0 0 2,000,000 0 0FD10.011 C.I.P. Fund Election Equipment 125,000 0 0 125,000 0 0 0IT12.010 C.I.P. Fund Nature Center Building Improvements 53,400 0 0 0 53,400 0 0MT12.020 C.I.P. Fund Public Works Carpeting 61,000 0000061,000MT08.130 C.I.P. Fund Police Department Expansion 825,000 225,000 200,000 100,000 200,000 100,000 0MT08.150 C.I.P. Fund Community Field Upgrades 275,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000PM07.010 C.I.P. Fund Park Equipment, Fence and Court Replacement 270,000 20,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000PM08.040 C.I.P. Fund 270,000 300,000 325,000 2,353,400 200,000 161,0003,609,400 Maplewood Community Center Improvements 1,250,000 150,000 100,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000MT12.010 Community Center Operations 150,000 100,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,0001,250,000 Gladstone Area Streetscape- Phase I 500,000 400,000 100,000 0 0 0 0CD04.010 Environmental Utility Fund Gladstone - Phase II 150,000 0 0 0 150,000 0 0CD09.020 Environmental Utility Fund Legacy Park Improvements 25,000 0 0 0 25,000 0 0PM12.010 Environmental Utility Fund 125 Packet Page Number 272 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT TITLE TOTAL COST PRIOR YEARS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR FUNDING SOURCE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS GROUPED BY FUNDING SOURCE Status:Proposed Lions Park Improvements 25,00025,00000000PM03.010 Environmental Utility Fund Gladstone Savanna Improvements 200,000 0 100,000 0 50,000 0 50,000PM08.050 Environmental Utility Fund Arkwright/Sunrise Area Streets 448,000 0 0 448,000 0 0 0PW11.090 Environmental Utility Fund Mill and Overlays 64,200 0 30,000 34,200 0 0 0PW12.010 Environmental Utility Fund City Landfill Closure 325,000 0 50,000 275,000 0 0 0PW02.120 Environmental Utility Fund TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements 300,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 100,000 0 0PW07.100 Environmental Utility Fund Lakewood/Sterling Area Streets 368,000 0 0 0 368,000 0 0PW08.050 Environmental Utility Fund Crestview/Highwood Area Streets 1,189,000 000001,189,000PW08.060 Environmental Utility Fund Bartelmy Meyer Area Streets 175,000 0 175,000 0 0 0 0PW08.070 Environmental Utility Fund Farrell/Ferndale Area Street Improvements 409,000 0 0 0 0 409,000 0PW09.080 Environmental Utility Fund Dennis/McClelland Area Street Improvements 640,000 0 0 0 0 640,000 0PW09.100 Environmental Utility Fund 475,000 505,000 857,200 693,000 1,049,000 1,239,0004,818,200 TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements 7,200,000 0 0 4,200,000 3,000,000 0 0PW07.100 Federal Aid 0 0 4,200,000 3,000,000 0 07,200,000 Replacment of Fire Truck 458,725 0 0 0 458,725 0 0FD03.020 Fire Truck Replacement Fund Replacement of Fire Truck 490,905 00000490,905FD06.020 Fire Truck Replacement Fund 0 0 0 458,725 0 490,905949,630 Jetter Truck 185,000 0 185,000 0 0 0 0PW11.020 Fleet Management Fund Parallelogram Lift 114,320 0 0 0 114,320 0 0PW11.030 Fleet Management Fund Single Axle Plow Truck 185,734 0 0 0 0 185,734 0PW11.040 Fleet Management Fund Emergency Generator 70,000 0000070,000PW11.050 Fleet Management Fund MT-Trackless Maintenance Vehicle 110,000 0 110,000 0 0 0 0PW12.030 Fleet Management Fund Two1/2 Ton Pickups 58,026 0 0 0 29,013 29,013 0PW12.040 Fleet Management Fund One Ton Truck 71,484 0000071,484PW12.050 Fleet Management Fund Crack Router 19,000 0000019,000PW12.060 Fleet Management Fund Grounds Sweeper 23,000 0000023,000PW12.070 Fleet Management Fund Two Toro Lawn Mowers and Two Trailers 86,198 0 0 86,198 0 0 0PW06.010 Fleet Management Fund One Tractor Loader and Three Wheel Truckster 82,162 0 0 82,162 0 0 0PW06.060 Fleet Management Fund One Snow Plow Truck 171,160 0 0 0 171,160 0 0PW06.070 Fleet Management Fund 1-Ton Truck 71,209 0 0 71,209 0 0 0PW07.030 Fleet Management Fund Two Jacobsen Lawn Mowers 122,474 00000122,474PW08.020 Fleet Management Fund Two Toro Mowers and One 4-Wheel Truckster 98,284 0 0 0 0 98,284 0PW09.020 Fleet Management Fund Two 1 ton Trucks and One 1/2 ton Truck 161,494 0 100,712 60,782 0 0 0PW09.030 Fleet Management Fund 0 395,712 300,351 314,493 313,031 305,9581,629,545 Gladstone - Phase II 1,250,000 0 0 0 0 1,250,000 0CD09.020 Grants Fish Creek Open Space 875,000 175,000 0 700,000 0 0 0PM11.010 Grants Gladstone Savanna Improvements 200,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 0PM08.050 Grants City Landfill Closure 50,000 050,0000000PW02.120 Grants TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements 500,000 0 0 500,000 0 0 0PW07.100 Grants 175,000 250,000 1,200,000 0 1,250,000 02,875,000 Gladstone Area Streetscape- Phase I 1,600,000 1,600,000 00000CD04.010 Mn/DOT Sterling Street Bridge Replacement 1,100,000 0 0 0 0 1,100,000 0PW12.020 Mn/DOT TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements 3,000,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 900,000 0 0PW07.100 Mn/DOT 1,900,000 300,000 1,500,000 900,000 1,100,000 05,700,000 Gethsemane Park 747,400 372,400 375,000 0 0 0 0PM10.040 Park Development Fund Fish Creek Open Space 505,000 225,000 250,000 30,000 0 0 0PM11.010 Park Development Fund Goodrich Park Improvements 468,000 118,000 0 0 175,000 175,000 0PM11.020 Park Development Fund Legacy Park Improvements 50,000 0 0 0 50,000 0 0PM12.010 Park Development Fund Lions Park Improvements 375,000 325,000 50,0000000PM03.010 Park Development Fund Gladstone Savanna Improvements 700,000 0 200,000 0 250,000 0 250,000PM08.050 Park Development Fund Open Space Improvements 120,000 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 0PM08.060 Park Development Fund 1,040,400 905,000 60,000 505,000 205,000 250,0002,965,400 126 Packet Page Number 273 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT TITLE TOTAL COST PRIOR YEARS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR FUNDING SOURCE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS GROUPED BY FUNDING SOURCE Status:Proposed Fish Creek Open Space 525,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 0 0 0PM11.010 Ramsey County 175,000 175,000 175,000 0 0 0525,000 Gladstone Area Streetscape- Phase I 250,000 0 250,000 0 0 0 0CD04.010 Sanitary Sewer Fund Gladstone - Phase II 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 0 0CD09.020 Sanitary Sewer Fund Fish Creek Open Space 600,000 0 0 600,000 0 0 0PM11.010 Sanitary Sewer Fund Arkwright/Sunrise Area Streets 317,000 0 0 317,000 0 0 0PW11.090 Sanitary Sewer Fund Mill and Overlays 42,800 0 23,600 19,200 0 0 0PW12.010 Sanitary Sewer Fund Lift Station Upgrade Program 250,000 0 0 250,000 0 0 0PW03.210 Sanitary Sewer Fund TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements 50,000 0 0 50,000 0 0 0PW07.100 Sanitary Sewer Fund Lakewood/Sterling Area Streets 194,600 0 0 0 194,600 0 0PW08.050 Sanitary Sewer Fund Crestview/Highwood Area Streets 375,000 00000375,000PW08.060 Sanitary Sewer Fund Bartelmy Meyer Area Streets 172,000 0 172,000 0 0 0 0PW08.070 Sanitary Sewer Fund Farrell/Ferndale Area Street Improvements 290,000 0 0 0 0 290,000 0PW09.080 Sanitary Sewer Fund Dennis/McClelland Area Street Improvements 345,000 0 0 0 0 345,000 0PW09.100 Sanitary Sewer Fund 0 445,600 1,236,200 444,600 635,000 375,0003,136,400 Fish Creek Open Space 200,000 0 0 200,000 0 0 0PM11.010 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund Arkwright/Sunrise Area Streets 234,400 0 0 234,400 0 0 0PW11.090 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund Mill and Overlays 46,400 0 21,400 25,000 0 0 0PW12.010 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 0PW07.100 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund Lakewood/Sterling Area Streets 283,400 0 0 0 283,400 0 0PW08.050 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund Crestview/Highwood Area Streets 258,800 00000258,800PW08.060 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund Bartelmy Meyer Area Streets 297,200 0 297,200 0 0 0 0PW08.070 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund Farrell/Ferndale Area Street Improvements 363,600 0 0 0 0 363,600 0PW09.080 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund Dennis/McClelland Area Street Improvements 370,000 0 0 0 0 370,000 0PW09.100 St. Paul W.A.C. Fund 0 318,600 489,400 283,400 733,600 258,8002,083,800 Arkwright/Sunrise Area Streets 134,400 0 0 134,400 0 0 0PW11.090 St. Paul Water Lakewood/Sterling Area Streets 83,400 0 0 0 83,400 0 0PW08.050 St. Paul Water Crestview/Highwood Area Streets 258,800 00000258,800PW08.060 St. Paul Water Bartelmy Meyer Area Streets 97,200 097,2000000PW08.070 St. Paul Water Farrell/Ferndale Area Street Improvements 163,600 0 0 0 0 163,600 0PW09.080 St. Paul Water Dennis/McClelland Area Street Improvements 212,500 0 0 0 0 212,500 0PW09.100 St. Paul Water 0 97,200 134,400 83,400 376,100 258,800949,900 Gladstone Area Streetscape- Phase I 625,000 0 625,000 0 0 0 0CD04.010 Street Light Utility Fund Gladstone - Phase II 600,000 0 0 0 0 600,000 0CD09.020 Street Light Utility Fund 0 625,000 0 0 600,000 01,225,000 7,585,400 12,355,712 18,325,201 11,736,618 14,123,031 8,781,30872,907,270 127 Packet Page Number 274 of 350 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 128 Packet Page Number 275 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT TITLE TOTAL COST PRIOR YEARS 2012 2013 2014 2015 ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEARPROJECT CATEGORY 2016 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS GROUPED BY PROJECT CATEGORY Status:Proposed Replacement of Fire Station 4,000,000 0 4,000,000 0 0 0FD10.010 0Building Maintena Replacement of Fire Station 2,000,000 0 0 0 2,000,000 0FD10.011 0Building Maintena Maplewood Community Center Improvements 1,250,000 150,000 100,000 250,000 250,000 250,000MT12.010 250,000Building Maintena Nature Center Building Improvements 53,400 0 0 0 53,400 0MT12.020 0Building Maintena Public Works Carpeting 61,000 0 0 0 0 0MT08.130 61,000Building Maintena Police Department Expansion 825,000 225,000 200,000 100,000 200,000 100,000MT08.150 0Building Maintena 375,000 4,300,000 350,000 2,503,400 350,0008,189,400 311,000 Replacment of Fire Truck 458,725 0 0 0 458,725 0FD03.020 0Equipment Replacement of Fire Truck 490,905 0 0 0 0 0FD06.020 490,905Equipment Ambulance Replacement 119,850 0 0 119,850 0 0FD08.010 0Equipment Ambulance Replacement 123,445 0 0 0 0 0FD09.020 123,445Equipment Election Equipment 125,000 0 0 125,000 0 0IT12.010 0Equipment Jetter Truck 185,000 0 185,000 0 0 0PW11.020 0Equipment Parallelogram Lift 114,320 0 0 0 114,320 0PW11.030 0Equipment Single Axle Plow Truck 185,734 0 0 0 0 185,734PW11.040 0Equipment Emergency Generator 70,000 0 0 0 0 0PW11.050 70,000Equipment MT-Trackless Maintenance Vehicle 110,000 0 110,000 0 0 0PW12.030 0Equipment Two1/2 Ton Pickups 58,026 0 0 0 29,013 29,013PW12.040 0Equipment One Ton Truck 71,484 0 0 0 0 0PW12.050 71,484Equipment Crack Router 19,000 0 0 0 0 0PW12.060 19,000Equipment Grounds Sweeper 23,000 0 0 0 0 0PW12.070 23,000Equipment Two Toro Lawn Mowers and Two Trailers 86,198 0 0 86,198 0 0PW06.010 0Equipment One Tractor Loader and Three Wheel Truckster 82,162 0 0 82,162 0 0PW06.060 0Equipment One Snow Plow Truck 171,160 0 0 0 171,160 0PW06.070 0Equipment 1-Ton Truck 71,209 0 0 71,209 0 0PW07.030 0Equipment Two Jacobsen Lawn Mowers 122,474 0 0 0 0 0PW08.020 122,474Equipment Two Toro Mowers and One 4-Wheel Truckster 98,284 0 0 0 0 98,284PW09.020 0Equipment Two 1 ton Trucks and One 1/2 ton Truck 161,494 0 100,712 60,782 0 0PW09.030 0Equipment 0 395,712 545,201 773,218 313,0312,947,470 920,308 Gethsemane Park 1,247,400 372,400 375,000 500,000 0 0PM10.040 0Parks Fish Creek Open Space 3,655,000 575,000 425,000 2,655,000 0 0PM11.010 0Parks Goodrich Park Improvements 468,000 118,000 0 0 175,000 175,000PM11.020 0Parks Legacy Park Improvements 75,000 0 0 0 75,000 0PM12.010 0Parks Lions Park Improvements 400,000 350,000 50,000 0 0 0PM03.010 0Parks Community Field Upgrades 275,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000PM07.010 50,000Parks Park Equipment, Fence and Court Replacement 270,000 20,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000PM08.040 50,000Parks Gladstone Savanna Improvements 1,700,000 0 1,100,000 0 300,000 0PM08.050 300,000Parks Open Space Improvements 120,000 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000PM08.060 0Parks 1,460,400 2,080,000 3,285,000 680,000 305,0008,210,400 400,000 Arkwright/Sunrise Area Streets 4,480,000 0 200,000 4,280,000 0 0PW11.090 0Public Works Mill and Overlays 2,140,000 125,000 875,000 1,140,000 0 0PW12.010 0Public Works Sterling Street Bridge Replacement 1,315,000 0 0 0 0 1,315,000PW12.020 0Public Works City Landfill Closure 375,000 0 100,000 275,000 0 0PW02.120 0Public Works Lift Station Upgrade Program 250,000 0 0 250,000 0 0PW03.210 0Public Works TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements 14,000,000 800,000 800,000 8,000,000 4,400,000 0PW07.100 0Public Works Lakewood/Sterling Area Streets 2,780,000 0 0 200,000 2,580,000 0PW08.050 0Public Works Crestview/Highwood Area Streets 7,350,000 0 0 0 0 200,000PW08.060 7,150,000Public Works Bartelmy Meyer Area Streets 2,430,000 100,000 2,330,000 0 0 0PW08.070 0Public Works Farrell/Ferndale Area Street Improvements 4,090,000 0 0 0 200,000 3,890,000PW09.080 0Public Works Dennis/McClelland Area Street Improvements 4,250,000 0 0 0 200,000 4,050,000PW09.100 0Public Works 1,025,000 4,305,000 14,145,000 7,380,000 9,455,00043,460,000 7,150,000 Gladstone Area Streetscape- Phase I 6,000,000 4,725,000 1,275,000 0 0 0CD04.010 0Redevelopment Gladstone - Phase II 4,100,000 0 0 0 400,000 3,700,000CD09.020 0Redevelopment 4,725,000 1,275,000 0 400,000 3,700,00010,100,000 0 7,585,400 12,355,712 18,325,201 11,736,618 14,123,03172,907,270 8,781,308 129 Packet Page Number 276 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT TITLE TOTAL COST PRIOR YEARS 2012 2013 2014 2015 ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR NEIGHBORHOOD 2016 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS GROUPED BY NEIGHBORHOOD Status:Proposed Arkwright/Sunrise Area Streets 4,480,000 0 200,000 4,280,000 0 0PW11.090 002 - Parkside 0 200,000 4,280,000 0 04,480,000 0 Legacy Park Improvements 75,000 0 0 0 75,000 0PM12.010 004 - Hazelwood 0 0 0 75,000 075,000 0 Maplewood Community Center Improvements 1,250,000 150,000 100,000 250,000 250,000 250,000MT12.010 250,00006 - Sherwood Glen Police Department Expansion 825,000 225,000 200,000 100,000 200,000 100,000MT08.150 006 - Sherwood Glen TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements 14,000,000 800,000 800,000 8,000,000 4,400,000 0PW07.100 006 - Sherwood Glen 1,175,000 1,100,000 8,350,000 4,850,000 350,00016,075,000 250,000 Gladstone Area Streetscape- Phase I 6,000,000 4,725,000 1,275,000 0 0 0CD04.010 007 - Gladstone Gladstone - Phase II 4,100,000 0 0 0 400,000 3,700,000CD09.020 007 - Gladstone Gladstone Savanna Improvements 1,700,000 0 1,100,000 0 300,000 0PM08.050 300,00007 - Gladstone 4,725,000 2,375,000 0 700,000 3,700,00011,800,000 300,000 Goodrich Park Improvements 468,000 118,000 0 0 175,000 175,000PM11.020 008 - Hillside 118,000 0 0 175,000 175,000468,000 0 Gethsemane Park 1,247,400 372,400 375,000 500,000 0 0PM10.040 009 - Beaver Lake Lions Park Improvements 400,000 350,000 50,000 0 0 0PM03.010 009 - Beaver Lake City Landfill Closure 375,000 0 100,000 275,000 0 0PW02.120 009 - Beaver Lake Bartelmy Meyer Area Streets 2,430,000 100,000 2,330,000 0 0 0PW08.070 009 - Beaver Lake Farrell/Ferndale Area Street Improvements 4,090,000 0 0 0 200,000 3,890,000PW09.080 009 - Beaver Lake 822,400 2,855,000 775,000 200,000 3,890,0008,542,400 0 Dennis/McClelland Area Street Improvements 4,250,000 0 0 0 200,000 4,050,000PW09.100 010 - Battle Creek 0 0 0 200,000 4,050,0004,250,000 0 Crestview/Highwood Area Streets 7,350,000 0 0 0 0 200,000PW08.060 7,150,00011 - Vista Hills 0 0 0 0 200,0007,350,000 7,150,000 Fish Creek Open Space 3,655,000 575,000 425,000 2,655,000 0 0PM11.010 012 - Highwood Lakewood/Sterling Area Streets 2,780,000 0 0 200,000 2,580,000 0PW08.050 012 - Highwood 575,000 425,000 2,855,000 2,580,000 06,435,000 0 Sterling Street Bridge Replacement 1,315,000 0 0 0 0 1,315,000PW12.020 013 - Carver Ridge 0 0 0 0 1,315,0001,315,000 0 Replacement of Fire Station 4,000,000 0 4,000,000 0 0 0FD10.010 0Not Designated Replacement of Fire Station 2,000,000 0 0 0 2,000,000 0FD10.011 0Not Designated Replacment of Fire Truck 458,725 0 0 0 458,725 0FD03.020 0Not Designated Replacement of Fire Truck 490,905 0 0 0 0 0FD06.020 490,905Not Designated Ambulance Replacement 119,850 0 0 119,850 0 0FD08.010 0Not Designated Ambulance Replacement 123,445 0 0 0 0 0FD09.020 123,445Not Designated Election Equipment 125,000 0 0 125,000 0 0IT12.010 0Not Designated Nature Center Building Improvements 53,400 0 0 0 53,400 0MT12.020 0Not Designated Public Works Carpeting 61,000 0 0 0 0 0MT08.130 61,000Not Designated Community Field Upgrades 275,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000PM07.010 50,000Not Designated Park Equipment, Fence and Court Replacement 270,000 20,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000PM08.040 50,000Not Designated Open Space Improvements 120,000 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000PM08.060 0Not Designated 130 Packet Page Number 277 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT TITLE TOTAL COST PRIOR YEARS 2012 2013 2014 2015 ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR NEIGHBORHOOD 2016 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS GROUPED BY NEIGHBORHOOD Status:Proposed Jetter Truck 185,000 0 185,000 0 0 0PW11.020 0Not Designated Parallelogram Lift 114,320 0 0 0 114,320 0PW11.030 0Not Designated Single Axle Plow Truck 185,734 0 0 0 0 185,734PW11.040 0Not Designated Emergency Generator 70,000 0 0 0 0 0PW11.050 70,000Not Designated Mill and Overlays 2,140,000 125,000 875,000 1,140,000 0 0PW12.010 0Not Designated MT-Trackless Maintenance Vehicle 110,000 0 110,000 0 0 0PW12.030 0Not Designated Two1/2 Ton Pickups 58,026 0 0 0 29,013 29,013PW12.040 0Not Designated One Ton Truck 71,484 0 0 0 0 0PW12.050 71,484Not Designated Crack Router 19,000 0 0 0 0 0PW12.060 19,000Not Designated Grounds Sweeper 23,000 0 0 0 0 0PW12.070 23,000Not Designated Lift Station Upgrade Program 250,000 0 0 250,000 0 0PW03.210 0Not Designated Two Toro Lawn Mowers and Two Trailers 86,198 0 0 86,198 0 0PW06.010 0Not Designated One Tractor Loader and Three Wheel Truckster 82,162 0 0 82,162 0 0PW06.060 0Not Designated One Snow Plow Truck 171,160 0 0 0 171,160 0PW06.070 0Not Designated 1-Ton Truck 71,209 0 0 71,209 0 0PW07.030 0Not Designated Two Jacobsen Lawn Mowers 122,474 0 0 0 0 0PW08.020 122,474Not Designated Two Toro Mowers and One 4-Wheel Truckster 98,284 0 0 0 0 98,284PW09.020 0Not Designated Two 1 ton Trucks and One 1/2 ton Truck 161,494 0 100,712 60,782 0 0PW09.030 0Not Designated 170,000 5,400,712 2,065,201 2,956,618 443,03112,116,870 1,081,308 7,585,400 12,355,712 18,325,201 11,736,618 14,123,03172,907,270 8,781,308 131 Packet Page Number 278 of 350 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT TITLE TOTAL COST PRIOR YEARS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS GROUPED BY DEPARTMENT Status:Declined Housing Replacement Program 750,000 0 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000CD02.010 Hillcrest Area Roadway Improvements 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,500,000CD04.030 Hillcrest Area Redevelopment 1,100,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,100,000CD04.040 Hillcrest Area Streetscape 1,700,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,700,000CD04.050 Commercial Property Redevelopment 1,000,000 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000CD09.010 Gladstone - Phase III 6,350,000 0 0 0 0 0 6,350,000CD09.030 0 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 11,000,00012,400,000 Replacement of Fire Station 1,300,000 0 0 0 300,000 0 1,000,000FD10.012 Ambulance Replacement 127,155 0 0 0 0 0 127,155FD09.011 Fire Training Facility 3,700,000 0 3,550,000 150,000 0 0 0FD09.030 0 3,550,000 150,000 300,000 0 1,127,1555,127,155 Public Works Emergency Generator Replacement 38,000 0 0 0 38,000 0 0MT12.030 City Facilities Security Systems Enhancement 80,000 0 0 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000MT08.010 Police Department Expansion 10,400,000 0 0 0 0 0 10,400,000MT08.151 City Hall Carpet 53,700 0 0 0 0 0 53,700MT08.160 0 0 20,000 58,000 20,000 10,473,70010,571,700 City Campus Improvements 365,000 110,000 165,000 35,000 35,000 20,000 0PM10.030 Joy Park Improvements 450,000 300,000 0 150,000 0 0 0PM03.060 410,000 165,000 185,000 35,000 20,000 0815,000 410,000 4,065,000 705,000 743,000 390,000 22,600,85528,913,855 132 Packet Page Number 279 of 350 PROJECTS DEFERRED/DECLINED In the course of preparation of this Capital Improvement Plan, several noteworthy projects were proposed but deemed by staff to not be appropriate for inclusion at this time. These projects are discussed below and included for your review.  Hillcrest Area Redevelopment – Staff recommends that this project be deferred until the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment is further along so as to avoid competing with each other.  Housing Replacement Program – This is a worthwhile project and the current economic conditions would call for some investment in this project. City finances are not currently available to provide sufficient benefit.  Commercial Property Redevelopment – While this is a worthy project, staff does not believe that the costs are a priority use of tax levies. Staff will continue to look for opportunities in this area.  Joy Park Improvements – Staff recommends deferral pending accumulation of Park Availability Charges.  Police Department Expansion – This is an expensive proposition and its need has not been adequately demonstrated. Space needs at City Hall continue to be evaluated. This project may require a referendum to identify a source of funds.  Replacement/rehabilitation of Fire Station – This item was deferred due to the high cost and a lack of funding identified. The Fire Chief will continue to monitor the station situation.  Fire Training Facility – This is a very costly project and requires funding from other agencies. The project needs to be deferred until the funding can be acquired.  City Hall Carpeting – The carpet is showing wear. Staff believes this need needs to be deferred for a few more years due to the lack of funding.  City Campus Improvements – While staff recognizes that improvements need to be made, other project demands on the CIP fund are more critical.  City Facilities Security System Enhancements – This proposal would add security cameras and card reader access along with enhanced monitoring capabilities to the city campus and fire stations. Staff believes other project demands on the CIP fund are more critical.  Public Works Emergency Generator Replacement – Staff believes other project demands on the CIP fund are more critical.  Ambulance Replacement – The replacement rates for the ambulance fleet has been delayed by one year at the recommendation of the Fire Chief based upon current department needs.  Various Street Improvements – The following street improvement projects are deferred to 2017 or beyond and will be considered in the normal street improvement plan due to limited funding and a desire to reduce the level of City debt: o Hillcrest Area Roadway Improvements o Hillcrest Area Streetscape o Gladstone – Phase III 133 Packet Page Number 280 of 350 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Revenues Ambulance fees $2,024,830 $2,085,570 $2,148,140 $2,212,580 $2,278,960 Other 2,640 2,720 2,800 2,880 2,970 State fire aid 71,990 71,990 71,990 71,990 71,990 Total revenues 2,099,460 2,160,280 2,222,930 2,287,450 2,353,920 Expenses: Administration 820 820 820 820 820 Billing 51,800 51,800 51,800 51,800 51,800 Emergency medical services 2,009,070 2,009,070 2,009,070 2,009,070 2,009,070 Depreciation 61,290 61,290 61,290 61,290 61,290 Interest on interfund loans 7,900 7,900 7,900 7,900 7,900 Total expenses 2,130,880 2,130,880 2,130,880 2,130,880 2,130,880 Change in net assets (31,420) 29,400 92,050 156,570 223,040 Net assets - January 1 (1,073,336) (1,104,756) (1,075,356) (983,306) (826,736) Net assets - December 31 ($1,104,756) ($1,075,356) ($983,306) ($826,736) ($603,696) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Sources of cash: Net income (loss)($31,420) $29,400 $92,050 $156,570 $223,040 Add depreciation 61,290 61,290 61,290 61,290 61,290 Total 29,870 90,690 153,340 217,860 284,330 Applications of cash: Purchase of fixed assets 0 119,850 0 0 123,450 Total 0 119,850 0 0 123,450 Net increase (decrease) in cash 29,870 (29,160) 153,340 217,860 160,880 Cash and cash equivalents - January 1 (2,551,802) (2,521,932) (2,551,092) (2,397,752) (2,179,892) Cash and cash equivalents - December 31 ($2,521,932) ($2,551,092) ($2,397,752) ($2,179,892) ($2,019,012) STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA AMBULANCE SERVICE FUND (606) STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS 134 Packet Page Number 281 of 350 ACCT. NO. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Property Taxes: 3011 Current $90,720 $90,720 $90,720 $90,720 $90,720 Intergovernmental: 3544 Other governement grants/aid 0 60,000 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Revenue: 3801 Investment earnings 110 20 280 (350) 560 3804 Sale of property 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 Total revenues 90,830 150,740 2,091,000 90,370 91,280 Expenditures: 4640 Election equipment 0 125,000 0 0 0 4720 Park equipment, fence and court replacement 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 4720 Community field upgrades 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 4730 PW carpeting 000061,000 4730 Nature Center building improvements 0 0 53,400 0 0 4730 Police department expansion 200,000 100,000 200,000 100,000 0 4730 Fire stations 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 4930 Investment management fees 10 0 20 0 30 Total expenditures 300,010 325,000 2,353,420 200,000 161,030 Excess (deficit) of revenue over expenditures (209,180) (174,260) (262,420) (109,630) (69,750) Other financing uses: Transfers in (out) General Fund 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 50,000 Net increase (decrease) in fund balance (9,180) 25,740 (62,420) 90,370 (19,750) Fund balance - January 1 11,278 2,098 27,838 (34,582) 55,788 Fund balance - December 31 $2,098 $27,838 ($34,582) $55,788 $36,038 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND (405) STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE 135 Packet Page Number 282 of 350 PROG NO. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Operating revenues: 611 Administration $1,513,650 $1,523,650 $1,533,650 $1,558,650 $1,573,650 612 Recreation activities 182,020 182,020 182,020 182,020 182,020 613 Leisure activities 346,000 346,000 346,000 346,000 346,000 Total revenues 2,041,670 2,051,670 2,061,670 2,086,670 2,101,670 Operating expenses: 611 Administration 795,200 781,530 769,570 769,570 769,570 612 Recreation activities 499,330 490,750 483,240 483,240 483,240 613 Leisure activities 134,820 132,500 130,470 130,470 130,470 614 Building maintenance 897,310 881,890 868,390 868,390 868,390 Total expenses 2,326,660 2,286,670 2,251,670 2,251,670 2,251,670 Operating income (loss) before depreciation (284,990) (235,000) (190,000) (165,000) (150,000) Other revenues (expenses): Property tax revenue 401,090 429,740 420,190 396,310 381,990 Depreciation (255,840) (255,840) (255,840) (255,840) (255,840) Extraordinary item (100,000)(250,000) (250,000) (250,000) (250,000) Interest on interfund loans (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) Total other revenues (expenses)40,250 (81,100) (90,650) (114,530) (128,850) Net loss (244,740) (316,100) (280,650) (279,530) (278,850) Net assets - January 1 7,278,709 7,033,969 6,717,869 6,437,219 6,157,689 Net assets - December 31 $7,033,969 $6,717,869 $6,437,219 $6,157,689 $5,878,839 STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS COMMUNITY CENTER OPERATIONS FUND (602) CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Sources of cash: Net income (loss)($244,740) ($316,100) ($280,650) ($279,530) ($278,850) Add depreciation 255,840 255,840 255,840 255,840 255,840 Net increase (decrease) in cash 11,100 (60,260) (24,810) (23,690) (23,010) Cash balance - January 1 (535,576)(524,476) (584,736) (609,546) (633,236) Cash balance - December 31 ($524,476) ($584,736) ($609,546) ($633,236) ($656,246) STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS 136 Packet Page Number 283 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND (604) STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS ACCT NO. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Operating revenues: 3651 Environmental utility charges $2,093,971 $2,303,368 $2,418,537 $2,539,463 $2,666,436 Total revenues 2,093,971 2,303,368 2,418,537 2,539,463 2,666,436 Operating expenses: Administration 94,146 96,029 97,949 99,908 101,907 Billing 37,026 37,767 38,522 39,292 40,078 Nature center 73,777 75,252 76,757 78,292 79,858 Storm sewer maintenance 782,850 798,507 814,477 830,767 847,382 Street sweeping 199,390 203,377 207,445 211,594 215,826 Depreciation 489,600 499,392 509,380 519,567 529,959 Total expenses 1,676,788 1,710,324 1,744,530 1,779,421 1,815,009 Operating income (loss)417,183 593,044 674,006 760,042 851,427 Nonoperating revenues (expenses): 3801 Investment earnings 5,580 6,640 5,060 6,060 4,530 4930 Investment management fees (330)(400)(300)(360)(270) Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)5,250 6,240 4,760 5,700 4,260 Income before contributions and transfers 422,433 599,284 678,766 765,742 855,687 Transfers in (out): Public Improvement Projects Fund (405,000) (857,200) (618,000) (1,049,000) (1,189,000) Park Development Fund (100,000)0 (75,000)0 (50,000) Debt Service Fund (301,460) (399,690) (394,770) (389,720) (399,760) Change in net assets (384,027) (657,606) (409,004) (672,978) (783,073) Net assets - January 1 18,757,587 18,373,560 17,715,954 17,306,950 16,633,973 Net assets - December 31 $18,373,560 $17,715,954 $17,306,950 $16,633,973 $15,850,900 STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Sources of cash: Net income (loss)$422,433 $599,284 $678,766 $765,742 $855,687 Add depreciation 489,600 499,392 509,380 519,567 529,959 Total 912,033 1,098,676 1,188,146 1,285,310 1,385,646 Applications of cash: Transfers out 806,460 1,256,890 1,087,770 1,438,720 1,638,760 Total 806,460 1,256,890 1,087,770 1,438,720 1,638,760 Net increase (decrease) in cash 105,573 (158,214) 100,376 (153,410) (253,114) Cash and cash equivalents - January 1 558,208 663,781 505,567 605,943 452,533 Cash and cash equivalents - December 31 $663,781 $505,567 $605,943 $452,533 $199,418 137 Packet Page Number 284 of 350 ACCT. NO. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Property Taxes: 3011 Current $95,500 $95,500 $95,500 $95,500 $95,500 Miscellaneous Revenue: 3801 Investment earnings 4,230 5,230 6,230 2,660 3,640 Total revenues 99,730 100,730 101,730 98,160 99,140 Expenditures: 4610 Fire trucks 0 0 458,730 0 490,900 4930 Investment management fees 250 310 370 160 220 Total expenditures 250 310 459,100 160 491,120 Net increase (decrease) in fund balance 99,480 100,420 (357,370) 98,000 (391,980) Fund balance - January 1 423,406 522,886 623,306 265,936 363,936 Fund balance - December 31 $522,886 $623,306 $265,936 $363,936 ($28,044) CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA FIRE TRUCK REPLACEMENT FUND (424) STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE 138 Packet Page Number 285 of 350 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Operating Revenues: Billings to departments $851,230 $851,230 $851,230 $851,230 $851,230 Miscellaneous 55,450 56,560 57,690 58,840 60,020 Total revenues 906,680 907,790 908,920 910,070 911,250 Operating Expenses: Personnel services 296,820 302,760 308,820 315,000 321,300 Materials and supplies 153,130 156,190 159,310 162,500 165,750 Contractual services 124,820 127,320 129,870 132,470 135,120 Total expenses 574,770 586,270 598,000 609,970 622,170 Operating income (loss) before depreciation 331,910 321,520 310,920 300,100 289,080 Other revenues (expenses): Investment earnings 1,970 1,350 1,570 1,540 1,420 Depreciation (250,580) (255,590) (260,700) (265,910) (271,230) Investment management fees (480) (490) (500) (510) (520) Total other revenues (249,090) (254,730) (259,630) (264,880) (270,330) Increase (decrease) in net assets 82,820 66,790 51,290 35,220 18,750 Net assets - January 1 2,100,858 2,183,678 2,250,468 2,301,758 2,336,978 Net assets - December 31 $2,183,678 $2,250,468 $2,301,758 $2,336,978 $2,355,728 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Sources of cash: Net income (loss)$82,820 $66,790 $51,290 $35,220 $18,750 Add depreciation 250,580 255,590 260,700 265,910 271,230 Total 333,400 322,380 311,990 301,130 289,980 Applications of cash: Purchase of fixed assets 395,710 300,350 314,490 313,030 305,960 Total 395,710 300,350 314,490 313,030 305,960 Net increase (decrease) in cash (62,310) 22,030 (2,500) (11,900) (15,980) Cash and cash equivalents - January 1 197,104 134,794 156,824 154,324 142,424 Cash and cash equivalents - December 31 $134,794 $156,824 $154,324 $142,424 $126,444 STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND (702) STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS 139 Packet Page Number 286 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND (403) STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ACCT. NO. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Miscellaneous Revenue: 3801 Investment earnings $3,820 $2,050 $2,970 $1,450 $410 3851 Park availability charges - residential 150,000 150,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 3852 Park availability charges - non-residential 575,000 0 250,000 0 250,000 Total revenues 728,820 152,050 352,970 101,450 350,410 Expenditures: 4720 Park development projects 625,000 0 475,000 175,000 250,000 4930 Investment management fees 230 120 180 90 20 Total expenditures 625,230 120 475,180 175,090 250,020 Excess (deficit) of revenue over expenditures 103,590 151,930 (122,210) (73,640) 100,390 Other financing uses: Transfers in/(out) Open Space (280,000) (60,000) (30,000) (30,000)0 Net increase (decrease) in fund balance (176,410) 91,930 (152,210) (103,640) 100,390 Fund balance - January 1 381,655 205,245 297,175 144,965 41,325 Fund balance - December 31 $205,245 $297,175 $144,965 $41,325 $141,715 140 Packet Page Number 287 of 350 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Operating revenues: Sewer permits $4,300 $4,300 $4,300 $4,300 $4,300 Sewer billings 4,873,363 5,019,563 5,170,150 5,325,255 5,485,013 Total revenues 4,877,663 5,023,863 5,174,450 5,329,555 5,489,313 Operating expenses: Administration 330,439 337,048 343,789 350,665 357,678 Billing 36,832 37,569 38,320 39,087 39,868 Sewage treatment 2,677,765 2,731,321 2,785,947 2,841,666 2,898,499 Maintenance 817,193 833,537 850,208 867,212 884,556 Depreciation 408,000 416,160 424,483 432,973 441,632 Total expenses 4,270,230 4,355,635 4,442,747 4,531,602 4,622,234 Operating income (loss) 607,433 668,229 731,703 797,953 867,078 Transfers in (out): Public Improvement Projects Fund (445,600) (636,200) (444,600) (635,000) (375,000) Debt Service Fund (266,930) (264,720) (267,580) (265,000) (262,430) Fish Creek Open Space 0 (600,000) 0 0 0 Change in net assets (105,097) (832,691) 19,523 (102,047) 229,648 Net assets - January 1 12,577,425 12,472,327 11,639,636 11,659,159 11,557,112 Net assets - December 31 $12,472,327 $11,639,636 $11,659,159 $11,557,112 $11,786,760 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Sources of cash: Income (loss) before contribution and transfers $607,433 $668,229 $731,703 $797,953 $867,078 Add depreciation 408,000 416,160 424,483 432,973 441,632 Total 1,015,433 1,084,389 1,156,186 1,230,926 1,308,711 Applications of cash: Transfers out 712,530 1,500,920 712,180 900,000 637,430 Total 712,530 1,500,920 712,180 900,000 637,430 Net increase (decrease) in cash 302,903 (416,531) 444,006 330,926 671,281 Cash balance - January 1 1,070,526 1,373,428 956,897 1,400,904 1,731,829 Cash balance - December 31 $1,373,428 $956,897 $1,400,904 $1,731,829 $2,403,110 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS SANITARY SEWER FUND (601) 141 Packet Page Number 288 of 350 ACCT NO.2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Operating revenues: 3032 Electric franchise tax $262,020 $262,020 $262,020 $262,020 $262,020 Total revenues 262,020 262,020 262,020 262,020 262,020 Operating expenses: Administration 13,170 13,170 13,170 13,170 13,170 Utilities 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 Maintenance 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 Total expenses 205,270 205,270 205,270 205,270 205,270 Operating income (loss)56,750 56,750 56,750 56,750 56,750 Nonoperating revenues (expenses): 3801 Investment earnings 1,790 2,370 2,480 2,590 700 4930 Investment management fees (110) (140) (150) (160) (40) Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)1,680 2,230 2,330 2,430 660 Net income (loss) before contributions and transfers 58,430 58,980 59,080 59,180 57,410 Transfers in (out): Public Improvement Projects Fund (625,000)0 0 (600,000)0 Amount to be bonded for 625,000 0 0 400,000 0 Debt Service Fund 0 (48,140) (48,140) (48,140) (78,950) Change in net assets 58,430 10,840 10,940 (188,960) (21,540) Net assets - January 1 234,025 292,455 303,295 314,235 125,275 Net assets - December 31 $292,455 $303,295 $314,235 $125,275 $103,735 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Sources of cash: Net income (loss)$58,430 $58,980 $59,080 $59,180 $57,410 Total 58,430 58,980 59,080 59,180 57,410 Applications of cash: Transfers out (net of bonded amounts)0 48,140 48,140 248,140 78,950 Total 0 48,140 48,140 248,140 78,950 Net increase (decrease) in cash 58,430 10,840 10,940 (188,960) (21,540) Cash balance - January 1 178,650 237,080 247,920 258,860 69,900 Cash balance - December 31 $237,080 $247,920 $258,860 $69,900 $48,360 STREET LIGHT UTILITY FUND (607) STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 142 Packet Page Number 289 of 350 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WATER AVAILABILITY CHARGE FUND -- ST. PAUL WATER DISTRICT (407 STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ACCT. NO. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Miscellaneous Revenue: 3651 Utility billings $181,500 $199,650 $219,615 $241,577 $265,734 3801 Investment earnings 1,840 340 1,680 630 2,620 3808 Water availability charge 36,960 36,960 36,960 36,960 36,960 Total revenues 220,300 236,950 258,255 279,167 305,314 Expenditures: 4485 Fees for utility billing 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 4920 Interest on interfund loans 3,680 0 0 0 0 4930 Investment management fees 110 20 100 40 160 Total expenditures 5,550 1,780 1,860 1,800 1,920 Excess (deficit) of revenue over expenditures 214,750 235,170 256,395 277,367 303,394 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in (out): To PIP Fund (318,600) (489,400) (283,400) (733,600) (258,800) Add back amounts bonded for 434,400 0 733,600 0 To Debt Service Fund (46,080) (45,760) (78,770) (78,260) (134,110) Net increase (decrease) in fund balance (149,930) 134,410 (105,775) 199,107 (89,516) Fund balance - January 1 183,828 33,898 168,308 62,533 261,639 Fund balance - December 31 $33,898 $168,308 $62,533 $261,639 $172,123 143 Packet Page Number 290 of 350 Attachment 2 RESOLUTION NO_____ ADOPTING THE 2012 – 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council established city-wide goals for financial sustainability and facility planning as part of the annual Council – Staff Retreat in February 2011, and WHEREAS, the City Manager has supervised the Management Staff in preparing the 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan, and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended approval of said 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan as being consistent with the City Council goals, and WHEREAS, the City’s Business and Economic Development Commission; the Park and Recreation Commission, the Housing Redevelopment Authority; the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission and the Planning Commission have all recommended adoption of the proposed 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan without revision, and WHEREAS, the City’s Planning Commission has duly conducted on May 17, 2011, consistent with state statute, a Public Hearing regarding the consistency of said 2012 Capital Improvement Plan, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reported that they have found the 2012 – 2106 Capital Improvement Plan to be substantially consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, that, Said 2012 – 2106 Capital Improvement Plan is hereby adopted and approved as proposed and recommended by the City Manager and shall become a document as part of the 2012 Budget. Adopted this 23rd day of May, 2011. Packet Page Number 291 of 350 AGENDA REPORT TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner SUBJECT: Western Hills Area Street Improvement, City Project 10-14, Approval of Wetland Buffer Waiver DATE: May 10, 2011 INTRODUCTION Engineering staff have prepared plans and specifications for the Western Hills Area Street Improvement (City Project 10-14). The area of proposed street improvement is bounded by Roselawn Avenue to the north, I-35E to the east, Larpenteur Avenue to the south, and Rice Street on the west along with the Edgemont-Arkwright-Kingston loop on the east side of I-35E (see attached map). On May 9, 2011, the City Council awarded the construction contract for the project to T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc. As part of the project, staff is proposing improvements to the “Jackson Hole” wetland buffer, located on a City-owned parcel on the northwest corner of the intersection of Jackson Street and Larpenteur Avenue. Staff is recommending the Council approve a waiver to construct improvements within the buffer of this “Manage B” wetland. DESCRIPTION Jackson Hole, as it has been named for reference, is a land-locked area located near the northwest corner of Jackson Street and Larpenteur Avenue. The elevation difference from the intersection to the bottom of the low area is about 30 feet. The low area accepts drainage from a 23.3-acre neighborhood drainage area and has no outfall. A number of studies have been conducted on the basin. First, a Wetland Delineation study was completed on November 11, 2010 by S.E.H. City staff surveyed the flagged wetland boundary resulting in the double-dashed wetland boundary shown on the attached exhibit. Second, staff conducted a hydrologic study and basin monitoring to gain a bench mark for its operation. Observations of the basin during the Spring Thaw of 2011 indicate a measured water level of no more than 2 feet above the bottom. This is consistent with the wetland delineation report, which indicated a maximum depth of about 2 feet based on visual evidence of vegetation in the area. Similarly, hand- auger borings were performed on the basin bottom. The borings indicated very loose, silty soils. With no other reports of basin flooding, we can conclude that the basin has a very high rate of infiltration and essentially infiltrates everything that reaches the basin. Finally, staff conducted an environmental study on the basin due to suspected contamination. The results from this study indicate that the basin does not have petroleum or other chemical contaminates. However, staff suspects the basin was filled with bituminous and concrete rubble. The basin has also had its share of illegal trash dumping. Agenda Item I2 Packet Page Number 292 of 350 DISCUSSION Pursuant to Section 5b(9), Ordinance No. 895 revising Article VII of the Environmental Protection and Critical Area code (Wetland Ordinance), staff is requesting the Council consider waiving the requirements of this ordinance for the construction of public utilities, storm water treatment basins, erosion repairs and buffer enhancements within the Jackson Hole wetland. Jackson Hole is classified as a Manage B wetland not adjacent to a lake. The ordinance requires a 75- foot averaged buffer from the delineated line. Because the 75-foot buffer extends into slopes steeper than 18%, the buffer extends to 10-feet beyond the apex of all surveyed slopes. For the purposes of design, staff assumes the entire City-owned parcel is within the required buffer. Basin Improvements As part of the Western Hills improvements, staff is proposing storm drainage basin, slope and wetland improvements within the basin. Improvements include: 1) Excavation of a secondary basin east of the current delineated wetland area. Storm sewer runoff from Jackson and Beaumont Street will be directed into this new basin. 2) Establishment of the secondary basin with a Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR) approved wetland seed mix and planting of sedges. The proposed design will utilize a compost bed with a bonded-fiber matrix to ensure quick establishment of vegetation. 3) Repairs of severely eroded areas resulting from storm drainage. This is two-fold: a. Storm sewers will be designed to discharge at the lowest elevation of the basin, minimizing velocities and future erosion. Rip-rap and erosion control matting will be utilized for permanent stabilization and energy dissipation. b. Fill in eroded areas, establish with a BWSR approved seed mix and bonded-fiber matrix. 4) Select removal, clearing and treatment of low-quality trees or invasive species and removal of deadfall within the basin. Staff will devise a tree replacement plan to follow Tree Ordinance guidelines. City staff will work with the Natural Resources Coordinator and Environmental Planner for proper clearing of select trees and planting of new trees according to regulations. 5) Removal of surface trash and refuse that has collected in the basin. CONFORMANCE WITH ORDINANCE STANDARDS In considering a waiver to the ordinance requirements, the nine standards of Section 5b(9) of the ordinance are applied. Staff responses to each standard are shown in the order they are presented in the ordinance: a. The existing topography of the neighborhood is such that the drainage patterns cannot be feasibly modified to divert water away from this basin. Because of this, staff is opting to improve and enhance the current basin as the most practical alternative. Agenda Item I2 Packet Page Number 293 of 350 b. Property owners within 500 feet of the wetland were notified of the proposed buffer improvement. On March 15, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the project. On April 18, 2011 the Environment and Natural Resources commission also reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of the waiver. c. No known endangered species have been known to reside within the buffer. Staff have requested information from the DNR Natural Heritage Information System to verify the presence of endangered species within the wetland buffer. d. All storm sewer piping will be built into the buffer embankment at least 30 feet from the wetland buffer edge. The storm water basin improvement will be constructed and planted as a constructed wetland to complement the existing wetland area. e. Most tree species within the wetland area are cottonwood, boxelder or chinese elm. Tree removals will occur in the areas of basin grading and erosion repair. Between 10-12 large trees, 12” to 18” in diameter will be removed from the grading areas. Other tree clearing includes small saplings and low brush. All tree removals will be offset by tree replacements. f. The use of general pesticides or herbicides is not scheduled to occur as part of the project. Buckthorn stubs may be treated with glycosphate. g. Tree replacements will occur at the rates as set by the tree ordinance. Staff will track tree removals and replace trees at the equivalent caliper-inch requirements. h. The maintenance access to the basin will occur at the northeast corner of the basin from Jackson Street. The access road is intended to end at the new basin construction, hence no parallel roadways to the wetland edge. COMMISSION REVIEW On March 15, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the wetland buffer waiver as required by the city’s wetland ordinance. One adjacent property owner attended the public hearing, Jacob Popp. Mr. Popp spoke in favor of the project. The commission recommended approval of the wetland buffer waiver. On April 18, 2011, the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission reviewed the wetland buffer waiver. During the review the commission recommended leaving some of the existing tree deadfall in the basin to preserve wildlife habitat for birds. The commission recommended approval of the wetland buffer waiver in order to enhance the current Manage B wetland. RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that the proposed improvements constructed within the wetland buffer of the basin will enhance the current Manage B wetland and conforms to the buffer waiver standards outlined in Section 5b(9). Staff recommends approval of the wetland buffer waiver. Attachments 1. Site Location Map 2. Basin Improvements Plan 3. Excerpt from ENRC Minutes Agenda Item I2 Packet Page Number 294 of 350 Agenda Item I2 Packet Page Number 295 of 350 Agenda Item I2 Packet Page Number 296 of 350 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Agenda Item I2 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 297 of 350 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Agenda Item I2 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 298 of 350 AGENDA REPORT TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director Steven Love, Assistant City Engineer Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer I SUBJECT: Western Hills Area Street Improvements, Project 10-14, Resolution Adopting Revised Assessment Roll DATE: May 11, 2011 INTRODUCTION On May 9, 2011 the Western Hills Area Street Improvements, City Project 10-14 assessment hearing was held and (77) assessment objections were received. Recommendations for action on each of the objections are provided for council approval in considering adopting the final roll. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The proposed assessments for the Western Hills Area Street Improvements were submitted to the city council for adoption at the May 9, 2011 meeting. Residents were provided with the required advanced notice of assessment hearing. Residents were required to file a written notice if they objected to the assessment amount. Seventy-seven (77) property owners provided written objections. Staff denied all those objecting on the basis of the assessment exceeding the benefit. Staff is consistent with the Assessment Policy in addition an independent benefit appraiser determined benefit and the assessment roll was adjusted accordingly prior to the adopting the feasibility study back in 2010. Staff is recommending granting all senior citizen, financial hardship, and undeveloped property deferrals. These approvals will be contingent upon the objector providing additional paperwork that staff will mail out in the coming weeks. All deferrals accrue interest except for the undeveloped property deferrals. All of these recommendations were mailed to objectors in order to give notice that if there is disagreement with staff’s recommendation (in this report) the objector should appear at the May 23, 2011 council meeting. Objections: 1. Parcel 182922340063 – David Conover; 1702 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Conover is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 2. Parcel 182922340045 – Justin Balar; 1705 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Balar is requesting a revision to his assessment. 3. Parcel 182922340087 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an undeveloped property deferral. 4. Parcel 182922340058 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an undeveloped property deferral. 5. Parcel 182922340059 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street Agenda Item I3 Packet Page Number 299 of 350 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an undeveloped property deferral. 6. Parcel 182922340064 – Don Smieja; 1706 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Smieja is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 7. Parcel 182922340065 – Maiyia Her; 1712 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Her is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 8. Parcel 182922340043 – Gerald Jahnke; 1719 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Jahnke is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen, financial hardship, or disability deferral. 9. Parcel 182922340066 – Steve M. Barsness; 1724 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Barsness is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 10. Parcel 182922410026 – Linda Bowman; 1902 Adolphus Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Bowman is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 11. Parcel 182922410027 – Johnnie and Gloria Rudolph; 1912 Adolphus Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Rudolph are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 12. Parcel 182922430015 – Nancy Tschida Stephenson; 1706 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Stephenson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. 13. Parcel 182922430045 – Fred Bauer; 1741 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Bauer is requesting a revision of assessment and a senior citizen deferral. 14. Parcel 182922430043 – Kristin Ross; 1755 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Ross is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 15. Parcel 182922430038 – Brian and Rebecca Cortez; 1793 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Cortez are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 16. Parcel 182922430037 – Jeff Olson; 1799 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Olson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 17. Parcel 182922420089 – Joy Nellessen; 1800 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Nellessen is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. 18. Parcel 182922420096 – Karen and Jose Diaz; 1805 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Diaz are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and request a financial hardship deferral. 19. Parcel 182922420085 – John W. Peterson; 1826 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Peterson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. 20. Parcel 182922420084 – Eileen R. Eaves; 1832 Agate Street Agenda Item I3 Packet Page Number 300 of 350 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Eaves is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. 21. Parcel 182922420083 – Paula B. Merth; 1838 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Merth is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 22. Parcel 172922330028 – Daniel Underbakke; 1705 Arkwright Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Underbakke is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 23. Parcel 182922310034 – Mee and Michel Vansoua; 1845 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Vansoua are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 24. Parcel 182922310012 – Wendy and Charles Dording; 1860 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Dording are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 25. Parcel 182922310032 – Richard Willey; 1861 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Willey is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 26. Parcel 182922310011 – Coleen Hanrahan; 1866 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hanrahan is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 27. Parcel 182922310031 – Laureen Sherman; 1867 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Sherman is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 28. Parcel 182922310030 – Todd and Laurette Alwin; 1873 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Alwin are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 29. Parcel 182922310008 – Jerene Grilz; 1888 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Grilz is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 30. Parcel 182922310027 – Tammi Zapata; 1895 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Zapata is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 31. Parcel 182922420047 – Dennis and Laurie Littlefield; 104 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Littlefield are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 31a. Parcel 182922420017 – Terence and Elizabeth Paulson; 107 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Staff is proposing the cancellation of assessment until such time when Jackson Street is reconstructed and this property would be assessed for the improvements to Jackson Street. 32. Parcel 182922420042 – Brenda Murphy; 142 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Murphy is requesting a financial hardship deferral. 33. Parcel 182922420040 – Mary E. Hackman; 156 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hackman is requesting a senior citizen deferral. 34. Parcel 182922410029 – Mary and Pat McMonigal; 223 Bellwood Avenue Agenda Item I3 Packet Page Number 301 of 350 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. McMonigal are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 35. Parcel 182922430069 – Yewondwossen Tsegaw; 1733 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Tsegaw is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 36. Parcel 182922430054 – Craig and Michelle Selbitschka; 1766 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Selbitschka are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 37. Parcel 182922430055 – Christine Holman-House; 1774 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Holman-House is requesting a cancellation of assessment or a financial hardship deferral. 38. Parcel 182922430063 – Jose D. Carbajal; 1777 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Carbajal is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 39. Parcel 182922430057 – Paal Salter Carter; 1786 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Salter Carter is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. 40. Parcel 182922430061 – Michelle Irwin; 1791 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Irwin is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 41. Parcel 182922420111 – Dick Pierre; 1803 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Pierre is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 42. Parcel 18-29-22-42-0097 – Mary Jane Hawkins; 1808 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hawkins is requesting deferral of the assessment due to disability status and financial hardship. 43. Parcel 182922420104 – Jamie Whitwood; 1853 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Whitwood is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 44. Parcel 182922420103 – Ann Athen; 130 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Athen is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 45. Parcel 182922420082 – Mary J. Tills; 154 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Tills is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. 46. Parcel 182922420057 – Kevin Osmundson; 171 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Osmundson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 47. Parcel 182922420066 – Muriel Paulson; 202 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Paulson is requesting a senior citizen deferral. 48. Parcel 182922420063 – Richard J. Towle; 217 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Towle is requesting a financial hardship or senior citizen deferral. 49. Parcel 172922330016 – Kenneth J. Pfarr; 1695 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Pfarr is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 50. Parcel 172922330024 – Patrick Her; 1700 Edgemont Street Agenda Item I3 Packet Page Number 302 of 350 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Her is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 51. Parcel 172922330023 – Blong Yang; 1706 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Yang is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral 52. Parcel 172922330022 – Paula Vang; 1714 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Vang is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. 53. Parcel 172922330019 – Thomas Azzone; 1723 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Azzone is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 54. Parcel 182922310014 – Richard E. Miller; 63 Fenton Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 55. Parcel 182922310043 – Richard E. Miller; 95 Fenton Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 56. Parcel 182922310044 – Richard E. Miller; 97 Fenton Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 57. Parcel 182922340009 William Taylor; 1765 Gurney Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Taylor is requesting a cancellation of assessment or a disability deferral. 58. Parcel 182922340022 – Jeff Hupert; 5 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Hupert is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 59. Parcel 182922340090 – Kristin R. Borowske; 63 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Borowske is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests that the assessment be reduced and the interest rate set to zero percent. 60. Parcel 182922340084 – Jennifer and Bradley Johnson; 76 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 61. Parcel 182922340014 – John and Doris Slama; 77 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Slama are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and request a senior citizen deferral. 62. Parcel 172922330058 – Katherine L. Graham; 385 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Graham is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 63. Parcel 172922330059 – Marvella M. Lackner; 395 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Lackner is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen or financial hardship deferral. 64. Parcel 182922430104 – Bezaneh Gebremedhin; 191 D Larpenteur Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Bezaneh Gebremedhin is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 65. Parcel 182922430010 – Timothy and Michelle Cover; 1740 Onacrest Curve Agenda Item I3 Packet Page Number 303 of 350 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Cover are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 66. Parcel 182922430009 – Allan C. Button; 1744 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Button is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 67. Parcel 182922430007 – Lawrence A. Dittel; 1754 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Dittel is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 68. Parcel 182922430030 – Michael Ziolkowski; 1757 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Ziolkowski is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 69. Parcel 182922430004 – Roger J. Beran; 1770 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Beran is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 70. Parcel 182922430027 – Jack McGee; 1783 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. McGee is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 71. Parcel 182922430026 – Seth Miller; 1793 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 72. Parcel 182922310024 – Clarence Osen; 50 Roselawn Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Osen is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a revision to his assessment due to years of residency and previous assessments and taxes paid. 73. Parcel 182922340040 – Nicola and James Opine; 1730 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Opine are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 74. Parcel 182922340024 – Todd P. Williams; 1754 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Williams is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 75. Parcel 182922340025 – Michael and Carol Bisson; 1758 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Bisson are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 76. Parcel 182922340011 – Marvin Hodgin; 1766 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Hodgin is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 77. Parcel 182922340010 – Christine and David Lehto; 1772 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Lehto are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and request a cancellation of the assessment or a financial hardship deferral. Recommended Adjustments The following are recommended adjustments to the assessment roll: 1. Parcel 182922340063 – David Conover; 1702 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Conover is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff Agenda Item I3 Packet Page Number 304 of 350 recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 2. Parcel 182922340045 – Justin Balar; 1705 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Balar is requesting a revision to his assessment. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 3. Parcel 182922340087 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an undeveloped property deferral. Staff recommendation is to grant an undeveloped property deferral (15 years) upon approval of necessary paperwork. If the property remains undeveloped during the entire 15 year deferral time period the assessment will be cancelled. If at any point during the 15 year deferral period the lot is developed the assessment would become active. 4. Parcel 182922340058 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an undeveloped property deferral. Staff recommendation is to grant an undeveloped property deferral (15 years) upon approval of necessary paperwork. If the property remains undeveloped during the entire 15 year deferral time period the assessment will be cancelled. If at any point during the 15 year deferral period the lot is developed the assessment would become active. 5. Parcel 182922340059 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an undeveloped property deferral. Staff recommendation is to grant an undeveloped property deferral (15 years) upon approval of necessary paperwork. If the property remains undeveloped during the entire 15 year deferral time period the assessment will be cancelled. If at any point during the 15 year deferral period the lot is developed the assessment would become active. 6. Parcel 182922340064 – Don Smieja; 1706 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Smieja is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 7. Parcel 182922340065 – Maiyia Her; 1712 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Her is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 8. Parcel 182922340043 – Gerald Jahnke; 1719 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Jahnke is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen, financial hardship, or disability deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 9. Parcel 182922340066 – Steve M. Barsness; 1724 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Barsness is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being Agenda Item I3 Packet Page Number 305 of 350 assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 10. Parcel 182922410026 – Linda Bowman; 1902 Adolphus Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Bowman is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 11. Parcel 182922410027 – Johnnie and Gloria Rudolph; 1912 Adolphus Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Rudolph are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 12. Parcel 182922430015 – Nancy Tschida Stephenson; 1706 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Stephenson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 13. Parcel 182922430045 – Fred Bauer; 1741 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Bauer is requesting a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 14. Parcel 182922430043 – Kristin Ross; 1755 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Ross is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 15. Parcel 182922430038 – Brian and Rebecca Cortez; 1793 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Cortez are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 16. Parcel 182922430037 – Jeff Olson; 1799 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Olson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 17. Parcel 182922420089 – Joy Nellessen; 1800 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Nellessen is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the Agenda Item I3 Packet Page Number 306 of 350 assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 18. Parcel 182922420096 – Karen and Jose Diaz; 1805 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Diaz are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and request a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 19. Parcel 182922420085 – John W. Peterson; 1826 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Peterson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 20. Parcel 182922420084 – Eileen R. Eaves; 1832 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Eaves is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 21. Parcel 182922420083 – Paula B. Merth; 1838 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Merth is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 22. Parcel 172922330028 – Daniel Underbakke; 1705 Arkwright Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Underbakke is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 23. Parcel 182922310034 – Mee and Michel Vansoua; 1845 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Vansoua are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 24. Parcel 182922310012 – Wendy and Charles Dording; 1860 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Dording are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 25. Parcel 182922310032 – Richard Willey; 1861 Beaumont Street Agenda Item I3 Packet Page Number 307 of 350 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Willey is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 26. Parcel 182922310011 – Coleen Hanrahan; 1866 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hanrahan is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 27. Parcel 182922310031 – Laureen Sherman; 1867 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Sherman is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 28. Parcel 182922310030 – Todd and Laurette Alwin; 1873 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Alwin are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 29. Parcel 182922310008 – Jerene Grilz; 1888 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Grilz is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 30. Parcel 182922310027 – Tammi Zapata; 1895 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Zapata is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 31. Parcel 182922420047 – Dennis and Laurie Littlefield; 104 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Littlefield are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a cancellation of assessment as this property’s driveway accesses from Jackson Street. At such a time when Jackson Street is reconstructed this property would be assessed for improvements. 31a. Parcel 182922420017 – Terence and Elizabeth Paulson; 107 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Staff recommendation is to grant a cancellation of assessment as this property’s driveway accesses from Jackson Street. At such a time when Jackson Street is reconstructed this property would be assessed for the improvements. 32. Parcel 182922420042 – Brenda Murphy; 142 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Murphy is requesting a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 33. Parcel 182922420040 – Mary E. Hackman; 156 Bellwood Avenue Agenda Item I3 Packet Page Number 308 of 350 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hackman is requesting a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 34. Parcel 182922410029 – Mary and Pat McMonigal; 223 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. McMonigal are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 35. Parcel 182922430069 – Yewondwossen Tsegaw; 1733 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Tsegaw is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 36. Parcel 182922430054 – Craig and Michelle Selbitschka; 1766 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Selbitschka are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 37. Parcel 182922430055 – Christine Holman-House; 1774 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Holman-House is requesting a cancellation of assessment or a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for cancellation of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 38. Parcel 182922430063 – Jose D. Carbajal; 1777 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Carbajal is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 39. Parcel 182922430057 – Paal Salter Carter; 1786 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Salter Carter is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 40. Parcel 182922430061 – Michelle Irwin; 1791 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Irwin is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 41. Parcel 182922420111 – Dick Pierre; 1803 City Heights Drive Agenda Item I3 Packet Page Number 309 of 350 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Pierre is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 42. Parcel 18-29-22-42-0097 – Mary Jane Hawkins; 1808 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hawkins is requesting deferral of the assessment due to disability status and financial hardship. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship or disability deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 43. Parcel 182922420104 – Jamie Whitwood; 1853 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Whitwood is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 44. Parcel 182922420103 – Ann Athen; 130 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Athen is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 45. Parcel 182922420082 – Mary J. Tills; 154 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Tills is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 46. Parcel 182922420057 – Kevin Osmundson; 171 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Osmundson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 47. Parcel 182922420066 – Muriel Paulson; 202 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Paulson is requesting a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 48. Parcel 182922420063 – Richard J. Towle; 217 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Towle is requesting a financial hardship or senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen or financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 49. Parcel 172922330016 – Kenneth J. Pfarr; 1695 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Pfarr is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Agenda Item I3 Packet Page Number 310 of 350 50. Parcel 172922330024 – Patrick Her; 1700 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Her is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 51. Parcel 172922330023 – Blong Yang; 1706 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Yang is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 52. Parcel 172922330022 – Paula Vang; 1714 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Vang is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 53. Parcel 172922330019 – Thomas Azzone; 1723 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Azzone is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 54. Parcel 182922310014 – Richard E. Miller; 63 Fenton Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 55. Parcel 182922310043 – Richard E. Miller; 95 Fenton Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 56. Parcel 182922310044 – Richard E. Miller; 97 Fenton Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 57. Parcel 182922340009 William Taylor; 1765 Gurney Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Taylor is requesting a cancellation of assessment or a disability deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for cancellation of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is Agenda Item I3 Packet Page Number 311 of 350 to grant a disability deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 58. Parcel 182922340022 – Jeff Hupert; 5 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Hupert is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 59. Parcel 182922340090 – Kristin R. Borowske; 63 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Borowske is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests that the assessment be reduced and the interest rate set to zero percent. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 60. Parcel 182922340084 – Jennifer and Bradley Johnson; 76 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 61. Parcel 182922340014 – John and Doris Slama; 77 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Slama are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and request a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 62. Parcel 172922330058 – Katherine L. Graham; 385 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Graham is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 63. Parcel 172922330059 – Marvella M. Lackner; 395 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Lackner is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen or financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen or financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 64. Parcel 182922430104 – Bezaneh Gebremedhin; 191 D Larpenteur Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Bezaneh Gebremedhin is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 65. Parcel 182922430010 – Timothy and Michelle Cover; 1740 Onacrest Curve Agenda Item I3 Packet Page Number 312 of 350 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Cover are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 66. Parcel 182922430009 – Allan C. Button; 1744 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Button is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 67. Parcel 182922430007 – Lawrence A. Dittel; 1754 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Dittel is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 68. Parcel 182922430030 – Michael Ziolkowski; 1757 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Ziolkowski is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 69. Parcel 182922430004 – Roger J. Beran; 1770 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Beran is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 70. Parcel 182922430027 – Jack McGee; 1783 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. McGee is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 71. Parcel 182922430026 – Seth Miller; 1793 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 72. Parcel 182922310024 – Clarence Osen; 50 Roselawn Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Osen is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a revision to his assessment due to years of residency and previous assessments and taxes paid. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 73. Parcel 182922340040 – Nicola and James Opine; 1730 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Opine are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property Agenda Item I3 Packet Page Number 313 of 350 is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 74. Parcel 182922340024 – Todd P. Williams; 1754 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Williams is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 75. Parcel 182922340025 – Michael and Carol Bisson; 1758 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Bisson are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 76. Parcel 182922340011 – Marvin Hodgin; 1766 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Hodgin is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 77. Parcel 182922340010 – Christine and David Lehto; 1772 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Lehto are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and request a cancellation of the assessment or a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision or cancellation of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. BUDGET The project budget will not be affected by approving the recommendations above. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the city council approve the attached Resolution for Adopting Revised Assessment Roll for the Western Hills Area Street Improvements, Project 10-14. Attachments: 1. Resolution: Adopting Revised Assessment Roll 2. Assessment Roll 3. Location Map Agenda Item I3 Packet Page Number 314 of 350 RESOLUTION ADOPTING REVISED ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on May 9, 2011, the assessment roll for the Western Hills Area Street Improvements, City Project 10-14, was presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, seventy-seven (77) property owners filed objections to their assessments according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows: 1. Parcel 182922340063 – David Conover; 1702 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Conover is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 2. Parcel 182922340045 – Justin Balar; 1705 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Balar is requesting a revision to his assessment. 3. Parcel 182922340087 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an undeveloped property deferral. 4. Parcel 182922340058 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an undeveloped property deferral. 5. Parcel 182922340059 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an undeveloped property deferral. 6. Parcel 182922340064 – Don Smieja; 1706 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Smieja is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 7. Parcel 182922340065 – Maiyia Her; 1712 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Her is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 8. Parcel 182922340043 – Gerald Jahnke; 1719 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Jahnke is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen, financial hardship, or disability deferral. 9. Parcel 182922340066 – Steve M. Barsness; 1724 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Barsness is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 10. Parcel 182922410026 – Linda Bowman; 1902 Adolphus Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Bowman is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 11. Parcel 182922410027 – Johnnie and Gloria Rudolph; 1912 Adolphus Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Rudolph are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 12. Parcel 182922430015 – Nancy Tschida Stephenson; 1706 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Stephenson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. 13. Parcel 182922430045 – Fred Bauer; 1741 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Bauer is requesting a revision of assessment and a senior citizen deferral. 14. Parcel 182922430043 – Kristin Ross; 1755 Agate Street Agenda Item I3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 315 of 350 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Ross is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 15. Parcel 182922430038 – Brian and Rebecca Cortez; 1793 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Cortez are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 16. Parcel 182922430037 – Jeff Olson; 1799 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Olson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 17. Parcel 182922420089 – Joy Nellessen; 1800 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Nellessen is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. 18. Parcel 182922420096 – Karen and Jose Diaz; 1805 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Diaz are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and request a financial hardship deferral. 19. Parcel 182922420085 – John W. Peterson; 1826 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Peterson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. 20. Parcel 182922420084 – Eileen R. Eaves; 1832 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Eaves is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. 21. Parcel 182922420083 – Paula B. Merth; 1838 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Merth is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 22. Parcel 172922330028 – Daniel Underbakke; 1705 Arkwright Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Underbakke is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 23. Parcel 182922310034 – Mee and Michel Vansoua; 1845 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Vansoua are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 24. Parcel 182922310012 – Wendy and Charles Dording; 1860 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Dording are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 25. Parcel 182922310032 – Richard Willey; 1861 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Willey is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 26. Parcel 182922310011 – Coleen Hanrahan; 1866 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hanrahan is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 27. Parcel 182922310031 – Laureen Sherman; 1867 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Sherman is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 28. Parcel 182922310030 – Todd and Laurette Alwin; 1873 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Alwin are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 29. Parcel 182922310008 – Jerene Grilz; 1888 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Grilz is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 30. Parcel 182922310027 – Tammi Zapata; 1895 Beaumont Street Agenda Item I3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 316 of 350 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Zapata is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 31. Parcel 182922420047 – Dennis and Laurie Littlefield; 104 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Littlefield are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 31a. Parcel 182922420017 – Terence and Elizabeth Paulson; 107 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Staff is proposing the cancellation of assessment until such time when Jackson Street is reconstructed and this property would be assessed for the improvements to Jackson Street. 32. Parcel 182922420042 – Brenda Murphy; 142 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Murphy is requesting a financial hardship deferral. 33. Parcel 182922420040 – Mary E. Hackman; 156 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hackman is requesting a senior citizen deferral. 34. Parcel 182922410029 – Mary and Pat McMonigal; 223 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. McMonigal are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 35. Parcel 182922430069 – Yewondwossen Tsegaw; 1733 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Tsegaw is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 36. Parcel 182922430054 – Craig and Michelle Selbitschka; 1766 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Selbitschka are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 37. Parcel 182922430055 – Christine Holman-House; 1774 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Holman-House is requesting a cancellation of assessment or a financial hardship deferral. 38. Parcel 182922430063 – Jose D. Carbajal; 1777 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Carbajal is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 39. Parcel 182922430057 – Paal Salter Carter; 1786 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Salter Carter is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. 40. Parcel 182922430061 – Michelle Irwin; 1791 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Irwin is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 41. Parcel 182922420111 – Dick Pierre; 1803 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Pierre is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 42. Parcel 18-29-22-42-0097 – Mary Jane Hawkins; 1808 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hawkins is requesting deferral of the assessment due to disability status and financial hardship. 43. Parcel 182922420104 – Jamie Whitwood; 1853 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Whitwood is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 44. Parcel 182922420103 – Ann Athen; 130 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Athen is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 45. Parcel 182922420082 – Mary J. Tills; 154 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Tills is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. Agenda Item I3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 317 of 350 46. Parcel 182922420057 – Kevin Osmundson; 171 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Osmundson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 47. Parcel 182922420066 – Muriel Paulson; 202 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Paulson is requesting a senior citizen deferral. 48. Parcel 182922420063 – Richard J. Towle; 217 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Towle is requesting a financial hardship or senior citizen deferral. 49. Parcel 172922330016 – Kenneth J. Pfarr; 1695 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Pfarr is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 50. Parcel 172922330024 – Patrick Her; 1700 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Her is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 51. Parcel 172922330023 – Blong Yang; 1706 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Yang is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral 52. Parcel 172922330022 – Paula Vang; 1714 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Vang is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. 53. Parcel 172922330019 – Thomas Azzone; 1723 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Azzone is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 54. Parcel 182922310014 – Richard E. Miller; 63 Fenton Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 55. Parcel 182922310043 – Richard E. Miller; 95 Fenton Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 56. Parcel 182922310044 – Richard E. Miller; 97 Fenton Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 57. Parcel 182922340009 William Taylor; 1765 Gurney Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Taylor is requesting a cancellation of assessment or a disability deferral. 58. Parcel 182922340022 – Jeff Hupert; 5 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Hupert is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 59. Parcel 182922340090 – Kristin R. Borowske; 63 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Borowske is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests that the assessment be reduced and the interest rate set to zero percent. 60. Parcel 182922340084 – Jennifer and Bradley Johnson; 76 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 61. Parcel 182922340014 – John and Doris Slama; 77 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Slama are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and request a senior citizen deferral. 62. Parcel 172922330058 – Katherine L. Graham; 385 Kingston Avenue East Agenda Item I3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 318 of 350 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Graham is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 63. Parcel 172922330059 – Marvella M. Lackner; 395 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Lackner is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen or financial hardship deferral. 64. Parcel 182922430104 – Bezaneh Gebremedhin; 191 D Larpenteur Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Bezaneh Gebremedhin is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 65. Parcel 182922430010 – Timothy and Michelle Cover; 1740 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Cover are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 66. Parcel 182922430009 – Allan C. Button; 1744 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Button is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 67. Parcel 182922430007 – Lawrence A. Dittel; 1754 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Dittel is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 68. Parcel 182922430030 – Michael Ziolkowski; 1757 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Ziolkowski is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 69. Parcel 182922430004 – Roger J. Beran; 1770 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Beran is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 70. Parcel 182922430027 – Jack McGee; 1783 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. McGee is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 71. Parcel 182922430026 – Seth Miller; 1793 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 72. Parcel 182922310024 – Clarence Osen; 50 Roselawn Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Osen is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a revision to his assessment due to years of residency and previous assessments and taxes paid. 73. Parcel 182922340040 – Nicola and James Opine; 1730 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Opine are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 74. Parcel 182922340024 – Todd P. Williams; 1754 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Williams is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 75. Parcel 182922340025 – Michael and Carol Bisson; 1758 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Bisson are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 76. Parcel 182922340011 – Marvin Hodgin; 1766 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Hodgin is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. 77. Parcel 182922340010 – Christine and David Lehto; 1772 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Lehto are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and request a cancellation of the assessment or a financial hardship deferral. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: Agenda Item I3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 319 of 350 A. That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to make the following adjustments to the assessment roll for the Western Hills Area Street Improvements, Project 10-14: 1. Parcel 182922340063 – David Conover; 1702 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Conover is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 2. Parcel 182922340045 – Justin Balar; 1705 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Balar is requesting a revision to his assessment. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 3. Parcel 182922340087 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an undeveloped property deferral. Staff recommendation is to grant an undeveloped property deferral (15 years) upon approval of necessary paperwork. If the property remains undeveloped during the entire 15 year deferral time period the assessment will be cancelled. If at any point during the 15 year deferral period the lot is developed the assessment would become active. 4. Parcel 182922340058 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an undeveloped property deferral. Staff recommendation is to grant an undeveloped property deferral (15 years) upon approval of necessary paperwork. If the property remains undeveloped during the entire 15 year deferral time period the assessment will be cancelled. If at any point during the 15 year deferral period the lot is developed the assessment would become active. 5. Parcel 182922340059 – Don Smieja; 0 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 0.33 units. Mr. Smieja is requesting an undeveloped property deferral. Staff recommendation is to grant an undeveloped property deferral (15 years) upon approval of necessary paperwork. If the property remains undeveloped during the entire 15 year deferral time period the assessment will be cancelled. If at any point during the 15 year deferral period the lot is developed the assessment would become active. 6. Parcel 182922340064 – Don Smieja; 1706 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Smieja is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 7. Parcel 182922340065 – Maiyia Her; 1712 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Her is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 8. Parcel 182922340043 – Gerald Jahnke; 1719 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Jahnke is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen, financial hardship, or disability deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 9. Parcel 182922340066 – Steve M. Barsness; 1724 Abel Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Barsness is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Agenda Item I3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 320 of 350 10. Parcel 182922410026 – Linda Bowman; 1902 Adolphus Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Bowman is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 11. Parcel 182922410027 – Johnnie and Gloria Rudolph; 1912 Adolphus Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Rudolph are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 12. Parcel 182922430015 – Nancy Tschida Stephenson; 1706 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Stephenson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 13. Parcel 182922430045 – Fred Bauer; 1741 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Bauer is requesting a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 14. Parcel 182922430043 – Kristin Ross; 1755 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Ross is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 15. Parcel 182922430038 – Brian and Rebecca Cortez; 1793 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Cortez are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 16. Parcel 182922430037 – Jeff Olson; 1799 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Olson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 17. Parcel 182922420089 – Joy Nellessen; 1800 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Nellessen is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 18. Parcel 182922420096 – Karen and Jose Diaz; 1805 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Diaz are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and request a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of Agenda Item I3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 321 of 350 necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 19. Parcel 182922420085 – John W. Peterson; 1826 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Peterson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 20. Parcel 182922420084 – Eileen R. Eaves; 1832 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Eaves is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 21. Parcel 182922420083 – Paula B. Merth; 1838 Agate Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Merth is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 22. Parcel 172922330028 – Daniel Underbakke; 1705 Arkwright Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Underbakke is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 23. Parcel 182922310034 – Mee and Michel Vansoua; 1845 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Vansoua are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 24. Parcel 182922310012 – Wendy and Charles Dording; 1860 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Dording are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 25. Parcel 182922310032 – Richard Willey; 1861 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Willey is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 26. Parcel 182922310011 – Coleen Hanrahan; 1866 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hanrahan is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 27. Parcel 182922310031 – Laureen Sherman; 1867 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Sherman is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 28. Parcel 182922310030 – Todd and Laurette Alwin; 1873 Beaumont Street Agenda Item I3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 322 of 350 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Alwin are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 29. Parcel 182922310008 – Jerene Grilz; 1888 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Grilz is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 30. Parcel 182922310027 – Tammi Zapata; 1895 Beaumont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Zapata is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 31. Parcel 182922420047 – Dennis and Laurie Littlefield; 104 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Littlefield are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a cancellation of assessment as this property’s driveway accesses from Jackson Street. At such a time when Jackson Street is reconstructed this property would be assessed for improvements. 31a. Parcel 182922420017 – Terence and Elizabeth Paulson; 107 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Staff recommendation is to grant a cancellation of assessment as this property’s driveway accesses from Jackson Street. At such a time when Jackson Street is reconstructed this property would be assessed for the improvements. 32. Parcel 182922420042 – Brenda Murphy; 142 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Murphy is requesting a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 33. Parcel 182922420040 – Mary E. Hackman; 156 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hackman is requesting a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 34. Parcel 182922410029 – Mary and Pat McMonigal; 223 Bellwood Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. McMonigal are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 35. Parcel 182922430069 – Yewondwossen Tsegaw; 1733 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Tsegaw is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 36. Parcel 182922430054 – Craig and Michelle Selbitschka; 1766 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Selbitschka are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 37. Parcel 182922430055 – Christine Holman-House; 1774 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Holman-House is requesting a cancellation of assessment or a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for cancellation of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial Agenda Item I3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 323 of 350 hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 38. Parcel 182922430063 – Jose D. Carbajal; 1777 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Carbajal is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 39. Parcel 182922430057 – Paal Salter Carter; 1786 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Salter Carter is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 40. Parcel 182922430061 – Michelle Irwin; 1791 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Irwin is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 41. Parcel 182922420111 – Dick Pierre; 1803 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Pierre is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 42. Parcel 18-29-22-42-0097 – Mary Jane Hawkins; 1808 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Hawkins is requesting deferral of the assessment due to disability status and financial hardship. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship or disability deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 43. Parcel 182922420104 – Jamie Whitwood; 1853 City Heights Drive It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Whitwood is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 44. Parcel 182922420103 – Ann Athen; 130 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Athen is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 45. Parcel 182922420082 – Mary J. Tills; 154 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Tills is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 46. Parcel 182922420057 – Kevin Osmundson; 171 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Osmundson is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 47. Parcel 182922420066 – Muriel Paulson; 202 East Summer Avenue Agenda Item I3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 324 of 350 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mrs. Paulson is requesting a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 48. Parcel 182922420063 – Richard J. Towle; 217 East Summer Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Towle is requesting a financial hardship or senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen or financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 49. Parcel 172922330016 – Kenneth J. Pfarr; 1695 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Pfarr is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 50. Parcel 172922330024 – Patrick Her; 1700 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Her is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 51. Parcel 172922330023 – Blong Yang; 1706 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Yang is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 52. Parcel 172922330022 – Paula Vang; 1714 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Vang is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 53. Parcel 172922330019 – Thomas Azzone; 1723 Edgemont Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Azzone is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 54. Parcel 182922310014 – Richard E. Miller; 63 Fenton Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 55. Parcel 182922310043 – Richard E. Miller; 95 Fenton Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 56. Parcel 182922310044 – Richard E. Miller; 97 Fenton Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 57. Parcel 182922340009 William Taylor; 1765 Gurney Street Agenda Item I3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 325 of 350 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Taylor is requesting a cancellation of assessment or a disability deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for cancellation of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a disability deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 58. Parcel 182922340022 – Jeff Hupert; 5 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Hupert is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 59. Parcel 182922340090 – Kristin R. Borowske; 63 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Borowske is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests that the assessment be reduced and the interest rate set to zero percent. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 60. Parcel 182922340084 – Jennifer and Bradley Johnson; 76 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 61. Parcel 182922340014 – John and Doris Slama; 77 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Slama are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and request a senior citizen deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 62. Parcel 172922330058 – Katherine L. Graham; 385 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Graham is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 63. Parcel 172922330059 – Marvella M. Lackner; 395 Kingston Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Ms. Lackner is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a senior citizen or financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a senior citizen or financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. 64. Parcel 182922430104 – Bezaneh Gebremedhin; 191 D Larpenteur Avenue East It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Bezaneh Gebremedhin is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 65. Parcel 182922430010 – Timothy and Michelle Cover; 1740 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Cover are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Agenda Item I3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 326 of 350 66. Parcel 182922430009 – Allan C. Button; 1744 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Button is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 67. Parcel 182922430007 – Lawrence A. Dittel; 1754 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Dittel is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 68. Parcel 182922430030 – Michael Ziolkowski; 1757 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Ziolkowski is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 69. Parcel 182922430004 – Roger J. Beran; 1770 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Beran is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 70. Parcel 182922430027 – Jack McGee; 1783 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. McGee is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 71. Parcel 182922430026 – Seth Miller; 1793 Onacrest Curve It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Miller is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 72. Parcel 182922310024 – Clarence Osen; 50 Roselawn Avenue It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Osen is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and requests a revision to his assessment due to years of residency and previous assessments and taxes paid. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 73. Parcel 182922340040 – Nicola and James Opine; 1730 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Opine are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 74. Parcel 182922340024 – Todd P. Williams; 1754 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Williams is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 75. Parcel 182922340025 – Michael and Carol Bisson; 1758 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Bisson are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 76. Parcel 182922340011 – Marvin Hodgin; 1766 Sylvan Street Agenda Item I3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 327 of 350 It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. Hodgin is objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. 77. Parcel 182922340010 – Christine and David Lehto; 1772 Sylvan Street It is currently proposed that the property be assessed for 1 unit. Mr. and Mrs. Lehto are objecting to the assessment on the basis that the assessment amount is greater than benefit to the property and request a cancellation of the assessment or a financial hardship deferral. Staff recommendation is to deny the request for revision or cancellation of assessment as this property is being assessed per the City’s assessment policy and the assessment does not exceed the benefit to the property. Staff recommendation is to grant a financial hardship deferral (15 year) upon approval of necessary paperwork. After the 15 year deferral time period the assessment would become due in total with interest. B. The assessment roll for the Western Hills Area Street Improvements as amended, is hereby accepted, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Said assessment roll shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. C. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years for residential properties and 8 years for commercial properties, the first installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2012 and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.0 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2011. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. D. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, but no later than November 15, 2011, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of the payment, to the city clerk, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and they may, at any time after November 15, 2011, pay to the county auditor the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. E. The city engineer and city clerk shall forthwith after November 15, 2011, but no later than November 16, 2011, transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the council on this 23rd day of May 2011. Agenda Item I3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 328 of 350 Final Assessment Roll Western Hills City Project 10-14 Parcel ID TAXPAYER Street Number Street UNITS ASSESSMENT TOTAL ASSESSMENT TOTAL ASSMT FORMULA 182922340087 DONALD G SMIEJA 0 ABEL ST 0.33 $5,000.00 1,666.67 $1,666.67 182922340058 DONALD G SMIEJA 0 ABEL ST N 0.33 $5,000.00 1,666.67 $1,666.67 182922340059 DONALD G SMIEJA 0 ABEL ST N 0.33 $5,000.00 1,666.67 $1,666.67 182922340047 TODD SWANSON 1683 ABEL ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340046 OMAR N OLSON JR 1695 ABEL ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340063 DAVID M CONOVER 1702 ABEL ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340045 JUSTIN G BAKER 1705 ABEL ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340064 DONALD G SMIEJA 1706 ABEL ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340065 JOUA PAO HER 1712 ABEL ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340044 SCOTT LINDBLOM 1715 ABEL ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340043 GERALD E JAHNKE 1719 ABEL ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340066 VICTORIA M BARSNESS 1724 ABEL ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340067 GEORGE E HARWELL 1726 ABEL ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340068 PHILIP J RUNNING 1728 ABEL ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340042 PEGGY L NOLAN 1735 ABEL ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922440015 ADOLPHUS PROPERTY LLC 0 ADOLPHUS ST 1 $4,000.00 4,000.00 $4,000.00 182922440014 BNB ENTERPRISES LP 1734 ADOLPHUS ST N 1 $43,200.00 43,200.00 $43,200.00 182922440016 ADOLPHUS PROPERTY LLC 1760 ADOLPHUS ST N 1 $34,700.00 34,700.00 $34,700.00 182922410024 DALE E IVES 1884 ADOLPHUS ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922410025 DENNIS R DREIER 1892 ADOLPHUS ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922410026 LINDA M BOWMAN 1902 ADOLPHUS ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922410028 LOUISE E SCHULTZ 1911 ADOLPHUS ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922410027 JOHNNIE C RUDOLPH 1912 ADOLPHUS ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430094 CHARLES J BERGLUND 1699 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430016 GLEN EDWARD WACHOWIAK 1700 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430015 NANCY K TSCHIDA 1706 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430014 LAWRENCE E BETTINGER 1714 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430013 LORETTA B LONETTI 1722 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430047 F O DUCHARME 1725 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430012 SHIRLEY M TAUGNER 1730 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430046 DONALD T BORDSEN 1733 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430045 FREDERICK L BAUER 1741 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430044 TKS PROPERTIES LLC 1747 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430032 ELIJAH COLEMAN 1750 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430043 KRISTI A ROSS 1755 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430033 MICHAEL MCLEAN 1758 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430042 DEBORAH G ANDERSON 1763 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430034 WENDELL R GOERTZEN 1764 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430041 JOHN M DEVANEY 1771 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430035 NOU YANG 1772 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430040 LJUDO CHURCHICH 1777 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430036 GILBERT J FERNANDEZ 1780 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430039 JOHN F GLLAGHER 1785 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430025 DOUGLAS R JOHNSON 1786 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430038 BRIAN DAVID CORTEZ 1793 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430037 JEFFREY M OLSON 1799 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420089 ROGER E NELLESSEN 1800 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420096 KAREN L DIAZ 1805 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420088 RODNEY J GRAVES 1808 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420095 DAVID J LEE 1813 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420087 GERALD G BLASING 1814 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420086 CHOU J YANG 1820 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420094 MICHAEL W HOLEC 1823 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420085 JOHN W PETERSON 1826 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420093 TERRANCE L CLOS 1829 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420084 EILEEN EAVES 1832 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420083 PAULA B MERTH 1838 AGATE ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330026 THOMAS J KOHLMAN 1685 ARKWRIGHT ST 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330036 MICHAEL M DEVERA 1686 ARKWRIGHT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330027 STEPHEN FARR 1695 ARKWRIGHT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330035 KAREN L SCOTT 1696 ARKWRIGHT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330028 DANIEL P UNDERBAKKE 1705 ARKWRIGHT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330034 DONALD F SCHULDT 1706 ARKWRIGHT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 1 2922330033 $$172922330033 EDWARD A HAIDER 1714 ARKWRIGHT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310013 GABRIEL ADAM WAYNE VAIL 1852 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340080 JONATHAN BARCUS 1712 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340057 NEAL KRECH 1715 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340083 HOWRY PROPERTIES LLC 1716 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340056 LARRY CULLEN 1719 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340055 PETER R SALAS 1731 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922310034 MEE K VANGSOUA 1845 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310033 MICHAEL J OSTERMAN 1853 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310012 CHARLES J DORDING 1860 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310032 RICHARD L WILLEY 1861 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310011 COLLEEN M HANRAHAN 1866 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310031 SCOTT R SHERMAN 1867 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310030 LAURETTE A ALWIN 1873 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310010 ALYSSA J RUFF 1874 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310029 ROLAND R RIVENESS 1879 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310009 SCOTT A A FENSKE 1882 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310028 ROBERT B MOELLER 1887 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 Agenda Item I3 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 329 of 350 Final Assessment Roll Western Hills City Project 10-14 Parcel ID TAXPAYER Street Number Street UNITS ASSESSMENT TOTAL ASSESSMENT TOTAL ASSMT FORMULA 182922310008 EDWARD A GRILZ 1888 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310007 DAVID ZAPATA 1894 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310027 ALAN EMIL CONARD 1895 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310006 NENG VANG 1900 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310026 RICHARD J BONG 1901 BEAUMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420047 DENNIS F LITTLEFIELD 104 BELLWOOD AVE 0 $5,800.00 0.00 $0.00 182922420017 TERENCE G PAULSON 107 BELLWOOD AVE E 0 $5,800.00 0.00 $0.00 182922420046 WILLIAM L KRINGS 112 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420018 LOUWANNA OSTERMAN 113 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420045 JOHN M THURNER 120 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420019 DONALD E JIRIK 121 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420044 PAUL R SHEPARD 128 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420020 LAWRENCE P HAAS 129 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420043 JULIE A PRIBIL 134 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420021 RICHARD H WALLINDER 135 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420042 KERRY J MURPHY 142 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420022 BRIAN FORO 143 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420041 BEVERLY A EGYHAZI 150 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420023 JOAN T BERGESON 151 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420040 MARY E HACKMAN 156 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420024 DAVID A SEVERSON 157 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420039 ELIZABETH ANN FITCH 162 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420025 STEVEN BOWLIN 163 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420038 R H BRUEHLING 170 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420026 BERNARD W HASSE 171 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420119 DAWNITA PARMLEY 176 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420027 JOAN S MARCHIO 177 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420037 JOHN M PONSOLLE 184 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420028 GARY M SIMONSON 185 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420036 ROBERT J TROST 192 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420029 LAWRENCE H GATEMAN 193 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420035 DAVID M KLEIN 200 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420030 CHUE VANG 201 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420034 KENNETH L REGELMAN 206 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420031 DOUG H GAGNON 207 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420033 LEO J PELZER 216 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420032 ALFREDO F MARTINEZ 217 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922410030 TRACY A DANBY 222 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922410029 PATRICK J MCMONIGAL 223 BELLWOOD AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430069 WOSSEN TSEGAW 1733 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430050 SELWYN REYES 1740 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430068 STEPHEN N WAMBIRI 1741 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430051 WENDY L TORRES 1746 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430067 BRYAN D LINN 1747 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430052 EUNICE ESTHER CURRENCE 1752 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430066 KENT E LAGESON 1755 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430053 ROBERT CASEY 1760 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430065 SHARON BOERBON HANSON 1763 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430054 MICHELE F SELBITSCHKA 1766 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430064 TROY J LAW 1771 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430055 DONALD J HOLMAN 1774 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430063 JOSE D CARBAJAL 1777 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430056 SONG LUE XIONG 1780 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430062 JUDITH A LAMBERT 1785 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430057 PAAL SALTER CARTER 1786 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430061 MARK J IRWIN 1791 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430058 SEAN GRIMM 1792 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430060 ANGELA K HAMILTON 1797 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430059 MICHAEL D BARCLAY 1800 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420111 RICHARD D PIERRE 1803 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420097 MARY J HAWKINS 1808 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420110 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 1811 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420098 RICHARD T SCHELL 1814 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420109 CHERYL L SZABO 1817 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420099 JAMES DEVANEY 1822 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420108 SCOTT B WALLACE 1825 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420107 MELANIE J MAKI 1831 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420106 DANIEL J MCCANN 1837 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420105 PATRICK J LYNCH 1845 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420104 JAMIE E WHITWOOD 1853 CITY HEIGHTS DR N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330045 BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING 1688 EDGEMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330015 CITIMORTGAGE INC 1689 EDGEMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330016 KENNETH J PFARR 1695 EDGEMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330024 PATRICK HER 1700 EDGEMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330017 CHRISTINA M RAWLINGS 1705 EDGEMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330023 BLONG YANG 1706 EDGEMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330018 HENRY F WENZEL TRUSTEE 1713 EDGEMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330022 PAULA VANG 1714 EDGEMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330019 THOMAS G AZZONE 1723 EDGEMONT ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310014 RICHARD E MILLER 63 FENTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310043 RICHARD E MILLER TRUSTEE 95 FENTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 Agenda Item I3 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 330 of 350 Final Assessment Roll Western Hills City Project 10-14 Parcel ID TAXPAYER Street Number Street UNITS ASSESSMENT TOTAL ASSESSMENT TOTAL ASSMT FORMULA 182922310044 RICHARD E MILLER 97 FENTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340049 BILL BERNIER 1694 GURNEY ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340031 JACI J TAYLOR 1703 GURNEY ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340050 MERANCE A PEIFFER 1704 GURNEY ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340030 CAROLYN M HOWE 1709 GURNEY ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340051 RUSTIN L SVENDSEN 1712 GURNEY ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340029 STEPHEN J SONTAG 1713 GURNEY ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340052 MERHAWIT B KUBROM 1718 GURNEY ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340028 VINCENT P GRUNDMAN 1721 GURNEY ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340053 KENNETH GEORGE FLECK 1722 GURNEY ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340027 REVOLUTION GROUP INC 1727 GURNEY ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340054 ROY S MUSCATELLO 1736 GURNEY ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340021 SAUL LU 1751 GURNEY ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340009 WILLIAM R TAYLOR 1765 GURNEY ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340082 ADAM DEMARAIS 1717 JACKSON ST N 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922420100 TED E THOMAS 1852 JACKSON ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420048 JEFFERY D KOLHEI 1870 JACKSON ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340022 JEFFREY D HUPPERT 5 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340026 DONALD I DERIDER 12 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340020 MARTIN J HARRINGTON 15 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340019 NANCY JOAN JOHNSON 29 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340018 KAREN L ZANGS 37 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340017 ROBERT A ERICKSON 47 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340091 NICOLE L PERSBY 49 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340090 KRISTIN R BOROWSKE 63 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340084 BRADLEY JOHNSON 76 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340014 JOHN D SLAMA 77 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922340013 LOUIS E NISTLER 87 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 182922430070 SASHA M BROWN 117 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430086 CLARK J RITCHIE 118 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430085 TODD W SCHNEIDER 122 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430084 CLABOTS FAMILY TRUST 130 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430049 JOHNATHON M LANGHAM 133 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430083 VERNON M MAYER 136 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430048 ELIZABETH HEKELE 141 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430082 JAMES J PAVEL 144 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430081 PAUL F GLUNZ 152 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330056 CHEE NHUE VANG 377 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330058 KATHERINE L GRAHAM 385 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330059 MARVELLA M LACKNER 395 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330029 RIKKI S LA BERE 400 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330031 ROMAN HERTHER 407 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 172922330032 BLONG G VANG 415 KINGSTON AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340033 ST EDWARD HARRIS 25 LARPENTEUR AVE E 0.5 $5,800.00 2,900.00 $2,900.00 182922340032 BRADLEY S ABRAHAMSON 33 LARPENTEUR AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430093 JAY D HUGHES 145 LARPENTEUR AVE E 1 $10,232.00 10,232.00 $10,232.00 182922430096 LYNN J WEILER 181A LARPENTEUR AVE E 1 $3,100.00 3,100.00 $3,100.00 182922430097 DARYL K HANZAL 181B LARPENTEUR AVE E 1 $3,100.00 3,100.00 $3,100.00 182922430098 CHRISTINA A TRAN 181C LARPENTEUR AVE E 1 $3,100.00 3,100.00 $3,100.00 182922430099 EMILY HANSEN 181D LARPENTEUR AVE E 1 $3,100.00 3,100.00 $3,100.00 182922430100 OLUMIDE OLUWASEGUN 181E LARPENTEUR AVE E 1 $3,100.00 3,100.00 $3,100.00 182922430101 ZOSEN WANG 191A LARPENTEUR AVE E 1 $3,100.00 3,100.00 $3,100.00 182922430102 TIMOTHY K BAUR 191B LARPENTEUR AVE E 1 $3,100.00 3,100.00 $3,100.00 182922430103 DARYL K HANZAL 191C LARPENTEUR AVE E 1 $3,100.00 3,100.00 $3,100.00 182922430104 BEZANEH G GEBREMEDHIN 191D LARPENTEUR AVE E 1 $3,100.00 3,100.00 $3,100.00 182922430105 WEIWEN XIE 191E LARPENTEUR AVE E 1 $3,100.00 3,100.00 $3,100.00 182922430106 JOSEPH AMUNDSON 191F LARPENTEUR AVE E 1 $3,100.00 3,100.00 $3,100.00 182922440020 SMALL SERVICES LLC 223 LARPENTEUR AVE E 1 $12,200.00 12,200.00 $12,200.00 182922430011 GLENNDY LEE OSE 1736 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430010 TIMOTHY S COVER 1740 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430009 ALLAN C BUTTON 1744 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430031 CHENG VANG 1747 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430008 GARY R WALKER 1748 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430007 LAWRENCE A DITTEL 1754 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430030 MICHAEL A ZIOLKOWSKI 1757 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430006 MICHAEL A DITTEL 1760 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430005 MARYAM WILLIAMS 1764 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430029 JEREMIAH LYNCH 1767 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430004 ROGER J BERAN 1770 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430003 MARY JO DIEDRICH 1774 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430028 PETER KRAEMER 1775 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430002 PETER J KRAEMER 1778 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430001 GARY J BLANCK 1782 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430027 JACK MCGEE 1783 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420092 GERALD SCHAUER 1786 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420091 YO VUE VANG 1790 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922430026 SETH MILLER 1793 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420090 MILO J THOMPSON 1794 ONACREST CRV N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420072 PAUL W MUELLER 1820 ONACREST CT N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420073 KIM MARIE KALLESTAD 1821 ONACREST CT N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420074 MARVIN A BJOSTAD 1823 ONACREST CT N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 Agenda Item I3 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 331 of 350 Final Assessment Roll Western Hills City Project 10-14 Parcel ID TAXPAYER Street Number Street UNITS ASSESSMENT TOTAL ASSESSMENT TOTAL ASSMT FORMULA 182922420071 PAUL T SCHNEIDER 1826 ONACREST CT N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420075 JOHN W HAINE 1827 ONACREST CT N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420070 THOMAS D CARLSTROM 1828 ONACREST CT N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420069 MARY C OBRIEN 1830 ONACREST CT N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420076 DONNA LANGANKI 1831 ONACREST CT N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420077 JEROME G BOVY 1839 ONACREST CT N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420068 TRACY IMM 1840 ONACREST CT N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420078 KEVIN A DOHERTY 1845 ONACREST CT N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420079 RONALD A MAZANEC 1853 ONACREST CT N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420067 JEFFREY PARKER 1854 ONACREST CT N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922310024 CLARENCE E OSEN TRUSTEES 50 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $3,618.00 3,618.00 $3,618.00 182922310005 CHARLES R HACKMAN 64 ROSELAWN AVE E 1 $3,618.00 3,618.00 $3,618.00 182922420049 GARY A LOEHR 113 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420101 BRUCE C BRIESE 116 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420050 GARY A CARLSON 121 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420102 W RYDER LANDGREN 124 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420051 CAITLIN & VOIGHT 129 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420103 ANN S ATHEN 130 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420052 BENJAMIN C RUST 135 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420053 GARY A STROMBECK 143 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420054 JOHN D DAINTY 151 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420082 MARY J TILLS 154 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420055 DUANE R SIMPSON 157 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420081 LANE F COOPER 162 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420056 THERESE M QUIST 163 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420080 DAVID W MILLER 170 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420057 KEVIN B OSMUNDSON 171 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420058 MICHAEL H HARDER 177 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420059 LYDIA M ERCE 185 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420060 CARRIE A BRASUHN 193 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420061 TAMARA J CARLSON 201 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420066 GLENN PAULSON 202 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420062 LINDA KAY DUELLMAN 207 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420065 RICHARD D SCHALLY 208 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420064 RONALD MANDEL 214 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922420063 RICHARD J TOWLE 217 SUMMER AVE E 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340035 PATRICK E JESKE 1694 SYLVAN ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340036 THOMAS W MORIARTY 1708 SYLVAN ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340037 THAI VANG 1712 SYLVAN ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340038 JEFFREY K MOYNAGH 1720 SYLVAN ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340039 LAURA M JOHNSON 1724 SYLVAN ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340040 JAMES R OPINE 1730 SYLVAN ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340041 XOR VANG 1738 SYLVAN ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340023 CAROLYN BREWSTER 1748 SYLVAN ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340024 TODD P WILLIAMS 1754 SYLVAN ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340025 MICHAEL E BISSON 1758 SYLVAN ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340011 MARVIN A HODGIN 1766 SYLVAN ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 182922340010 DAVID G LEHTO 1772 SYLVAN ST N 1 $5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,800.00 TOTALS 286.50 ASSESSMENT RATES:TOTAL = $1,679,768.00 $1,679,768.00 RESIDENTIAL - AREA 1 SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT RATE = $5,800 PER UNIT RESIDENTIAL - AREA 2 SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT RATE = $5,000 PER UNIT * CREDIT PER THE CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX (CCI):YEAR 1989=4615,YEAR 2010=8951 1989 ASSESSMENT = $1125, ASSESSMENT CREDIT PER CCI = $2182, ADJUSTED 2010 ASSESSMENT = $3,618 ** RESIDENTIAL - TOWNHOME SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT RATE = $3,100 PER UNIT *** COMMERCIAL SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT RATES ARE PER UNIT BASIS NOTE: THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT RATES ARE BASED UPON SPECIAL BENEFIT APPRAISALS NOTE: THE ASSESSMENTS FOR 104 AND 107 BELLWOOD AVENUE WERE REDUCED FROM ONE UNIT TO ZERO UNITS EACH, RESULTING IN $11,600 LESS IN TOTAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE PROJECT Agenda Item I3 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 332 of 350 Agenda Item I3 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 333 of 350 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Packet Page Number 334 of 350 Agenda Item J1 MEMORANDUM TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, Director Citizen Services DATE: May 23, 2011 SUBJECT: Approval of On-Sale Wine and 3.2% Beer Licenses for India Gate Restaurant Introduction Saiyid Noorul Husain Rizvi and Zulfiquarali Sherali Punjani co-owners of India Gate Restaurant located at 27 Century Avenue North have submitted applications for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent beer licenses. Background Background checks have been conducted on both owners and nothing has been identified in the background check that would prohibit them from holding this license. Chief Thomalla has met with the co-owners to discuss measures to eliminate the sale of alcoholic beverages to underage persons, general security and retail crime issues, and the Maplewood Liquor Ordinances. Consideration It is recommended that the City Council approve on-sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses for India Gate Restaurant. Packet Page Number 335 of 350 P:\COUNCIL FILES\AGENDAS\2011\052-CAFR 2010 acceptance.doc AGENDA NO. J-2 AGENDA REPORT To: Jim Antonen, City Manager From: Gayle Bauman, Finance Manager Date: May 16, 2011 Re: Acceptance of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - 2010 BACKGROUND The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of the City has been completed for the year-ended December 31, 2010. The CAFR is the City’s official annual report and is prepared by the Finance Department. It has been audited by the certified public accounting firm of HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. and their unqualified opinion on the fair presentation of the financial statements is included within the CAFR. The CAFR includes the Auditors’ Report on Internal Controls, the Report on Compliance with Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Political Subdivisions and, finally, the Communication with Those Charged with Governance. Also included in the packet is the Finance Department’s written response to the audit findings, identifying the actions that have been or will be taken to resolve these findings. Members of the City Council have received a copy of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and an electronic version is available on our website as well. Presentations on significant aspects of the CAFR were given to the Council by a representative of HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. at the May 23 Council Workshop. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and approve the City’s responses to the audit findings. Packet Page Number 336 of 350 AGENDA REPORT TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorization to Form Living Streets Task Force DATE: May 17, 2011 INTRODUCTION The council will consider authorizing the creation of a Living Streets Task Force in order to further refine the focus of a policy and work collaboratively with stakeholders in providing more detailed feedback. This will allow staff to move forward with the creation of a Maplewood Living Streets Policy. BACKGROUND / DISCSSUSION Staff has presented Living Streets concepts to the Planning Commission, Environmental and Natural Resources Commission, and Community Design Review Board (summary of meetings attached). The discussion has focused on a few key areas: 1) Improve storm water quality through expansion of the rain garden program, reducing the impervious footprint of streets, and meeting or exceeding the 1” infiltration standard. 2) Implement traffic calming measures through the use of techniques best suited for site conditions. 3) Improve biking and walking conditions along natural connector routes and collector streets through designation of bike lanes, sidewalks, or multi-purpose trails. 4) Create boulevard tree standards that provide environmental benefits (storm water management, shade to reduce heating and cooling costs, filtering air pollutants, reduce urban heat island effect), enhance quality of life, and are practical and affordable. 5) Be cognizant of construction, replacement, and future maintenance costs. The feedback thus far has been positive in moving forward with the creation of a Living Streets policy. It is anticipated that the membership could be formed to include:  1 member of the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission  1 member of the Community Design Review Board  1 member of the Planning Commission  1 member of the City Council  1 member of the business community (Business & Economic Development Commission?)  1 staff person from Public Safety (Police or Fire)  2 staff persons from Public Works (1 engineering and 1 maintenance)  1 staff person from Community Development/Planning  2 at large resident volunteers / appointees? It is anticipated the time commitment would be no more than 3 meetings over the next 4 month period. Agenda Item J3 Packet Page Number 337 of 350 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the council authorize the creation of a Living Streets Task Force in order to further refine the focus of a policy and work collaboratively with stakeholders in providing more detailed feedback for the staff to move forward with the creation of a Maplewood Living Streets Policy. Attachments: 1) Staff summary of meeting minutes (CDRB, ENRC, and PC) 2) Original staff report on Living Streets Agenda Item J3 Packet Page Number 338 of 350 COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUMMARY LIVING STREETS DISCUSSION MARCH 22, 2011 The following is a recap of discussion items: 1. City Engineer Michael Thompson gave an introduction of Living Streets. 2. Questions of the Commission then commenced: a. Mention of finding a way to provide a special assessment incentive b. Talk of a sidewalk incentive c. Talked about that if there are no walks and the streets are not narrowed then traffic will not slow down and there also is no place for pedestrians to walk safely d. Education is a big part of successful implementation e. Talk about the benefits and how residents will see improvements as a result of Living Streets concepts f. Mention that Maplewood is a leader in the environmental sustainable approach with stormwater and rain gardens g. All concerns must be carefully analyzed but if this is to be successful a “big picture” approach is needed h. A long term vision is good but each neighborhood needs to be part of the solution, possibly more easily accomplished through incentives, policing, setting timelines i. All members appear to strongly support the Living Streets effort and looking more closely at the concepts that could be part of a policy and ultimately perhaps an ordinance (to add more authority) j. Mentioned that stakeholder involvement is key and that perhaps a task force of the various commissions and board is suited to reach out to constituents to understand concerns and solicit feedback to ensure future buy-in 3. Michael thanked the Commissioners for the feedback and that these items would be presented to the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission in April. The plan is to return again to the CDRB for further discussion after compiling feedback from the board and commissions. This summary is only my recollection and is not to be referred to as detailed fact. Please watch the video proceedings for detailed discussion. By Michael Thompson, City Engineer Agenda Item J3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 339 of 350 ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUMMARY LIVING STREETS DISCUSSION APRIL 19, 2011 The following is a recap of discussion items: 1. City Engineer Michael Thompson gave an introduction of Living Streets. He then gave a short PowerPoint presentation covering concepts and process. 2. The following was some feedback from the Commission: a. Mentioned that people are interested in cost and economics and Living Streets should reflect this concern. b. Mentioned twice that 22’ wide streets could be an issue. Mr .Thompson explained this was just mentioned as perhaps an extreme and streets would be built in context working with stakeholders. c. Concern of narrowing streets if there are bump outs….where would the bikers go? d. Member stated that sidewalks should be on every street and it good for children, elderly, and all others. e. Michael said at previous meetings members had concern with additional plowing of walks however a “Help your neighbor” type program could be used which would also foster community interaction. f. Question was asked on porous asphalt for street and strips near curb. g. Member stated that a regional approach to Living Streets is important so the big picture is realized. This also relates to neighboring cities, agencies, and also utilizing the “greeway” perhaps to bolster the walking trail network. This summary is only my recollection and is not to be referred to as detailed fact. Please watch the video proceedings for detailed discussion. Recap by Michael Thompson, City Engineer Agenda Item J3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 340 of 350 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY LIVING STREETS DISCUSSION MARCH 15, 2011 The following is a recap of discussion items: 1. City Engineer Michael Thompson gave an introduction of Living Streets. He then introduced the guest speaker. 2. Cliff Aichinger, Administrator for the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, guest speaker, gave a presentation on Living Streets and the recent process undertaken in North Saint Paul. The PowerPoint presentation discussed goals and benefits of Living Streets and practical examples. 3. Questions of the Commission then commenced: a. Concerns with 22’ wide street and how snow plows can navigate the streets. b. Talk of bump-outs and how plows would need to maneuver to correctly plow the streets c. Another concern with 22’ wide street. Michael Thompson reminded the Commission that we were not proposing a standard but rather fostering discussion and the feedback on concerns is very helpful in guiding future discussion and policy language. Policies are flexible and could allow for context sensitive solutions. d. A member brought up a concern about emergency vehicles. Cliff responded saying that all fire personnel in N. St. Paul was part of the plan writing and reviewed the standards and said they would make it work. Cliff showed slides of vehicles successfully maneuvering narrow streets of 22’. Also the Commissioner asked if Maplewood had any 22’ wide streets. Michael Thompson responded yes, that Skillman Ave in the Kenwood neighborhood was 22’ with no restricted parking. There have been no complaints from residents or emergency crews over the past 4 years since its installation. e. There was a concern about trees being planted in the boulevard and that they should not be too thick because this could hinder visibility for drivers and pedestrians. f. Discussion on winter maintenance and parking restrictions. g. Discussion about becoming greener with building practices such as utilizing pavers. h. Recognition by a member that narrower streets in fact do slow traffic. Further stated that most residents complain about traffic speeds, yet many do not want to narrow streets and install sidewalks to improve safety. A mind set change must occur. i. Concern that sidewalks would add to resident plowing duties. Responded that benefits greatly outweigh….N. St. Paul has a “help your neighbor” program. This further fosters community interaction, etc. j. Make sure costs are at or less than that to reinstall a full width street. Cliff discussed that when you reduce a road from 32’ to 22’ there is a significant cost savings that allows investments into rain gardens, trees, bump-outs, etc….in conformance with Living Streets concepts. k. Mention that we really need to have a long range plan for sidewalk and trail connections and this would be a good policy to start its implementation. This would help with promoting active living. 4. Michael thanked the Commissioners for the feedback and that these items would be presented to the other Boards and Commissions to give an idea of the conversation. The plan is to return again to the PC for further discussion after going to the ENRC (April) and CDRB (March). This summary is only my recollection and is not to be referred to as detailed fact. Please watch the video proceedings for detailed discussion. Agenda Item J3 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 341 of 350 (ATTACHMENT) TO: Community Design Review Board Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Planning Commission FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer / Dep. Director of Public Works Steve Love, Assistant City Engineer Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer I Troy Brink, Streets Crew Chief Ann Hutchinson, Naturalist Virginia Gaynor, Naturalist Mike Martin, City Planner SUBJECT: Complete/Living Streets Recommendations DATE: February 23, 2011 INTRODUCTION The Complete Streets sustainability work group was charged with studying the concepts of complete streets/green streets and making recommendations to the commission and council. The group has prepared background information, an overview of current operations and policies for city streets for both new development and street reconstruction, and presents it recommendations herein. BACKGROUND The Complete Streets group met April 28, 2010, June 29, 2010, and September 30, 2010. At the June 29th meeting Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and Barr Engineering presented the Living Streets case study they are conducting with North Saint Paul. Over the entire period group members provided individual contributions and furthered their knowledge on the topic. A few members attended Complete Streets workshops in Ramsey and Hennepin Counties. Terminology surrounding this topic can be confusing. Complete Streets typically refers to street design that provides for multiple modes of transportation (auto, mass transit, pedestrian, bike). Green Streets typically refers to street design that reduces environmental impacts by reducing impervious surface, managing stormwater, and providing shade. Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and North St. Paul are using the term Living Streets to combine these definitions. Complete Streets Legislation The State of Minnesota passed Complete Streets legislation in 2010. The Commissioner of Transportation has committed Mn/DOT to implement a complete street vision for the trunk highway system. Cities are encouraged to adopt policies to meet their unique needs; however it is not a mandate. Agenda Item J3 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 342 of 350 According to Mn/DOT, “Complete Streets does not mean “all modes on all roads”; rather, the goal of Complete Streets should be to: 1) Develop a balanced transportation system that integrates all modes via planning inclusive of each mode of transportation (i.e., transit, freight, automobile, bicycle and pedestrian) 2) Include transportation users of all types, ages and abilities. Examples of Complete Streets goals and principles listed in the report to the legislature include: 1) Reduce crash rates and severity of crashes. 2) Improve mobility and accessibility of all individuals including those with disabilities in accordance with the legal requirements of the ADA. 3) Encourage mode shift to non-motorized transportation and transit. 4) Reduce air and water pollution and reduce noise impacts. 5) Increase transportation network connectivity. 6) Maximize the efficient use of existing facilities. 7) Strive for tax supported investments to provide maximum benefits to the community and all user groups. 8) Safely integrate intermodal connections across the transportation network. 9) Promote safe and convenient access and travel for all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders) and people of all abilities as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers. The City of Maplewood finds some of these examples useful however the City wants to go further in addressing the environment and active living instead of focusing solely on a transportation vision. Minnesota GreenStep City The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has launched the Minnesota GreenStep City program. This is a challenge, assistance and recognition program to help cities achieve their sustainability goals through implementation of 28 best practices. The actions related to complete streets/green streets include: 1) Adopt a complete streets policy that addresses street trees and stormwater, and modify street standards accordingly. 2) Adopt zoning language for a selected area/project that is substantially equivalent to the LEED for Neighborhood Development credits for Walkable Streets or Street Network. 3) Document the installation of trees, and green stormwater infrastructure, and utility renovations as needed (sewer, water, electric, telecommunications) as part of at least one complete street reconstruction project. 4) Identify and remedy non-complete street segments by, for example, adding a bike route/lane or sidewalk. 5) Identify and remedy street-trail gaps (at least one) between city streets and trails/bike trails to better facilitate walking and biking. 6) Implement traffic calming measures in at least one street redevelopment project. The discussion portion of this report will focus on: 1) Actions or practices that have the most impact on the environment or associated operations; 2) Assessing our operations to determine methods to become more sustainable and reduce impacts on the environment; Agenda Item J3 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 343 of 350 3) Determining if the modifications will be practical, economical, and meet community needs. DISCUSSION Living Streets Landscape Architect Fred Rozumalski from Barr Engineering and RWMWD Administrator Cliff Aichinger gave the taskforce a very informative presentation on the Living Streets concepts they developed for North St. Paul. RWMWD Administrator has given staff permission to use information from their report and presentation and the following discussion uses materials from the North St. Paul project. Living Streets pulls together the concepts of complete streets, green streets, and puts additional focus on quality of life aspects for city residents. Figure 1 below shows the components of Living Streets. The model balances the “green” components (environment and social factors) and the “grey” components (transportation and utilities) of the system. FIGURE 1 - RWMWD/BARR REPORT The taskforce thinks a Living Streets concept better fits our goals than a Complete Streets concept. Maplewood’s goals are similar to those developed by RWMWD and Barr Engineering for North Saint Paul. We believe our Living Streets policy should: 1) Improve stormwater quality through expansion of the rain garden program, reducing the impervious footprint of streets, and meeting or exceeding the 1” infiltration standard. 2) Implement traffic calming measures through the use of techniques best suited for site conditions. 3) Improve biking and walking conditions along natural connector routes and collector streets through designation of bike lanes, sidewalks, or multi-purpose trails. 4) Create boulevard tree standards that provide environmental benefits (stormwater management, shade to reduce heating and cooling costs, filtering air pollutants, reduce urban heat island effect), enhance quality of life, and are practical and affordable. 5) Minimize construction, replacement, and future maintenance costs in a manner that is equal to or less than that of a standard street section. Agenda Item J3 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 344 of 350 Greatest Impact Items and Assessing Operations The following items are high impact items that should be further assessed in order to become more sustainable with the living streets concept: 1) Rain gardens – The city’s rain garden program has represented Maplewood well in the eyes of communities throughout the U.S. in terms of sustainability and “going green.” Our program includes installing rain gardens as part of street reconstruction projects, conducting educational programs to support residents that install rain gardens on their own, and promoting the use of rain gardens in new development. The early street reconstruction projects that included rain gardens had high resident participation and thus made a significant impact reducing stormwater volume. But the number of residents requesting rain gardens on street reconstruction projects has decreased over the years. In 2009-2010 staff made two changes on the Hills and Dale project to try to increase resident participation and redirect staff resources: 1) have contractor plant the home gardens, and 2) test a new “whole street” planting design. Participation in the home rain garden program has increased dramatically on this project. In coming years, rather than devoting so much staff time to supporting planting of the home gardens (placing plant orders, sorting orders, delivery, coordinating planting day, mulching), staff can now focus on education support for maintaining the gardens. We believe nothing promotes rain gardens better than attractive, well-maintained gardens from previous projects. Staff recommends that we continue to investigate ways to increase resident participation in rain garden programs, including ideas such as adjusting the Environmental Utility Fee credits/incentives for qualifying best management practices especially in locations where retrofits (curb cuts) on existing streets can be utilized. Pros- i. Minimal maintenance required by city for home gardens, reduces pollutants to lakes and wetlands, provides aesthetic enhancements to neighborhoods, reduces volume of water within the system thereby increasing existing capacity, can reduce storm piping infrastructure requirements Cons- ii. Need to determine a long-term maintenance policy for residential gardens (e.g. residents sign a form that they will maintain, etc.), need ongoing educational support for home gardens, large city gardens require maintenance and an experienced gardener, a garden could be filled in by a resident in the future, cannot count on rain gardens because the program is voluntary 2) Street sections – Currently our standard urban street section calls for a 32’ wide street section and cul-de-sacs require a diameter of 93’. Reducing the width of streets reduces the amount of impervious surface and lessens the environmental impact. Over the past years, the city has allowed for narrower streets in some new developments and has incorporated parking bays and traffic calming designs (narrowing of street) on some street reconstruction projects (Beam Avenue, English Street, Hazelwood Street). Our Engineering Department will be exploring some of these design concepts on the Western Hills street reconstruction project in 2010-2011. A majority of vehicles have a width of 8.5’ or less including fire trucks, school buses, and garbage trucks. The required turning diameter for a fire truck or school bus is about 93’ Agenda Item J3 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 345 of 350 which matches the current requirement for city cul-de-sac standards. However many school buses no longer enter into cul-de-sac locations for pickup but rather pick children up at the nearest cross street. Also, fire trucks and safety vehicles can maneuver within cul-de-sacs with a much tighter diameter and those that also have island landscaping. As seen in Figure 2, a street section of 22’ can accommodate parking on one side of the street with two cars comfortably passing one another on a residential street. A 22’ street section with parking on one side can also accommodate larger vehicles but there may be some yielding when vehicles must pass one another near a parked vehicle. FIGURE 2 - RWMWD/BARR REPORT If parking is needed on both sides of a residential street then a street section of 26’ can accommodate two parked cars and a passing vehicle in between, with yielding required at the pinch points. This concept is shown in Figure 3. Agenda Item J3 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 346 of 350 FIGURE 3 – RESIDENTIAL STREET - RWMWD/BARR REPORT A general windshield survey showed that not many cars are parked along city streets during daytime. City ordinance prohibits cars parked on city streets from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. The taskforce recommends we reevaluate street parking in Maplewood and develop guidelines about levels of street parking that should be provided in different scenarios. On current street reconstruction projects, residents are sometimes asked whether they would like the street narrowed. In the past, few neighborhoods have wanted to decrease street width. The taskforce recommends that the city thoroughly explores street widths, cul-de-sac diameters, street parking, street standards, and develops a policy that helps minimize environmental impacts. This should include educating residents about the costs and benefits associated with street widths and exploring incentives for neighborhoods that reduce street width during street reconstruction projects. Pros- i. Reduces impervious area, reduces pollutants and runoff volume, slows traffic by narrowing, reduces future replacement costs and maintenance because the footprint would be smaller than current standards Cons- ii. Reduces area for on-street pedestrians if no sidewalk exists or is wanted in the boulevard, safety vehicle needs, idea may not be accepted by residents 3) Active Living Opportunities – Providing a designated system of sidewalks, trails, and bike lanes increases the likelihood for walking and biking. During development of Maplewood’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the city evaluated our sidewalk and trail system and identified future trails and connections needed. Currently City Code requires sidewalk installation adjacent to collector streets, however, it will be important to start providing on-street bikeways to promote active lifestyles in addition to sidewalks. Figure 4 depicts a typical layout of a collector street with biking and pedestrian facilities. Agenda Item J3 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 347 of 350 FIGURE 4 – COLLECTOR STREET - RWMWD/BARR REPORT This typical collector street section would accommodate parking on one side of the street in addition to biking lanes on either side. A sidewalk would also be placed on one side of the street. Bump outs would be provided to provide for some traffic calming and also providing additional opportunities for stormwater treatment. A review and revision of standards would need to be conducted to determine the type of street best suited for this treatment. Pros- i. Promotes walking and riding bikes, reduces need for vehicle use on short trips if proper infrastructure is in place, traffic calming using bump outs Cons- ii. May require wider streets to accommodate biking lanes, impacts into boulevards, additional costs for striping and maintenance, difficulty to plow and maintain in winter especially with bump outs 4) Pervious Pavement – Maplewood has installed pervious asphalt parking lots at the public works building and at Geranium Park. Both are functioning well, but studies are still ongoing to determine life expectancy and maintenance protocols for this type of system. The city of Shoreview recently installed pervious concrete on a roadway in a smaller neighborhood and to date considers the project a success. It is important that the city continues to explore the latest infrastructure technologies. Pros- i. Reduces need for storm sewer pipes, reduces pollutants and volume of runoff, quieter when driven on compared to regular pavement, firmer stable walking surface Cons- ii. High cost, maintenance issues, predictability 5) Tree Plantings – Trees provide many benefits to the community. They help treat stormwater, filter air pollutants, provide shade which can lower energy consumption, add Agenda Item J3 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 348 of 350 value to homes and enhance the aesthetics of a neighborhood. The city’s current right- of-way ordinance does not allow tree plantings within public rights of way/boulevards, however, the city typically requires planting boulevard trees on Planned Unit Development projects. The city has no policy regarding replanting trees that die. In addition to boulevards, trees could be considered within cul-de-sac islands as a green street feature. The taskforce recommends that we review the city’s policies on boulevard trees. A review should include cost estimates for tree planting and maintenance to enable comparison with standard design. Pros- i. Provides shade to homes thereby reducing energy needs, provides a neighborhood feel, aesthetically pleasing, trees utilize excess runoff and act as a filter, shades pavement which reduces hot/cold cycles increasing pavement longevity, reduces urban heat island effect Cons- ii. Conflicts with utilities in the boulevard, requires ongoing maintenance/pruning/removal/replanting if diseased RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Community Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and Environmental and Natural Resources Commission provide input on objectives and developing a successful framework in which to create and recommend a Living Streets policy to the city council. Attachments: 1) Resolution Agenda Item J3 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 349 of 350 RESOLUTION DECLARING SUPPORT FOR ESTABLISHING A LIVING STREETS POLICY FOR THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the Living Streets concept is designed to assure safety and accessibility for all the users of our roads, trails and transit systems, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, commercial and emergency vehicles and for people of all ages and of all abilities; and WHEREAS, Living Streets reduce congestion by providing safe travel choices that encourage non-motorized transportation options, increasing the overall capacity of the transportation network as well as decreasing consumer transportation costs; and WHEREAS, Living Streets will help the City of Maplewood reduce greenhouse gas emissions as more people choose an alternative to the single occupant vehicle; and Living Streets is consistent with the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which the city has endorsed: and WHEREAS, Living Streets support economic growth and community stability by providing accessible and efficient connections between home, school, work, recreation and retail destinations by improving the pedestrian and vehicular environments throughout communities; and WHEREAS, Living Streets enhance safe walking and bicycling options for school age children, in recognition of the objectives of the national Safe Routes to School program; and WHEREAS, Living Streets can help reduce crashes and injuries and their costs; and WHEREAS, a Living Streets provide environmental and social benefits including: 1) Improving stormwater quality 2) Reducing impervious surfaces 3) Providing traffic calming measures 4) Improving biking and walking conditions 5) Protecting and enhancing the urban forest THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in order to develop and maintain a safe, efficient, balanced and environmentally sound city transportation system for people of all ages and abilities, transportation and development projects shall incorporate a philosophy that expands transportation choices and further incorporates the Living Streets theme and key concepts listed above; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the staff shall prepare a Living Streets Policy and shall concurrently review city ordinances, engineering standards, policies, and guidelines in order to make recommendations ultimately to the City Council on a Living Street Policy that will reduce impacts to the environment, be practical and economical, while also meeting community and stakeholder needs. Agenda Item J3 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 350 of 350