HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 06-27 City Council PacketAGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Monday, June 27, 2011
City Hall, Council Chambers
Meeting No. 12-11
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 June 13, 2011, City Council Workshop Minutes
2. Approval of June 13, 2011, City Council Meeting Minutes
F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of Plaque of Appreciation for Service to the Parks & Recreation -
Commissioner Carolyn Peterson
2. Promotion Ceremony – Sergeant Jerrold (Buddy) Martin – No Agenda 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 to Seek Bids for MCC Aquatic Center Wall Murals
3. Award of Contract for Fabrication and Installation of MCC Leisure Pool Submarine Station
4. Water System Evaluation, City Project 10-09, Approval of Final Report and Authorization
to Proceed with Current Operating Agreement
5. Approval of Temporary Fence Easement In Favor of Paris Realty LLC (Tillges)
6. Approval of Ramsey County Fair Miscellaneous Permits
7. Approval of Resolution Accepting a Donation to the Fire Department from Residential
Mortgage Group
8. Approval of Resolution Accepting a Donation from Qwest for the Volunteers in Police
Service
9. Approval of Resolution Of Support For Tubman To Allow City As Fiscal Agent For State
Bonding Proposal
10. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit Annual Review for the St Paul Regional Water
Services Materials Recycling Operation
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Consider Approval of the First Reading - Heritage Preservation Ordinance Amendments
2. Gladstone Area Redevelopment Improvements, City Project 04-21 Assessment Hearing ,
7:00 p.m. – Continued from May 23, 2011 – To be Continued to July 11, 2011
3. NPDES Phase II Annual Report, Public Hearing – 7:00 p.m.
4. Consider Approval of the First Reading - Chicken Ordinance
I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Trash Collection System Analysis Update and Discussion of Draft Request for Proposal for
Organized Collection System
2. Consider Cost Estimate and Award of Consent for Dual Solar Array System for City Hall
and Maplewood Community Center
3. East Metro Fire Training Facility Proposal, City Project 09-09, Consider Approval of a
Resolution of Support for State Bonding Request for the Design and Construction of a
Regional Firefighter Training Facility
J. NEW BUSINESS
1. Meeting of the Economic Development Authority
a. Call to Order by EDA President
b. Approval of EDA Agenda
c. Consider Approval of Loan to St. John’s Hospital for its Participation in the Trillion
BTU Program
d. Adjourn
2. Approval of Internal Loan Agreement from City General Fund to Economic Development
Authority and Direction to Prepare Loan Agreement
3. Approval of New Manager for Intoxicating Liquor License Holder AMF Maplewood Lanes,
Marietta Marie Jacobs
4. Approval of Preliminary Plat for Eldridge Fields Single Dwelling Development, Eldridge
Avenue and Prosperity Road
5. Approval of Resolution Identifying the Need for LCDA Funding and Authorizing an
Application for Grant Funds Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) Grant
for the Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan
6. Bartelmy Meyer Area Street, City Project 11-14, Resolution Ordering Preparation of
Feasibility Study
7. Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Study 2012 Mill and Overlays, City Project
11-15
K. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
L. AWARD OF BIDS
1. Gladstone Area Redevelopment Improvements - Phase 1, Project 04-21
aa.. Approve City of St. Paul Permanent and Temporary Easement Agreements
b. Approve Ramsey County Easement Agreement
c. Approve Ramsey County Quit Claim Deed
d. Resolution Approving Mn/DOT Local Bridge Replacement Program Grant Agreement
e. Resolution Awarding Construction Contract
M. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1. Discussion to Approve a Resolution Adopting State Performance Measures
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.
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
June 13, 2011
City Council Manager Workshop Minutes
1
Agenda E1
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
5:15 p.m., Monday, June 13, 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 5:17 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 Nephew moved to approve the agenda as submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Council Discussion – Wipers Recycling v. City of Maplewood
a. Declaration of Intent to Close Meeting for Attorney Update
b. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud gave the update to the council.
The meeting was closed at 5:25 p.m.
The meeting was reopened at 5:50 p.m.
2. Review Preliminary Findings of Police Department Space Needs Report
a. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl introduced the item and
answered questions of the council.
b. Architect, SEH, Inc. Larry Koch addressed the council, gave a report and answered
questions of the council.
Staff will continue to keep the council updated on the process.
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Discussion of Maplewood Citizen Academy
a. City Manager, James Antonen gave a report on the Academy. After discussion it was
determined that there is not sufficient interest at this time to proceed with the academy.
Packet Page Number 1 of 290
June 13, 2011
City Council Manager Workshop Minutes
2
2. Discussion of 2012 Budget Assumption and Evaluation Process
a. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl gave the report.
Due to a lack of time this item was moved to Administrative Presentations on the regular City
Council agenda.
F. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rossbach adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Packet Page Number 2 of 290
June 13, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
1
Agenda E2
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 p.m., Monday, June 13, 2011
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 11-11
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order
at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Rossbach.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Will Rossbach, Mayor Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present
James Llanas, Councilmember Present
John Nephew, Councilmember Present
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added to the agenda by staff and councilmembers:
M1. City Budget Plan Presentation – Mayor Rossbach
N1. Update Dispatch Policy – Councilmember Juenemann
N2. National Night Out – Councilmember Juenemann
N3. North High School Relay for Life – Councilmember Llanas
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of May 23, 2011, City Council Workshop Minutes
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the May 23, 2011, City Council Workshop
Minutes as submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number 3 of 290
June 13, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
2
2. Approval of May 23, 2011, City Council Meeting Minutes
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the May 23, 2011, City Council Meeting Minutes as
submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Resolution of Appreciation for Girl Scout Samantha Nielsen
a. Mayor Rossbach read and presented the resolution of appreciation to Girl Scout
Samantha Nielsen.
b. Girl Scout, Samantha Nielsen addressed the council.
Mayor Rossbach moved to approve the resolution of appreciation for Girl Scout Samantha
Nielsen.
City of Maplewood
Resolution 11-6-580
Commendation for Samantha Nielsen
June 13, 2011
Whereas, the City of Maplewood finds it to be important to recognize the achievements of its
citizens, and
Whereas, our youth are the future leaders of our City, State, and Nation, and
Whereas, the City Council is pleased to learn that Samantha Nielsen chose to pursue the Girl
Scout Gold Award, and
Whereas, Samantha Nielsen is an active member of the Minnesota and Wisconsin River Valley
Girl Scouts, an organization that mentors youth, and
Whereas, the requirements of the Gold Award are only achieved by 5% of all Girl Scouts, and
Whereas, Samantha has completed all the requirements for the Girl Scout Gold Award, the
highest award which can be achieved by a Girl Scout ,by planting an immigrant garden using
plants native to Sweden at the historical Swedish Gammelgarden museum in Scandia Minnesota.
Samantha further designed curriculum and taught children about the native plants and gardening.
The project has taken several years to complete and a large commitment of her personal time,
and
Whereas, the Gold Award develops leadership, responsibility and community involvement, now
therefore
Be it resolved, that the Maplewood City Council does hereby commend Samantha on her
accomplishments, her leadership, and her community involvement, and
Be it resolved, I Mayor, Will Rossbach, as authorized by the Maplewood City Council, do extend
the city’s appreciation and gratitude for the dedication and hard work put forth by Samantha and
her example to other young adults and that the City of Maplewood duly record her
accomplishments.
Packet Page Number 4 of 290
June 13, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
3
_______________________________
Mayor Will Rossbach
Attest: ________________________
Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
2. Swearing in Ceremony for Assistant Chief/EMS Michael Mondor
a. Maplewood Fire Chief Steve Lukin introduced Assistant Chief/EMS Michael Mondor.
b. City Clerk, Karen Guilfoile administered the firefighters oath to Michael Mondor.
G. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve consent agenda items 1-10.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
1. Approval of Claims
Councilmember Juenemann moved Approval of Claims.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE:
$ 133,214.31 Checks #84358 thru #84399
Dated 05/24/11
$ 346,447.74 Disbursements via debits to checking account
Dated 05/12/11 thru 05/20/11
$ 351,384.85 Checks #84400 thru #84444
Dated 05/26/11 thru 05/31/11
$ 191,766.15 Disbursements via debits to checking account
Dated 05/20/11 thru 05/27/11
$ 694,137.43 Checks #84445 thru #84488
Dated 06/01/11 thru 06/07/11
$ 333,965.35 Disbursements via debits to checking account
Dated 05/26/11 thru 06/03/11
__________________
$ 2,050,915.83 Total Accounts Payable
Packet Page Number 5 of 290
June 13, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
4
PAYROLL
$ 502,740.74 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 05/27/11
$ 2,818.96 Payroll Deduction check #9984315 thru #9984318
Dated 05/27/11
___________________
$ 505,559.70 Total Payroll
$ 2,556,475.53 GRAND TOTAL
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
2. Consider Approval to Seek Bids for Joy Park Improvements Phase II
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve that staff seek bids for the Joy Park
Improvements Phase II.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
3. Approval of Lawful Gambling Temporary Permit for White Bear Avenue Business
Association
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution for the lawful gambling temporary
permit for the White Bear Avenue Business Association at the Ramsey County Fair Grounds,
2020 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood on July 13, 14, 15 16, and 17th, 2011.
RESOLUTION 11-6-581
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the temporary
premise permit for lawful gambling is approved for White Bear Avenue Business Association, PO
Box 9328, North St Paul, MN 55109 to be used on July 13, through July 17, 2011 at The Ramsey
County Fair Grounds, 2020 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, MN 55109.
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 license 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 Nephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number 6 of 290
June 13, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
5
4. Consider Approval of Fund Transfer to Close CoPar Project Fund 05-08
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve a transfer of $20,242.45 from the general fund to
fund #811 for the purpose of closing the fund account and authorize the finance manager to make
the appropriate budget adjustments.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
5. Approval of Resolution Authorizing Purchase of Insurance Agent Services
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution retaining Arthur J. Gallagher and
Company as the insurance agent at a cost of $12,000.
RESOLUTION 11-6-582
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Arthur J. Gallagher and Company be re-appointed as the broker of
record and insurance agent at a cost of $12,000 for the insurance year starting July 1, 2011 and
continuing through June 30, 2012.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Nephew and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor.
ALL VOTED FOR
and the following voted against the same: NONE
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)SS.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Maplewood,
Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached resolution is a true and correct copy of an
extract of minutes of a meeting of the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota duly
called and held, as such minutes relate to the re-appointment of Arthur J. Gallagher and
Company as the broker of record and insurance agent for the City of Maplewood starting July 1,
2011 through June 30, 2012.
______________________________
City Clerk
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
6. Approval of Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements, City Project 08-10,
Resolution Approving Final Payment and Acceptance of Project
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution for the Carsgrove Meadows Area
Street Improvements, City Project 08-10, approving final payment and acceptance of the project.
Packet Page Number 7 of 290
June 13, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
6
RESOLUTION 11-6-583
APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
CITY PROJECT 08-10
WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered
Improvement Project 08-10, the Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements, and has let a
construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer for the City of Maplewood has determined that the
Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements, City Project 08-10, is complete and
recommends acceptance of the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that
1. City Project 08-10 is complete and maintenance of these improvements is accepted by
the city; and the final construction cost is $1,904,736.00. Final payment to Miller
Excavating, Inc., Incorporated, and the release of any retainage or escrow is hereby
authorized.
Approved this 13th day of June 2011.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes –All
The motion passed.
7. Approval of Parking Lot Light Pole Replacements for City Campus
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve spending city funds of $12,845 from 101-115-000-
4410 Repair and Maintenance of Buildings for parking lot light pole replacements for the city
campus.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
8. Approval of Uniform Contract with G&K
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the five year contract to match the State contract
pricing for $38,638 over the five year contract for city departments using G&K Services.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
9. Approval of Maplewood Community Center Court Area Lighting Installation
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the stimulus project using the vendors for a total
amount of $37,447.29. The project account number for tracking setup by Finance is 120907-
0030-0280.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number 8 of 290
June 13, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
7
10. Approval of Resolution to Maintain Statutory Tort Liability Limits
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution to not waive the monetary limits on
municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04.
RESOLUTION 11-6-584
A RESOLUTION TO MAINTAIN THE STATUTORY TORT LIMITS
FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE PROPOSED
WHEREAS, pursuant to previous action taken, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust has asked the City to make an election with regards to waiving or not waiving its tort liability
established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04; and
WHEREAS, the choices available are; to not waive the statutory limit, to waive the limit
but to keep insurance coverage at the statutory limit, and to waive the limit and to add insurance
to a new level;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Maplewood City Council does hereby
elect not to waive the statutory tort liability limit established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04; and,
that such election is effective until amended by further resolution of the Maplewood City Council.
Adopted by the City Council of the city of Maplewood, Minnesota at a regular meeting held
June 13, 2011.
ATTEST:
_____________________________ ______________________________
Karen E. Guilfoile, City Clerk William Rossbach, Mayor
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
H. PUBLIC HEARING
None.
I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Approval of Myth Nightclub Shared Parking Agreement with 3000 White Bear Avenue
a. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the council.
b. Myth Nightclub Owner, Mike Miranowski addressed and answered questions of the
council.
c. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud addressed and answered questions of the council.
Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the shared parking agreement between the owners of
the Myth Nightclub and the Plaza 3000 shopping center to allow the Myth to utilize 200 parking
spaces for their needs. Approval of this agreement is subject to the review and approval by the
city attorney and the owner of the Myth doing the following: (the following change or addition is
in bold and underlined.)
1. Posting each entrance to the Myth parking lot with the name and location of the overflow
parking lots.
Packet Page Number 9 of 290
June 13, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
8
2. Arranging for Ramsey County Sheriff officers to patrol each parking lot (on site and off site).
3. Providing parking attendants to be stationed at each parking lot (on site and off site).
4. Providing parking attendants to direct traffic to overflow parking lots.
5. Make sure to clean up each parking lot (on site and off site) within 12 hours of the conclusion
of a Myth event where overflow parking was utilized.
6. Submit any future shared-parking agreements to the city staff for approval and adjustment of
the maximum allowed occupancy. All agreements shall be subject to approval by the city
attorney.
7. Assure that the maximum allowed occupancy shall be 4,400 persons (dependent upon
providing enough parking spaces to support this number), which includes all Myth staff and
personnel, unless that number is revised by the fire marshal. The presence of staff and
personnel will always factor into the total allowed occupancy regardless of whether shared
parking is a factor or not.
8. Assure that any future parking agreements shall be for a minimum of one year.
9. Notify the city in writing within 90 days if either party in a parking agreement wishes to
terminate the agreement.
10. The applicant shall provide a revised parking agreement between himself and the
owner of the Plaza 3000 stating that the Myth will provide shuttle service between the
Myth and the Plaza 3000 and provide on-site security at the Plaza 3000 during events
when the Plaza 3000 parking lot is used by the Myth. This parking easement language
revision shall be approved by the city attorney.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas. Ayes – Mayor Rossbach,
Councilmember’s Koppen,
Llanas & Nephew
Nay – Councilmember Juenemann
The motion passed.
J. NEW BUSINESS
1. Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Auto Sales by Fleet Associates, Inc. at 2495
Maplewood Drive
a. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the council.
b. Planning Commissioner, Tushar Desai gave the planning commission report.
The council requested an amendment to the CUP resolution which is stricken in the resolution.
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the resolution approving a conditional use permit to
operate a used car sales business from 2495 Maplewood Drive at the Maple Leaf Ridge Business
Center. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following
conditions: (deletions are stricken).
Packet Page Number 10 of 290
June 13, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
9
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION 11-6-585
WHEREAS, Chris and Diane Johnson, of Fleet Associates, Inc. applied for a conditional use
permit to operate a used car sales business.
WHEREAS, Section 44-512(5) of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permit to store,
lease or sell used motor vehicles. Further, code requires that these activities not occur closer than
350 feet to residential property.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 2495 Maplewood Drive. The legal
description is:
W. H. HOWARD’S GARDEN LOTS EX STH 61-1 N 85 FT OF LOT 3.
W. H. HOWARD’S GARDEN LOTS EX STH 61-1 AND EX N 85 FT LOT 3.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On May 17, 2011, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a
notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning
commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements.
The planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of city staff. The
planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit.
2. On June 13, 2011, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff
and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described
conditional use permit, because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity
with the City's Comprehensive Plan and this Code.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation
that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person
or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution,
drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other
nuisances.
5. The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
Packet Page Number 11 of 290
June 13, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
10
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Staff may approve
minor changes.
2. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the
permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The applicant shall not park any vehicles from their for-sale inventory any closer than 350 feet
of the westerly property line as required by ordinance.
5. The applicant shall not park more than five vehicles from their for-sale inventory outside on
the site.
6. The applicant shall not use any attention-getting displays on vehicles that are parked outside
such as flags, banners, signs (painted or otherwise), etc.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on June 13, 2011.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
2. Approval of Seventh Street East and Ferndale Street Right-of-Way Vacations, 2505
Minnehaha Avenue East
a. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the council.
b. Planning Commissioner, Tushar Desai gave the planning commission report.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution. This resolution is for the vacation
of the Seventh Street East and Ferndale Street right-of-ways. The reasons for the vacation are
as follows:
VACATION RESOLUTION 11-6-586
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood, applied for the vacation of the following:
Block 16, vacated East Seventh Street and vacated Ferndale Street, originally dedicated as
Seventh St. and Union Ave., respectively, all in THE UNION CEMETERY, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (Said THE UNION CEMETERY being the
Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 29 North, Range 22 West).
WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows:
1. On May 17, 2011, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published
a notice in the Maplewood Review. The planning commission gave everyone at the
hearing a chance to speak and present written statements.
2. On June 13, 2011, the city council considered reports and recommendations from the city
staff and planning commission.
Packet Page Number 12 of 290
June 13, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
11
WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to
the following property:
Beginning at the northeast corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence
westerly, along the northerly line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, on an
assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 52 minutes 00 Seconds West a distance of 543.21 feet;
thence South 55 degrees 08 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 278.95 feet; thence North 89
degrees 52 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 265.53 feet; thence northeasterly a distance
of 66.31 feet along a non-tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 55.70
feet, a central angle of 68 degrees 12 minutes 35 seconds and a chord that bears North 49
degrees 56 minutes 58 seconds East; thence southeasterly a distance of 47.37 feet along a non-
tangential curve, concave to the southwest, having a radius of 72.50 feet, a central angle of 37
degrees 26 minutes 05 seconds and a chord that bears South 78 degrees 26 minutes 23 seconds
East; thence North 40 degrees 36 minutes 25 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, a distance
of 27.83 feet; thence South 49 degrees 23 minutes 35 seconds East a distance of 40.06 feet;
thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 76.61 feet; thence North 13
degrees 14 minutes 59 seconds East to the north line of said Lot 1; thence westerly, along the
north line of said Lot 1, to the east line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter;
thence northerly to the point of beginning and there terminating.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council passed the above-described
vacation for the following reasons:
It is in the public interest since;
1. The city is not using the right-of-way for a public street.
2. The right-of-way is not needed for street access purposes as the adjacent
properties have street access at other points.
This approval is subject to:
1. Comply with the requirements contained within Assistant City Engineer Steve Love’s
report dated April 7, 2011.
2. All legal descriptions must be approved by staff.
The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution on June 13, 2011.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
K. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
1. Joe Fox, representing the Ramsey County Fair, Maplewood.
2. Ted Gooder, Maplewood.
3. Mark Bradley, Maplewood.
4. Dave Schelling, Maplewood.
5. Bob Zick, North St. Paul.
L. AWARD OF BIDS
None.
Packet Page Number 13 of 290
June 13, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
12
M. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1. City Budget Plan Presentation
a. Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl gave a report on the 2012 City
Budget Plan and answered questions of the council.
N. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1. Update Dispatch Policy – Councilmember Juenemann
Councilmember Juenemann gave a report on the Dispatch Policy Committee including costs
of equipment and replacement program. Also the status of 911 use on cellular phones
including that approximately 72% of the 911 calls that have come into the dispatch center this
year have been made on cell phones.
2. National Night Out – Councilmember Juenemann
Councilmember Juenemann gave a report on National Night Out which is Tuesday, August 2,
2011. Councilmember Juenemann encouraged citizens to schedule a neighborhood get
together.
3. North High School Relay for Life – Councilmember Llanas
Councilmember Llanas gave a report. Last month approximately 600 students participated in
the relay for life and over 500 students from North High School raised money for the
American Cancer Society.
O. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rossbach adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m.
Packet Page Number 14 of 290
Packet Page Number 15 of 290
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page Number 16 of 290
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 6-10-11 and 6-17-11
AGENDA NO.G-1
TO:City Council
FROM:Finance Manager
RE:APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
DATE:
472,208.30$ Checks # 84489 thru # 84553
dated 06/08/11 thru 6/14/11
173,661.80$ Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 05/25/11 thru 6/10/11
795,332.25$ Checks # 84554 thru # 84584
dated 06/21/11
327,601.46$ Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 06/08/11 thru 06/17/11
1,768,803.81$ Total Accounts Payable
517,429.71$ Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 06/10/11
2,504.21$ Payroll Deduction check # 9984349 thru # 9984352
dated 06/10/11
519,933.92$ Total Payroll
2,288,737.73$ 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
June 27, 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 17 of 290
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 6-10-11 and 6-17-11
Check Description Amount
84489 02464 Funds for ATM 8,000.00
84490 03877 ARM ANNUAL WORKSHOP 20.00
84491 00240 APPLICANT BACKGROUND CHECKS 60.00
84492 04137 KARATE INSTRUCTION - APRIL 535.00
04137 KARATE INSTRUCTION - MAY 427.50
84493 01973 CAR WASHES - MAY 92.00
84494 00908 REGISTRATION FEE 500.00
84495 04060 SETS OF TURN OUT GEAR 12,224.00
84496 04265 ZUMBA INSTRUCTION - MAY 567.00
84497 01337 911 DISPATCH SERVICES - DEC 2010 20,868.34
84498 01337 PROJ 09-13 MULCH FOR RAIN GARDENS 897.75
84499 01337 RECORDING FEE FOR EASEMENT 46.00
84500 01409 DESIGN & SPECS JOY PARK PHASE II 5,029.37
84501 04845 RECYCLING - MAY 27,499.50
84502 04192 EMS BILLING - MAY 3,585.00
84503 01190 RELOCATION OF 2 POWER POLES 10,277.88
84504 00776 6/10 PR WAGES - CORRECTED CHECK 986.20
84505 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL FEES 5/16 - 6/5 2,012.00
84506 04419 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE 216.00
84507 04508 ADULT SOFTBALL UMPIRE FEES - MW 6,058.00
04508 ADULT SOFTBALL UMPIRE FEES - NSP 2,366.00
84508 01865 VOLLEYBALL ASSIGNMENTS 98.00
84509 04549 ZUMBA INSTRUCTION - MAY 123.20
84510 02149 REIMB FOR MILEAGE 3/8 - 6/6 91.29
84511 01871 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE 144.00
84512 04891 PERMANENT EASEMENT 3,500.00
84513 00420 VEHICLE CLEANING & DETAILING 160.30
84514 03619 PROJ 10-14 SEWER TELEVISING 170.00
03619 PROJ 10-14 SEWER TELEVISING 170.00
03619 PROJ 10-14 SEWER TELEVISING 170.00
84515 03631 2011 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE 22,383.64
03631 2011 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE 22,383.64
84516 04867 PROF SRVS THRU 5/27 9,205.20
84517 00531 STORM SEWER RESTORATION 134.66
84518 01886 WHEEL CHOCKS 293.47
84519 00610 REFUND CLASS CANCELLED 300.00
84520 03538 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE 216.00
84521 00827 CLAIM DEDUCTIBLE #11076735 2,172.20
00827 QTR PREMIUM ADD LIFT STATION 44.00
84522 01081 DEATH INVESTIGATION CONFERENCE 60.00
84523 02197 ESCROW RELEASE 312 SUMMER PLACE 1,500.85
02197 ESCROW RELEASE 310 SUMMER PLACE 1,500.85
84524 04511 CARDIO HIP HOP INSTRUCTION 132.00
84525 01111 800 MHZ RADIOS 29,231.90
01111 800 MHZ RADIOS 20,467.74
01111 800 MHZ RADIOS 10,213.68
01111 800 MHZ RADIOS 5,520.25
84526 04849 TEXAS HOLD'EM INSTRUCTOR 108.00
84527 00001 REFUND O'CONNOR UCARE BENEFIT 490.00
84528 00001 REIMB R BADE DRIVEWAY REPAIR 350.00
84529 00001 REFUND WIDMER BCBS BENEFIT 160.00
84530 00001 REFUND BAYNTON HP BENEFIT 120.00
84531 00001 REFUND SCHOENECKER BCBS BENEFIT 90.7506/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/14/2011 MOTOROLA, INC
06/14/2011 RICHARD NIELSEN
06/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/14/2011 MOTOROLA, INC
06/14/2011 MOTOROLA, INC
06/14/2011 MOTOROLA, INC
06/14/2011 MASTERPIECE HOMES INC
06/14/2011 MASTERPIECE HOMES INC
06/14/2011 HEATHER MATTSON
06/14/2011 L M C I T
06/14/2011 L M C I T
06/14/2011 M C P A
06/14/2011 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT LLC
06/14/2011 GULDENS ROADHOUSE INC
06/14/2011 PATRICK JAMES HUBBARD
06/14/2011 ELK RIVER FORD
06/14/2011 FOTH INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIR
06/14/2011 FRA-DOR INC.
06/14/2011 DRAIN KING INC
06/14/2011 DRAIN KING INC
06/14/2011 ELK RIVER FORD
06/14/2011 VIRGINIA M DAVIS
06/14/2011 DOWNTOWNER DETAIL CENTER
06/14/2011 DRAIN KING INC
06/14/2011 JAN ALICE CAMPBELL
06/14/2011 HEIDI CAREY
06/14/2011 KENNETH COOPER
06/14/2011 BETWEEN THE LINES
06/14/2011 BETWEEN THE LINES
06/14/2011 DON BOWMAN
06/10/2011 DONALD JONES
06/14/2011 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
06/14/2011 LOUISE A. BEAMAN
06/14/2011 TENNIS SANITATION LLC
06/14/2011 TRANS-MEDIC
06/14/2011 XCEL ENERGY
06/14/2011 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV
06/14/2011 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV
06/14/2011 S.E.H.
06/14/2011 MES - MIDAM
06/14/2011 MARIA PIRELA
06/14/2011 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV
06/14/2011 THE EDGE MARTIAL ARTS
06/14/2011 ERICKSON OIL PRODUCTS INC
06/14/2011 M R P A
06/14/2011 ASSOC OF RECYCLING MANAGERS
06/14/2011 C.S.C. CREDIT SERVICES
06/14/2011 THE EDGE MARTIAL ARTS
Check Register
City of Maplewood
06/10/2011
Date Vendor
06/08/2011 US BANK
Packet Page Number 18 of 290
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 6-10-11 and 6-17-11
84532 00001 REFUND J SCHUH UCARE BENEFIT 80.00
84533 00001 REFUND SMITH HP BENEFIT 80.00
84534 00001 REFUND MARKHAM BABYSITTING CLASS 65.00
84535 00001 REFUND D OSTENSON YOUTH SOFTBALL 65.00
84536 00001 REFUND G LENS CLASS CANCELLED 52.00
84537 00001 REFUND RICHARD UCARE/MEMBERSHIP 47.14
84538 00001 REFUND D HARDEN BCBS BENEFIT 40.00
84539 00001 REFUND J MEINERS BCBS BENEFIT 40.00
84540 00001 REFUND J JORLITI MEMBERSHIP 32.14
84541 00001 REFUND J FOSTER BCBS BENEFIT 20.00
84542 00001 REFUND R JUDEEN UCARE BENEFIT 20.00
84543 00001 REFUND M NEWMANN UCARE BENEFIT 15.00
84544 01863 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE 96.00
84545 04875 PROJ 11-09 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN AD 175.00
84546 01836 HYDRANT & VALVE REPLACEMENTS 15,839.61
01836 RECORD MGMT SOFTWARE FEE - JUNE 3,798.00
01836 HYDRANT & VALVE REPLACEMENTS 2,704.82
84547 01565 BRAKE BOOSTER FOR SWEEPER #714 711.55
84548 01574 PROJ 09-04 STILLWATER/TH5 PMT #9 189,509.82
01574 PROJ 09-15 HILLS & DALES PARTPMT#8 16,486.20
01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS NOT TO EXCEED 2,898.16
84549 04528 ZUMBA INSTRUCTION - MAY 152.50
84550 01669 FORFEITED VEHICLE TOWING FEES 614.78
84551 03753 SPRING CLEAN UP 2011 3,854.92
84552 04179 PROGRAM DISPLAY SIGN MCC - APRIL 250.00
04179 PROGRAM DISPLAY SIGN MCC - MAY 250.00
84553 01764 TENNIS INSTRUCTION - SPRING 337.5006/14/2011 TOM WESTLING
472,208.3065Checks in this report.
06/14/2011 VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
06/14/2011 VISUAL IMAGE PROMOTIONS
06/14/2011 VISUAL IMAGE PROMOTIONS
06/14/2011 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
06/14/2011 SARA M. R. THOMPSON
06/14/2011 TWIN CITIES TRANSPORT &
06/14/2011 SWEEPER SERVICES
06/14/2011 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
06/14/2011 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
06/14/2011 CITY OF ST PAUL
06/14/2011 CITY OF ST PAUL
06/14/2011 CITY OF ST PAUL
06/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/14/2011 ROGER PACKER
06/14/2011 SGC HORIZON LLC
06/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/14/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
Packet Page Number 19 of 290
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 6-10-11 and 6-17-11
Transmitted Settlement
Date Date Payee Description Amount
5/25/2011 6/6/2011 Optum Health DCRP & Flex plan payments 2,484.19
6/3/2011 6/6/2011 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 2,269.50
6/3/2011 6/6/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 25,047.05
6/6/2011 6/7/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 26,818.00
6/3/2011 6/8/2011 US Bank VISA One Card*Purchasing card items 33,391.86
6/7/2011 6/8/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 21,521.99
6/8/2011 6/9/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 15,000.45
6/8/2011 6/10/2011 ICMA (Vantagepointe)Deferred Compensation 4,087.76
6/8/2011 6/10/2011 ING - State Plan Deferred Compensation 27,000.00
6/9/2011 6/10/2011 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 1,091.50
6/9/2011 6/10/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 14,949.50
TOTAL 173,661.80
*Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached.
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
Packet Page Number 20 of 290
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 6-10-11 and 6-17-11
Check Description Amount
84554 00157 PROJ 10-14 PROF SRVS 3/26 - 4/22 2,752.22
84555 02396 REIMB FOR MILEAGE & PARKING 4/21-6/8 57.51
84556 03809 RED CROSS BABYSITTING CLASS 120.00
84557 01202 POSTAGE JUNE MAPLEWOOD MONTHLY 3,337.22
84558 01337 BANQUET ROOM PLANTS 685.07
84559 01337 PROJ 02-07 ABSTRACT RECORDING FEE 92.00
84560 01409 BID DOCUMENTS-SOLAR LEGACY GRANT 300.00
84561 01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 1,372.27
84562 03486 BLACK DIRT FOR PARKS 218.03
84563 04892 PROJ 09-13 CONSULTING FEES 700.00
84564 00242 LAW ENFORCEMENT TEST/SCORING 3,227.10
84565 03631 2011 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE 22,383.64
03631 2011 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE 22,383.64
84566 04572 REPAIR WORK ON SEALING MCC 3,396.00
84567 02596 REFUND ESCROW BALANCE PROJ 10-04 998.29
84568 00554 BIKE FOR PRIZE - GO EVENT 267.19
84569 04846 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 1,413.78
84570 00615 2010 AUDIT 28,321.25
84571 04098 REIMB FOR WATER FOR RESERVES 6/6 22.96
84572 00986 MONTHLY SAC - MAY 2,207.70
84573 04318 PROJ 08-10 CARSGROVE FINAL PMT 22,494.10
84574 00001 CHARITABLE GAMBLING-MW MALL 227.34
84575 00001 REFUND J ROY DAY CAMP 210.00
84576 00001 REFUND C EMANUEL BCBS BENEFIT 80.00
84577 00001 REFUND MOUNDS PARK ACADEMY- CPR 60.00
84578 00001 REFUND GEVING BCBS BENEFIT 60.00
84579 00001 REIMB J EWALD - FLOWERS AT PARK 59.90
84580 00001 REFUND S DICKHAUSEN BC BENEFIT 20.00
84581 01836 RADIO SHOP SERVICES -- MAY 503.75
84582 04207 POWER PRO AMBULANCE COTS 41,994.64
04207 STAIR PRO AMBULANCE COTS 2,415.57
84583 01574 PROJ 10-14 WESTERN HILLS PARTPMT#1 630,279.20
84584 01649 SOIL COMPACTOR WACKER BS-50 2,671.88
06/21/2011 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
06/21/2011 TRI-STATE BOBCAT, INC.
795,332.2531Checks in this report.
06/21/2011 CITY OF ST PAUL
06/21/2011 STRYKER SALES CORP.
06/21/2011 STRYKER SALES CORP.
06/21/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/21/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/21/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/21/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/21/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/21/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/21/2011 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
06/21/2011 MILLER EXCAVATING, INC.
06/21/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
06/21/2011 HEALTHEAST
06/21/2011 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH, LTD
06/21/2011 NICHOLAS KREKELER
06/21/2011 ETTEL & FRANZ
06/21/2011 FEED PRODUCTS & SERVICE CO
06/21/2011 GATEWAY CYCLE
06/21/2011 CWH RESEARCH, INC.
06/21/2011 ELK RIVER FORD
06/21/2011 ELK RIVER FORD
06/21/2011 XCEL ENERGY
06/21/2011 BUBERL BLACK DIRT INC
06/21/2011 C. M. HARRINGTON & ASSOCIATES
06/21/2011 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV
06/21/2011 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV
06/21/2011 S.E.H.
06/21/2011 SHANN FINWALL
06/21/2011 CASIE JACKSON
06/21/2011 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC
06/21/2011 BARR ENGINEERING CO
Check Register
City of Maplewood
06/17/2011
Date Vendor
Packet Page Number 21 of 290
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 6-10-11 and 6-17-11
Transmitted Settlement
Date Date Payee Description Amount
6/8/2011 6/13/2011 P.E.R.A.P.E.R.A.89,150.40
6/8/2011 6/13/2011 U.S. Treasurer Federal Payroll Tax 97,743.00
6/10/2011 6/13/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 12,942.75
6/8/2011 6/14/2011 Labor Unions Union Dues 1,843.00
6/8/2011 6/14/2011 MidAmerica - ING HRA Flex plan 13,285.04
6/8/2011 6/14/2011 MN State Treasurer State Payroll Tax 21,286.96
6/13/2011 6/14/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 27,346.66
6/14/2011 6/15/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 19,901.60
6/14/2011 6/15/2011 VANCO Billing fee 97.50
6/15/2011 6/16/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 14,772.32
6/8/2011 6/17/2011 Optum Health DCRP & Flex plan payments 5,394.81
6/16/2011 6/17/2011 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 1,374.00
6/16/2011 6/17/2011 MN Dept of Revenue Sales Tax 7,342.00
6/16/2011 6/17/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 15,121.42
TOTAL 327,601.46
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
Packet Page Number 22 of 290
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 6-10-11 and 6-17-11
CHECK #CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME
06/10/11 NEPHEW, JOHN 416.42
06/10/11 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 473.15
06/10/11 KOPPEN, MARVIN 416.42
06/10/11 LLANAS, JAMES 416.42
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
AMOUNT
06/10/11 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 416.42
06/10/11 KANTRUD, HUGH 184.62
06/10/11 CHRISTENSON, SCOTT 2,126.12
06/10/11 ANTONEN, JAMES 5,800.00
06/10/11 BURLINGAME, SARAH 1,954.40
06/10/11 STRAUTMANIS, MARIS 142.00
06/10/11 AHL, R. CHARLES 5,358.72
06/10/11 RAMEAUX, THERESE 3,416.86
06/10/11 BAUMAN, GAYLE 4,429.85
06/10/11 KARIS, DYLAN 761.75
06/10/11 HENNING, KARISSA 92.30
06/10/11 FARR, LARRY 2,885.65
06/10/11 JAHN, DAVID 1,885.11
06/10/11 KELSEY, CONNIE 2,569.23
06/10/11 RUEB, JOSEPH 2,493.80
06/10/11 DEBILZAN, JUDY 1,260.45
06/10/11 JACKSON, MARY 2,142.97
06/10/11 FORMANEK, KAREN 1,595.79
06/10/11 ANDERSON, CAROLE 1,497.48
06/10/11 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 2,719.20
06/10/11 SPANGLER, EDNA 838.03
06/10/11 KROLL, LISA 1,805.09
06/10/11 NEPHEW, MICHELLE 1,620.25
06/10/11 CAREY, HEIDI 2,005.19
06/10/11 GUILFOILE, KAREN 4,376.43
06/10/11 OSTER, ANDREA 1,886.77
06/10/11 RICHTER, CHARLENE 970.59
06/10/11 MECHELKE, SHERRIE 1,107.69
06/10/11 MOY, PAMELA 1,197.69
06/10/11 CORTESI, LUANNE 1,106.42
06/10/11 LARSON, MICHELLE 1,758.15
06/10/11 PALANK, MARY 1,886.77
06/10/11 POWELL, PHILIP 2,903.66
06/10/11 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,882.15
06/10/11 KVAM, DAVID 4,188.29
06/10/11 SCHOENECKER, LEIGH 1,207.39
06/10/11 WEAVER, KRISTINE 2,288.55
06/10/11 ALDRIDGE, MARK 3,776.78
06/10/11 BAKKE, LONN 4,521.17
06/10/11 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,882.16
06/10/11 ABEL, CLINT 3,001.43
06/10/11 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 2,081.79
06/10/11 THOMALLA, DAVID 4,936.26
06/10/11 BOHL, JOHN 3,141.42
06/10/11 BUSACK, DANIEL 4,757.97
06/10/11 BENJAMIN, MARKESE 2,712.40
06/10/11 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 3,542.14
06/10/11 BARTZ, PAUL 3,802.33
06/10/11 BELDE, STANLEY 3,135.93
06/10/11 COFFEY, KEVIN 3,489.70
Packet Page Number 23 of 290
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 6-10-11 and 6-17-11
06/10/11 DUGAS, MICHAEL 4,511.13
06/10/11 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 3,112.67
06/10/11 DEMULLING, JOSEPH 2,724.94
06/10/11 DOBLAR, RICHARD 4,002.65
06/10/11 CROTTY, KERRY 3,575.20
06/10/11 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 3,349.96
06/10/11 HAWKINSON JR, TIMOTHY 2,926.41
06/10/11 FRASER, JOHN 3,282.47
06/10/11 FRITZE, DEREK 3,004.55
06/10/11 FLOR, TIMOTHY 3,574.41
06/10/11 FORSYTHE, MARCUS 2,244.83
06/10/11 KONG, TOMMY 2,921.60
06/10/11 KREKELER, NICHOLAS 842.40
06/10/11 JOHNSON, KEVIN 4,606.00
06/10/11 KALKA, THOMAS 913.08
06/10/11 HER, PHENG 2,468.06
06/10/11 HIEBERT, STEVEN 3,390.38
06/10/11 LYNCH, KATHERINE 1,895.18
06/10/11 MARINO, JASON 3,013.55
06/10/11 LANGNER, TODD 2,785.00
06/10/11 LU, JOHNNIE 3,647.02
06/10/11 KROLL, BRETT 2,921.60
06/10/11 LANGNER, SCOTT 3,293.35
06/10/11 OLSON, JULIE 2,903.01
06/10/11 PARKER, JAMES 2,028.06
06/10/11 METRY, ALESIA 3,026.48
06/10/11 NYE, MICHAEL 3,125.35
06/10/11 MARTIN, JERROLD 3,001.43
06/10/11 MCCARTY, GLEN 3,377.72
06/10/11 SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM 2,785.00
06/10/11 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 3,135.93
06/10/11 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 4,060.51
06/10/11 STEINER, JOSEPH 2,862.04
06/10/11 REZNY, BRADLEY 3,194.87
06/10/11 RHUDE, MATTHEW 3,071.93
06/10/11 WENZEL, JAY 3,057.25
06/10/11 XIONG, KAO 2,882.45
06/10/11 THIENES, PAUL 4,503.79
06/10/11 TRAN, JOSEPH 2,511.99
06/10/11 TAUZELL, BRIAN 2,468.06
06/10/11 THEISEN, PAUL 3,389.30
06/10/11 BAUMAN, ANDREW 2,860.90
06/10/11 BOURQUIN, RON 448.00
06/10/11 BAHL, DAVID 336.00
06/10/11 BASSETT, BRENT 288.00
06/10/11 ACOSTA, MARK 204.00
06/10/11 ARKSEY, CHARLES 216.00
06/10/11 CRAWFORD, RAYMOND 483.00
06/10/11 DAWSON, RICHARD 2,924.74
06/10/11 CAPISTRANT, JACOB 582.00
06/10/11 CAPISTRANT, JOHN 618.00
06/10/11 BRADBURY, RYAN 222.00
06/10/11 BRESIN, ROBERT 60.00
06/10/11 HALE, JOSEPH 238.00
06/10/11 HALWEG, JODI 2,924.74
06/10/11 FASULO, WALTER 900.00
06/10/11 FOSSUM, ANDREW 3,112.67
06/10/11 DIERICH, REBECCA 78.00
06/10/11 EVERSON, PAUL 3,576.19
06/10/11 JONES, JONATHAN 348.00
06/10/11 HUTCHINSON, JAMES 364.00
06/10/11 JOHNSON, JAMES 815.50
06/10/11 HEFFERNAN, PATRICK 322.00
06/10/11 HENDRICKSON, NICHOLAS 2,705.58
Packet Page Number 24 of 290
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 6-10-11 and 6-17-11
06/10/11 KANE, ROBERT 378.00
06/10/11 LINDER, TIMOTHY 2,663.01
06/10/11 LOCHEN, MICHAEL 600.00
06/10/11 KONDER, RONALD 483.00
06/10/11 KUBAT, ERIC 2,439.15
06/10/11 KARRAS, JAMIE 525.00
06/10/11 KERSKA, JOSEPH 407.00
06/10/11 MORGAN, JEFFERY 390.00
06/10/11 NOVAK, JEROME 2,924.74
06/10/11 MONDOR, MICHAEL 3,089.18
06/10/11 MONSON, PETER 144.00
06/10/11 MELLEN, CHRISTOPHER 195.00
06/10/11 MILLER, NICHOLAS 312.00
06/10/11 PETERSON, MARK 455.00
06/10/11 PETERSON, ROBERT 3,092.09
06/10/11 OPHEIM, JOHN 518.00
06/10/11 PACHECO, ALPHONSE 270.00
06/10/11 NOWICKI, PAUL 48.00
06/10/11 OLSON, JAMES 3,112.67
06/10/11 REYNOSO, ANGEL 456.00
06/10/11 RICE, CHRISTOPHER 480.00
06/10/11 RAINEY, JAMES 465.00
06/10/11 RAVENWALD, CORINNE 66.00
06/10/11 PLACE, ANDREA 2,847.06
06/10/11 POWERS, KENNETH 300.00
06/10/11 SVENDSEN, RONALD 3,123.82
06/10/11 WHITE, JOEL 465.00
06/10/11 SEDLACEK, JEFFREY 2,924.74
06/10/11 STREFF, MICHAEL 3,112.67
06/10/11 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO 24.00
06/10/11 SCHULTZ, JEROME 192.00
06/10/11 NIVEN, AMY 1,411.62
06/10/11 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2,713.17
06/10/11 ZWIEG, SUSAN 2,234.17
06/10/11 KNUTSON, LOIS 1,996.55
06/10/11 GERVAIS-JR, CLARENCE 3,867.86
06/10/11 LUKIN, STEVEN 4,475.33
06/10/11 HAMRE, MILES 1,296.00
06/10/11 JONES, DONALD 3,070.99
06/10/11 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 2,125.35
06/10/11 EDGE, DOUGLAS 2,208.16
06/10/11 BRINK, TROY 2,288.55
06/10/11 BUCKLEY, BRENT 2,376.83
06/10/11 SETNES, SAMUEL 1,120.00
06/10/11 TEVLIN, TODD 2,125.35
06/10/11 OSWALD, ERICK 2,355.97
06/10/11 RUNNING, ROBERT 2,333.35
06/10/11 MEISSNER, BRENT 1,840.55
06/10/11 NAGEL, BRYAN 3,408.40
06/10/11 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 2,839.97
06/10/11 KREGER, JASON 2,870.80
06/10/11 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 2,459.76
06/10/11 JACOBSON, SCOTT 2,413.63
06/10/11 BURLINGAME, NATHAN 2,025.21
06/10/11 DUCHARME, JOHN 2,713.98
06/10/11 ZIEMAN, SCOTT 532.50
06/10/11 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 4,590.46
06/10/11 LOVE, STEVEN 3,281.19
06/10/11 THOMPSON, MICHAEL 4,228.24
06/10/11 KUMMER, STEVEN 3,200.71
06/10/11 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,713.97
06/10/11 HINNENKAMP, GARY 2,136.30
06/10/11 EDSON, DAVID 2,171.67
06/10/11 GUNDERSON, ANDREW 936.00
Packet Page Number 25 of 290
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 6-10-11 and 6-17-11
06/10/11 NAUGHTON, JOHN 2,125.35
06/10/11 NAUGHTON, TYLER 792.00
06/10/11 MARUSKA, MARK 3,183.11
06/10/11 GERNES, CAROLE 464.64
06/10/11 HAYMAN, JANET 1,268.31
06/10/11 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 1,702.51
06/10/11 DEAVER, CHARLES 602.23
06/10/11 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 2,127.66
06/10/11 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 2,129.97
06/10/11 OLSON, ERICA 1,181.75
06/10/11 SINDT, ANDREA 2,013.80
06/10/11 WACHAL, KAREN 833.89
06/10/11 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 3,211.95
06/10/11 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,622.80
06/10/11 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 401.64
06/10/11 BRASH, JASON 2,259.75
06/10/11 CARVER, NICHOLAS 3,211.95
06/10/11 FINWALL, SHANN 3,202.15
06/10/11 MARTIN, MICHAEL 2,606.15
06/10/11 THOMPSON, DEBRA 821.71
06/10/11 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 3,800.52
06/10/11 BERGER, STEPHANIE 323.00
06/10/11 JANASZAK, MEGHAN 655.75
06/10/11 WELLENS, MOLLY 1,726.01
06/10/11 ALLEN, KATELYN 70.00
06/10/11 FISHER, DAVID 3,778.99
06/10/11 SWAN, DAVID 2,738.95
06/10/11 TAYLOR, JAMES 2,466.23
06/10/11 THOMFORDE, FAITH 1,533.00
06/10/11 ROBBINS, CAMDEN 15.50
06/10/11 SCHALLER, SCOTT 220.38
06/10/11 KOHLMAN, JENNIFER 175.75
06/10/11 ROBBINS, AUDRA 2,847.74
06/10/11 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 2,914.49
06/10/11 ANZALDI, MANDY 1,262.24
06/10/11 HAAG, MARK 2,288.56
06/10/11 KLOOZ, AUSTIN 920.00
06/10/11 ADAMS, DAVID 1,946.04
06/10/11 GERMAIN, DAVID 2,134.59
06/10/11 HANSEN, LORI 3,057.86
06/10/11 HER, PETER 509.45
06/10/11 EVANS, CHRISTINE 1,365.20
06/10/11 GLASS, JEAN 2,103.67
06/10/11 BRENEMAN, NEIL 1,527.70
06/10/11 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 450.49
06/10/11 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 582.52
06/10/11 PENN, CHRISTINE 2,199.26
06/10/11 KULHANEK-DIONNE, ANN 451.26
06/10/11 OLSON, SANDRA 28.00
06/10/11 HOFMEISTER, MARY 940.06
06/10/11 HOFMEISTER, TIMOTHY 448.38
06/10/11 ZIELINSKI, JUDY 127.05
06/10/11 ANDERSON, ALYSSA 9.69
06/10/11 VANG, KAY 257.63
06/10/11 VUE, LOR PAO 235.88
06/10/11 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 658.41
06/10/11 STARK, SUE 164.19
06/10/11 BEITLER, JULIE 55.65
06/10/11 BRENEMAN, SEAN 133.55
06/10/11 ANDERSON, MAXWELL 323.60
06/10/11 BAUDE, SARAH 36.50
06/10/11 ANDERSON, JOSHUA 122.10
06/10/11 ANDERSON, JUSTIN 233.20
06/10/11 BRUSOE, AMY 136.38
Packet Page Number 26 of 290
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 6-10-11 and 6-17-11
06/10/11 CAMPBELL, JESSICA 1,508.76
06/10/11 CRANDALL, KRISTA 100.21
06/10/11 BUCKLEY, BRITTANY 227.05
06/10/11 BUTLER, ANGELA 34.00
06/10/11 BRUSOE, CRISTINA 80.43
06/10/11 FLACKEY, MAUREEN 46.50
06/10/11 FONTAINE, KIM 430.00
06/10/11 EKSTRAND, DANIEL 119.36
06/10/11 ERICKSON-CLARK, CAROL 49.00
06/10/11 DEMPSEY, BETH 176.75
06/10/11 DUNN, RYAN 1,120.75
06/10/11 HEINRICH, SHEILA 509.50
06/10/11 HOLMBERG, LADONNA 596.50
06/10/11 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 432.80
06/10/11 HAGSTROM, EMILY 65.33
06/10/11 GIPPLE, TRISHA 132.31
06/10/11 GRAY, MEGAN 89.52
06/10/11 KOHLER, ROCHELLE 36.00
06/10/11 KOLLER, NINA 250.06
06/10/11 JOHNSON, JAMES 8.00
06/10/11 JOYER, JENNA 166.05
06/10/11 HORWATH, RONALD 2,589.01
06/10/11 JOHNSON, BARBARA 137.08
06/10/11 MCCORMACK, MELISSA 33.08
06/10/11 METCALF, JOLENE 26.00
06/10/11 LAMSON, ELIANA 18.00
06/10/11 MCCANN, NATALIE 57.00
06/10/11 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 792.45
06/10/11 LAMEYER, ZACHARY 8.05
06/10/11 RICHTER, DANIEL 56.70
06/10/11 RONNING, ISAIAH 66.20
06/10/11 PROESCH, ANDY 708.24
06/10/11 RENFORD, NICHOLAS 36.25
06/10/11 NADEAU, KELLY 126.02
06/10/11 PEHOSKI, JOEL 39.00
06/10/11 SCHUNEMAN, GREGORY 127.06
06/10/11 SJERVEN, BRENDA 54.00
06/10/11 SCHREINER, MARK 37.20
06/10/11 SCHREINER, MICHELLE 67.60
06/10/11 RONNING, ZACCEUS 45.63
06/10/11 SCHREIER, ROSEMARIE 92.50
06/10/11 TREPANIER, TODD 432.00
06/10/11 TRUE, ANDREW 184.70
06/10/11 SMITLEY, SHARON 233.10
06/10/11 TAYLOR, JASON 88.06
06/10/11 SKUNES, KELLY 72.15
06/10/11 SMITH, ANN 101.50
06/10/11 WEEVER, NAOMI 87.00
06/10/11 WILLIAMS, KRISTINE 101.63
06/10/11 WARNER, CAROLYN 316.80
06/10/11 WEDES, CARYL 74.25
06/10/11 TUPY, HEIDE 91.60
06/10/11 TUPY, MARCUS 213.75
06/10/11 LANGER, KAYLYN 38.00
06/10/11 ZAGER, LINNEA 262.00
06/10/11 DANIEL, BREANNA 234.38
06/10/11 HITE, ANDREA 99.00
06/10/11 WOLFGRAM, TERESA 127.00
06/10/11 BOSLEY, CAROL 178.20
06/10/11 JOHNSON, JUSTIN 108.75
06/10/11 DOUGLASS, TOM 1,320.90
06/10/11 FULFORD, ZAHKIYA 101.50
06/10/11 BEHAN, JAMES 1,918.06
06/10/11 COLEMAN, PATRICK 120.00
Packet Page Number 27 of 290
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 6-10-11 and 6-17-11
9984331
9984332
9984333
9984334
9984335
9984336
9984337
9984338
9984339
9984340
9984341
9984342
9984343
9984344
9984345
9984346
9984347
9984348
06/10/11 LONETTI, JAMES 420.00
06/10/11 THOMPSON, BENJAMIN 261.00
06/10/11 VANG, PETER 166.75
06/10/11 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,915.75
06/10/11 SCHULZE, KEVIN 798.00
06/10/11 MALONEY, SHAUNA 198.75
06/10/11 PRINS, KELLY 1,255.63
06/10/11 BERGO, CHAD 2,651.63
06/10/11 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 3,669.86
06/10/11 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,390.15
06/10/11 WOEHRLE, MATTHEW 2,178.95
06/10/11 XIONG, NAO 215.69
06/10/11 AICHELE, CRAIG 2,196.23
06/10/11 HELMER, JACOB 720.00
06/10/11 BETHEL III, CHARLES 31.88
06/10/11 HERLUND, RICK 300.00
06/10/11 MELLEN, RICHARD 189.00
06/10/11 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 2,509.90
06/10/11 HILL, ANTHONY 57.50
06/10/11 FLUEGEL, LARISSA 159.89
06/10/11 MCLAURIN, CHRISTOPHER 295.60
06/10/11 VUKICH, CANDACE 16.31
06/10/11 DIONNE, DANIELLE 13.95
06/10/11 FISCHBACH, ALYSSA 101.50
06/10/11 MUELLNER, CHADD 202.50
06/10/11 STEFFEN, MICHAEL 65.25
517,429.71
06/10/11 WEINHAGEN, SHELBY 244.81
06/10/11 PENN, CAYLA 94.50
06/10/11 ROSTRON, ROBERT 362.85
06/10/11 SCHMIDT, EMILY 6.38
06/10/11 MCMAHON, MICHAEL 22.05
06/10/11 NORTHOUSE, KATHERINE 29.06
Packet Page Number 28 of 290
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 6-10-11 and 6-17-11
Transaction Date Posting Date Merchant Name Transaction Amount Name
05/20/2011 05/23/2011 CUB FOODS, INC.$20.48 MANDY ANZALDI
05/20/2011 05/23/2011 JOES SPORTING GOODS $107.11 PAUL BARTZ
05/20/2011 05/23/2011 DAVIS LOCK & SAFE $53.44 JIM BEHAN
05/21/2011 05/23/2011 CONTINENTAL RESEARCH $1,773.41 JIM BEHAN
05/24/2011 05/25/2011 TRI DIM FILTER CORP $629.00 JIM BEHAN
06/01/2011 06/03/2011 METROPOLITAN MECHANICAL C $442.50 JIM BEHAN
06/02/2011 06/03/2011 STATE SUPPLY ($975.89)JIM BEHAN
06/02/2011 06/03/2011 UPS*0000939F9404232011 $86.25 JIM BEHAN
05/19/2011 05/23/2011 COPS PLUS, INC $125.89 BRIAN BIERDEMAN
05/21/2011 05/23/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 ($7.47)OAKLEY BIESANZ
06/01/2011 06/02/2011 USPS 26833800033400730 $12.89 OAKLEY BIESANZ
05/24/2011 05/25/2011 J&R SOUND/MAILORDER $39.22 NEIL BRENEMAN
05/26/2011 05/27/2011 HELMETS R US $88.40 NEIL BRENEMAN
06/02/2011 06/03/2011 MENARDS 3059 $8.53 TROY BRINK
05/23/2011 05/25/2011 TGI FRIDAY'S #0472 $112.22 SARAH BURLINGAME
05/31/2011 06/01/2011 USPS 26834500133401316 $42.05 SARAH BURLINGAME
06/01/2011 06/02/2011 GE CAPITAL $43.92 SARAH BURLINGAME
06/02/2011 06/02/2011 WEDDINGPAGES INC $128.00 HEIDI CAREY
05/26/2011 05/30/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $27.27 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
05/26/2011 05/30/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $36.17 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
05/31/2011 06/01/2011 VIKING ELEC-CREDIT DEPT.$217.58 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
06/01/2011 06/03/2011 SPORTS AUTHORI00007112 $50.00 KEVIN COFFEY
05/21/2011 05/23/2011 MENARDS 3022 $3.50 CHARLES DEAVER
05/26/2011 05/30/2011 RYCO SUPPLY COMPANY $284.13 CHARLES DEAVER
05/26/2011 05/30/2011 RYCO SUPPLY COMPANY $68.85 CHARLES DEAVER
06/01/2011 06/02/2011 MENARDS 3022 $5.87 CHARLES DEAVER
06/01/2011 06/03/2011 RYCO SUPPLY COMPANY $28.33 CHARLES DEAVER
05/21/2011 05/23/2011 SAFELITE AUTOGLASS $217.90 RICHARD DOBLAR
05/25/2011 05/26/2011 UNITED RENTALS $74.97 DOUG EDGE
06/01/2011 06/02/2011 MENARDS 3059 $31.82 DOUG EDGE
06/02/2011 06/03/2011 BROCK WHITE ST PAUL 180 $111.82 DOUG EDGE
05/20/2011 05/23/2011 MENARDS 3059 $70.15 DAVE EDSON
05/24/2011 05/25/2011 OVERHEAD DOOR COMP $532.58 LARRY FARR
05/24/2011 05/26/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 ($7.33)LARRY FARR
05/24/2011 05/26/2011 ST PAUL LINOLEUM & CARPET $495.00 LARRY FARR
05/24/2011 05/26/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $99.57 LARRY FARR
05/24/2011 05/26/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $74.96 LARRY FARR
05/30/2011 05/31/2011 MENARDS 3022 $170.78 LARRY FARR
05/20/2011 05/23/2011 TARGET 00021352 $22.32 SHANN FINWALL
05/20/2011 05/23/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $54.23 KAREN FORMANEK
05/21/2011 05/23/2011 CURTIS 1000 INC.$50.37 KAREN FORMANEK
06/02/2011 06/03/2011 CURTIS 1000 INC.$49.86 KAREN FORMANEK
05/22/2011 05/23/2011 COMCAST CABLE COMM $54.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS
05/24/2011 05/25/2011 QWESTCOMM*TN651 $75.95 MYCHAL FOWLDS
05/26/2011 05/30/2011 CUSTOMER SUPT CENTER $898.82 MYCHAL FOWLDS
05/27/2011 05/30/2011 TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTION $478.17 MYCHAL FOWLDS
05/27/2011 05/30/2011 TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTION $922.46 MYCHAL FOWLDS
05/27/2011 05/30/2011 TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTION $637.35 MYCHAL FOWLDS
05/24/2011 05/25/2011 CDW GOVERNMENT $69.82 NICK FRANZEN
05/25/2011 05/26/2011 SYX*TIGERDIRECT.COM $26.97 NICK FRANZEN
05/25/2011 05/26/2011 IDU*PUBLIC SECTOR $13.20 NICK FRANZEN
06/02/2011 06/03/2011 BESTBUY.COM 00009944 $192.80 NICK FRANZEN
05/19/2011 05/23/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $15.91 MILES HAMRE
05/19/2011 05/23/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $51.90 MILES HAMRE
05/25/2011 05/27/2011 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS $119.97 MILES HAMRE
05/26/2011 05/30/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $8.55 MILES HAMRE
05/26/2011 05/30/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $36.87 PHENG HER
05/21/2011 05/23/2011 JOANN ETC #1970 $95.69 RON HORWATH
05/21/2011 05/23/2011 MICHAELS #2744 $83.51 RON HORWATH
05/26/2011 05/27/2011 INSTANTWHIP FOODS, INC $501.99 RON HORWATH
Packet Page Number 29 of 290
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 6-10-11 and 6-17-11
05/26/2011 05/30/2011 AMERICAN RED CROSS TWIN C $102.00 RON HORWATH
05/31/2011 06/01/2011 ARAMARK MINNEAPOLIS OCS $1,009.43 RON HORWATH
05/31/2011 06/02/2011 JOANN ETC #1970 ($21.83)RON HORWATH
06/02/2011 06/02/2011 CONNEY SAFETY $239.92 RON HORWATH
05/19/2011 05/23/2011 METRO SALES INC $199.30 ANN E HUTCHINSON
05/20/2011 05/23/2011 TARGET 00011858 $33.14 DAVID JAHN
05/20/2011 05/23/2011 BLUE RIBBON BAIT & TACKLE $101.77 KEVIN JOHNSON
06/02/2011 06/03/2011 CUB FOODS, INC.$108.34 KEVIN JOHNSON
05/26/2011 05/30/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $17.63 TOMMY KONG
05/19/2011 05/23/2011 PAPER PLUS-ROS00108803 $863.83 LISA KROLL
05/19/2011 05/23/2011 PAPER PLUS-ROS00108803 $421.13 LISA KROLL
05/19/2011 05/23/2011 PAPER PLUS-ROS00108803 $200.54 LISA KROLL
05/20/2011 05/24/2011 HEALTHEAST TRANSPORTATN $1,584.14 DAVID KVAM
05/21/2011 05/23/2011 COMCAST CABLE COMM $59.95 DAVID KVAM
05/27/2011 05/30/2011 MAACO COLLISION REPAIR $907.17 DAVID KVAM
05/27/2011 05/30/2011 THE GRAFIX SHOPPE $289.63 DAVID KVAM
06/01/2011 06/02/2011 DON'S PAINT & COLLISION $910.27 DAVID KVAM
05/22/2011 05/23/2011 ATTM*878423931 NBI $115.84 STEVE LUKIN
05/22/2011 05/23/2011 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT $727.02 STEVE LUKIN
05/23/2011 05/24/2011 AMERICAN FLAGPOLE & FLAG $562.38 STEVE LUKIN
05/24/2011 05/26/2011 METRO SALES INC $289.18 STEVE LUKIN
05/24/2011 05/26/2011 NEEDELS SUPPLY INC.$38.91 STEVE LUKIN
05/26/2011 05/27/2011 METRO FIRE $892.33 STEVE LUKIN
05/26/2011 05/27/2011 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE $280.00 STEVE LUKIN
05/27/2011 05/30/2011 METRO FIRE $702.54 STEVE LUKIN
05/28/2011 05/30/2011 JAKE'S CITY GRILLE - M $64.40 STEVE LUKIN
05/30/2011 05/31/2011 WAL-MART $86.58 STEVE LUKIN
05/31/2011 06/01/2011 ADVANCED GRAPHIX INC $51.04 STEVE LUKIN
05/31/2011 06/02/2011 ASPEN MILLS INC.$34.50 STEVE LUKIN
05/31/2011 06/02/2011 ASPEN MILLS INC.$114.95 STEVE LUKIN
05/20/2011 05/23/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $82.70 MARK MARUSKA
05/25/2011 05/26/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $71.68 MARK MARUSKA
05/25/2011 05/26/2011 LTG POWER EQUIPMENT $65.39 MARK MARUSKA
05/26/2011 05/27/2011 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES530 $23.57 MARK MARUSKA
05/27/2011 05/30/2011 TESSMAN COMPANY SAINT PAU $165.66 MARK MARUSKA
05/27/2011 05/30/2011 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIP-MN $21.40 MARK MARUSKA
06/01/2011 06/02/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $182.07 MARK MARUSKA
05/20/2011 05/23/2011 OFFICE MAX $10.90 MICHAEL MONDOR
05/23/2011 05/24/2011 BECKER FIRE AND SAFETY SV $67.90 MICHAEL MONDOR
05/24/2011 05/25/2011 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $1,118.00 MICHAEL MONDOR
05/24/2011 05/25/2011 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $234.30 MICHAEL MONDOR
05/24/2011 05/25/2011 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $92.68 MICHAEL MONDOR
05/27/2011 05/30/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $6.30 MICHAEL MONDOR
05/27/2011 05/30/2011 MENARDS 3059 $10.38 MICHAEL MONDOR
06/01/2011 06/03/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $13.72 MICHAEL MONDOR
05/23/2011 05/24/2011 PAKOR INC $20.80 SHELLY NEPHEW
05/19/2011 05/23/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $110.20 AMY NIVEN
05/21/2011 05/23/2011 TARGET 00011858 $33.18 CHRISTINE PENN
05/25/2011 05/26/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $7.48 ROBERT PETERSON
05/25/2011 05/27/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $51.24 ROBERT PETERSON
05/24/2011 05/25/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $5.12 PHILIP F POWELL
05/20/2011 05/23/2011 VALLEY LETTERING $182.11 WILLIAM J PRIEFER
05/20/2011 05/23/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $6.93 STEVEN PRIEM
05/23/2011 05/24/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $14.10 STEVEN PRIEM
05/24/2011 05/25/2011 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $168.14 STEVEN PRIEM
05/24/2011 05/26/2011 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS $238.97 STEVEN PRIEM
05/25/2011 05/26/2011 TRI-STATE BOBCAT INC.$103.71 STEVEN PRIEM
05/25/2011 05/26/2011 FACTORY MTR PTS #1 $78.77 STEVEN PRIEM
05/25/2011 05/26/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $52.17 STEVEN PRIEM
05/25/2011 05/26/2011 SAFELITE AUTOGLASS $220.89 STEVEN PRIEM
05/25/2011 05/26/2011 BAUER BUILT TIRE 18 $355.97 STEVEN PRIEM
Packet Page Number 30 of 290
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 6-10-11 and 6-17-11
05/25/2011 05/26/2011 MTI $222.37 STEVEN PRIEM
05/25/2011 05/27/2011 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $261.13 STEVEN PRIEM
05/26/2011 05/27/2011 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $497.68 STEVEN PRIEM
05/26/2011 05/27/2011 POLAR CHEVROLET MAZDA PAR $119.03 STEVEN PRIEM
05/26/2011 05/30/2011 POMPS TIRE SERVICE, INC $170.33 STEVEN PRIEM
05/27/2011 05/30/2011 POMPS TIRE SERVICE, INC ($170.33)STEVEN PRIEM
05/27/2011 05/30/2011 MTI $50.92 STEVEN PRIEM
05/31/2011 06/01/2011 BAUER BUILT TIRE 18 $515.81 STEVEN PRIEM
05/31/2011 06/02/2011 WHEELCO BRAKE &SUPPLY $20.18 STEVEN PRIEM
06/01/2011 06/02/2011 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $168.14 STEVEN PRIEM
06/01/2011 06/02/2011 BAUER BUILT TIRE 18 $443.30 STEVEN PRIEM
06/01/2011 06/03/2011 TWIN CITIES TRANSPORT & R ($142.82)STEVEN PRIEM
06/01/2011 06/03/2011 DAVIS EQUIPMENT $598.71 STEVEN PRIEM
06/01/2011 06/03/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $31.46 STEVEN PRIEM
06/01/2011 06/03/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $13.09 STEVEN PRIEM
06/01/2011 06/03/2011 TWIN CITIES TRANSPORT & R $133.91 STEVEN PRIEM
06/01/2011 06/03/2011 TWIN CITIES TRANSPORT & R $142.82 STEVEN PRIEM
06/02/2011 06/03/2011 BAUER BUILT TIRE 18 $759.52 STEVEN PRIEM
05/20/2011 05/23/2011 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC $1,403.53 MICHAEL REILLY
05/25/2011 05/26/2011 HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS $966.95 MICHAEL REILLY
05/20/2011 05/23/2011 STAYWELL - KRAMES $399.13 AUDRA ROBBINS
05/24/2011 05/26/2011 USA MOBILITY WIRELE $16.07 SCOTT SCHULTZ
05/28/2011 05/30/2011 SERVERSUPPLY.COM INC $64.39 MICHAEL SHORTREED
05/19/2011 05/23/2011 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS $51.33 CHRISTINE SOUTTER
05/31/2011 06/02/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $111.45 JOSEPH STEINER
05/31/2011 06/02/2011 FAMOUS FOOTWEAR #141780 $134.98 JOSEPH STEINER
05/24/2011 05/26/2011 LOFFLER COMPANIES $155.00 JOANNE M SVENDSEN
05/31/2011 06/01/2011 CENTURY COLLEGE-CE $158.00 JOANNE M SVENDSEN
05/31/2011 06/01/2011 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS 230 $143.35 TODD TEVLIN
05/24/2011 05/31/2011 AMERICAN EAGLE SCREEN PRI $37.00 PAUL THEISEN
05/30/2011 05/31/2011 STREICHERS INC $153.16 PAUL THIENES
05/19/2011 05/23/2011 OFFICE MAX $142.86 FAITH THOMFORDE
05/19/2011 05/23/2011 TOMS TAILORS $9.64 JAY WENZEL
05/23/2011 05/25/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $263.53 SUSAN ZWIEG
05/24/2011 05/26/2011 VEIT DISPOSAL - ROGERS $333.00 SUSAN ZWIEG
05/24/2011 05/26/2011 VEIT DISPOSAL - ROGERS $333.00 SUSAN ZWIEG
05/26/2011 05/27/2011 GREEN STUFF LAWN TREATMEN $93.20 SUSAN ZWIEG
TOTAL $33,391.86
Packet Page Number 31 of 290
Agenda Item G2
AGENDA REPORT
TO:Jim Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Ron Horwath, Aquatic Program Manager
DuWayne Konewko, Parks and Recreation Director
DATE:June 21, 2011
SUBJECT: Consider Approval to Seek Bids (RFP) for MCC Aquatic Center Wall
Murals
INTRODUCTION
During the May 9th Council meeting, Council approved $75,000 from the proposed 2012
CIP Budget for MCC Aquatic Center under water themed wall murals.
The walls will be water colored from floor to ceiling throughout the entire Aquatic Center
with paint that will fade from dark to light. In addition, muralists will be creating realistic
scenes of coral and sea life from tropical areas and deep sea.
Contractor bids must include detail about the methods they propose to use to prepare
the walls for proper paint adhesion, the products that will be used on the walls and their
guarantees, and provide line art that accurately depicts the artwork they have designed
for use in the Aquatic Center.
Staff will be selecting the contractor based on the quality of the line art and overall
amount of art that will cover the walls and the perceived overall impact that each
contractor’s proposal will make on the Aquatic Center in addition to the durability of the
product placed on the walls
The timing of this project is critical. There are a number of projects that will be
completed during this year’s maintenance and improvement Aquatic Center closure
including the installation of the Themed Submarine Station and Diamond Brite surface
overlay in the Leisure Pool. Staff is attempting to avoid future lengthy closures of the
Aquatic Center by completing the wall murals during this closure in 2011.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Council approve the request to seek bids for the MCC Aquatic
Center wall murals.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Advertisement for Sealed Bids (RFP)
2.Preliminary Wall Artwork Pictures
Packet Page Number 32 of 290
2
Attachment 1
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
Notice is hereby given that sealed proposals will be received by the City of Maplewood,
Minnesota, at the city hall council chambers located at 1830 County Rd B East,
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109, until 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 and will be
publicly opened at said time and place by two or more designated officers or agents of
the City of Maplewood. Said proposals will be for the furnishing of all labor and
materials for the detailed planning, preparation and painting of underwater themed wall
murals.
The bids must be submitted in accordance with the Contract Documents and
Specifications provided by the City of Maplewood and the R.F.P. prepared by Ron
Horwath dated 6/22/11.
Copies of the Specifications for use by the contractors may be obtained from the
Maplewood Community Center, 2100 White Bear Ave., Maplewood, Minnesota 55109.
This project will include the following major work items: creation and submission of
mural line art, preparation and painting of Aquatic Center walls and related structure,
and painting of underwater themed artwork.
No bids will be accepted unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk of the City of
Maplewood and accompanied by a cash deposit, certified check, bid bond or cashier’s
check payable to the City of Maplewood in the amount of five percent (5%) of the
amount of the bid, to be forfeited as liquidated damages in the event the bid is accepted
and the bidder shall fail to promptly enter into a written contract and furnish the required
bond.
The City of Maplewood reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive informalities,
and to award the bid in the best interest of the City. No bids may be withdrawn for a
period of thirty days.
Note: A pre-bid conference will be held at the site on Tuesday, July 12th at 1:30pm. We
will meet at the Maplewood Community Center Aquatic Center (lower level), 2100 White
Bear Ave, Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
City of Maplewood
Publish: June 29 and July 6, 2011
Packet Page Number 33 of 290
Packet Page Number 34 of 290
Packet Page Number 35 of 290
Agenda Item G3
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Jim Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Ron Horwath, Aquatic Program Manager
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
DATE: June 21, 2011
SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Fabrication and Installation of MCC Leisure Pool
Submarine Station
INTRODUCTION
At the May 9th City Council meeting, Council approved $150,000 one-time 2011 monies for
improvements at the Maplewood Community Center. Thirty-nine thousand of this one time
allocation has been designated for use to replace the spraying water toys in the leisure
pool with a new water feature - Submarine Station.
Staff published a request for quotes for the Submarine Station and two contractors
submitted quotes. ThemeScapes Inc. submitted a quote of $39,000 and Tivolitoo
submitted a quote of $74,000 - $78,000 depending on the type of finished surface
requested. ThemeScapes and Tivolitoo are both highly qualified and recommended local
companies that are known nationally and internationally for theming work. The main
differences between the quotes are the materials used for construction and detail.
ThemeScapes products are made with glass reinforced concrete while Tivolitoo products
are made with Urethane and fiberglass. The Tivolitoo products have a more “high end” feel
and are capable of being produced with more “3D” surface detail and vibrant colors. The
Tivolitoo products may be aesthetically more appealing, however, in terms of practicality
and function The ThemeScapes products are on an equal level. Staff believes the
ThemeScapes products are more durable while maintaining our desire for “wow factor”.
The quotes are attached for Council review.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Council award the attached agreement with ThemeScapes, Inc. in
an amount not to exceed $39,000 for fabrication and installation of the MCC Leisure Pool
Submarine Station.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. ThemeScapes Inc. Quote
2. Tivolitoo Inc. Quote
3. Submarine Station Engineering
4. ThemeScapes Contract
Packet Page Number 36 of 290
Packet Page Number 38 of 290
Packet Page Number 39 of 290
Packet Page Number 40 of 290
Packet Page Number 41 of 290
ThemeScapes, Inc.
Maplewood Aquatic Center Theming Proposal 4-1-11
1. Zero Depth Pool Sub Station……………………………………………………………………………………………………….$39,000
• 1 Kidde Slide coming out of back of sub constructed of plastic
• Interactive sprayers controlled by floor geysers
• Push button control panel in cockpit that activates spray guns on roof
• All sprayers controlled by pressure activation
• Interactive periscope
• Sub to be retrofitted to work with existing plumbing conditions
• All work built complete in ThemeScapes facility ahead of shutdown
• Sub Station built with GFRC Concrete and plastic
• no metal or products that promote mold or decay
Notes:
• All work to be reviewed by state and city inspectors, any plan submittal fees for review will be responsible by the
owner (City)
• All work described above would be jointly built in ThemeScapes facility and will require a shut down for some the
components for a maximum of 2-3 weeks, fabrication includes approximately 3 months to be safe
• Samples and approved shop drawings will require the owners written approval prior to build
• ThemeScapes to provide a detailed construction schedule from shop drawing to finish date once contract is signed
• Any changes to the contract would need owners written approval after price has been agreed to
• Demo and plumbing underground to be done by others
Terms:
• 50 % down deposit upon signed contract for construction portion, monthly progress payments to be paid and the rest
paid within 30 days of completion of work.
• Interest will be charged on past due balances at a rate of 1% per month prorated daily.
• Collection expenses on any unpaid balances will be the responsibility of the buyer including any related attorney
collection fees.
•
Themescapes, Inc. Accepted By
Printed Name: Ole Nasvik Printed Name:
Title: President Title:
Date Signed: Date Signed:
Packet Page Number 42 of 290
Packet Page Number 43 of 290
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director / Assistant City Manager
Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Deputy Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Water System Evaluation, City Project 10-09, Approval of Final Report and
Authorization to Proceed with Current Operating Agreement
DATE: June 22, 2011
INTRODUCTION
On April 12, 2010, the council authorized the preparation of a water system evaluation report. The
purpose of this report was twofold; to evaluate the city’s current water surcharge rates, and determine
whether improvements should be made in the way the city provides water service to its residents. City
staff and the consultant team provided the council with an update on the report at the May 9, 2011 work
session. A draft report was provided to the council and a presentation was given detailing the findings
of the study. Based on discussion at the May 9, 2011 work session, no changes have been made to
the final report. A copy of the final report is attached.
BACKGROUND
St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) currently provides water service to a majority of the
residents and commercial properties within Maplewood. North St. Paul provides water service to
residents in the northeast corner of the city, and Roseville, Little Canada, and Woodbury also provide
water service in properties located along city borders.
Maplewood transferred ownership of its water system assets to SPRWS in 1997. As a part of this
change, SPRWS assumed ownership and maintenance of the existing water system and Maplewood
eliminated the need for utility billing since SPRWS took responsibility for both water and sanitary sewer
charges for the community.
As a result of some of the inherent challenges associated with an outside agency owned water system,
staff has questioned whether SPRWS ownership and maintenance of the water system is still in the
best interests of Maplewood and its residents. The water system evaluation study has evaluated both
the engineering and financial aspects of how the water system is currently operated and provides
information to assist the city in evaluating possible changes in the way that water service is provided to
the community.
Maplewood currently collects a water surcharge fee from all residential and commercial water accounts
serviced by SPRWS and the City of North St. Paul. The consultants previously completed an analysis
of the water surcharge fees and this information was provided to the council at a work session on July
26, 2010. In response to this information, the SPRWS surcharge fee was increased from 2% to 4% for
2011. No changes have been made to the North St. Paul surcharge rate.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the council accept the final water system evaluation report. Based on the
analysis completed as a part of the report, Maplewood will continue to rely upon SPRWS to provide for
the water service needs of a majority of its residents; however, staff will work with SPRWS to address
Agenda Item G4
Packet Page Number 44 of 290
some of the issues and concerns identified in the report. Staff will also continue to evaluate the
SPRWS and North St. Paul surcharge rates on an annual basis.
Attachments:
1. Final Water System Evaluation Report
(The complete document including all attachments was provided to all council members and can also be viewed at the City Council
meeting.)
Agenda Item G4
Packet Page Number 45 of 290
Agenda Item G4
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 46 of 290
Agenda Item G4
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 47 of 290
Agenda Item G4
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 48 of 290
1
1.INTRODUCTION
On April 12, 2010, the Maplewood City Council authorized the preparation of a water
system evaluation report. The purpose of this report is twofold; to evaluate the city’s
current water surcharge rates, and determine whether changes should be made in the way
that the city provides water service to its residents.
St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) currently provides water service to a majority
of the residents and commercial properties within the city. North St. Paul provides water
service to residents in the northeast corner of the city, and Roseville, Little Canada, and
Woodbury also provide water service to properties located along border streets.
Maplewood transferred ownership of its water system assets to SPRWS in 1997. As a
part of this change, SPRWS assumed ownership and maintenance of the existing water
system and Maplewood eliminated the need for utility billing since SPRWS took
responsibility for both water and sanitary sewer charges for the community.
The city is questioning whether SPRWS ownership and maintenance of the water system
is still in the best interests of Maplewood and its residents. This study evaluates both the
engineering and financial aspects of how the water system is operated and provides
recommendations to assist the city in evaluating possible changes in the way that water
service is provided to the community.
Maplewood currently collects a water surcharge fee from all residential and commercial
water accounts serviced by SPRWS and the City of North St. Paul. This study includes
an evaluation of the city’s current surcharge fees and provides recommendations for
future changes in the surcharge rates.
This report assumes that no changes would be considered for the Maplewood businesses
and residents that are currently served by North St. Paul, Little Canada, Woodbury, and
Roseville. The overall number of properties served by these neighboring communities is
minimal and costs to convert them to the Maplewood system would be prohibitive.
2.EXISTING SYSTEM INVENTORY
The majority of the city’s water system is currently owned and maintained by SPRWS.
The cities of North St. Paul, Woodbury, Little Canada, and Roseville provide water to a
limited number of accounts. The following is a summary of the number of accounts
served by each water service provider:
SPRWS 9,663 Accounts
North St. Paul 794 Accounts
Little Canada 66 Accounts
Woodbury 27 Accounts
Roseville 5 Accounts
Agenda Item G4
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 49 of 290
2
The existing SPRWS water system within Maplewood consists of cast iron, ductile iron,
and PVC water main. An approximate summary of the existing SPRWS water main
infrastructure in the city is provided below.
Water Main Type Total Length
Ductile Iron 500,000 Feet
Cast Iron 350,000 Feet
PVC 15,000 Feet
Total 865,000 Feet
The SPRWS system includes three booster stations to provide adequate water pressure to
certain areas of Maplewood. These booster stations are located on Beebe Road, Mailand
Road, and Roselawn Avenue. All three of these booster stations were constructed in the
1970’s as detailed below.
Booster Station Constructed
Beebe Road 1973
Mailand Road 1978
Roselawn Avenue 1978
SPRWS also has three water storage facilities in Maplewood as follows:
Storage Facility Capacity Constructed
Cope Avenue 1.5 million gallon 1978
Ferndale Street 1.0 million gallon 1987
Sterling Street 0.5 million gallon 1988
These water storage facilities require some periodic maintenance including a complete
painting approximately every 15 years.
A map of the existing SPRWS Maplewood water system is provided as Exhibit 1 in
Appendix A.
Exhibit 2 in Appendix A illustrates water main age and details the locations of historic
water main breaks within the system.
3.CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The condition of the existing SPRWS water system infrastructure has been evaluated and
a 5-year capital improvement plan (CIP) has been developed to identify future water
system improvement needs in Maplewood. The CIP has been prepared based on the
following:
x An understanding of Maplewood’s proposed street reconstruction program over
the next 5 years
Agenda Item G4
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 50 of 290
3
x A review of the existing water mains within the proposed street reconstruction
areas to determine the need for water main replacement
x We have assumed that any cast iron water main would be replaced at the time the
streets are reconstructed to avoid future water main breaks within new street
pavements
x We have assumed that all new water main would be upgraded to a minimum 8-
inch diameter
Current SPRWS policy does not provide funding for water main replacement work unless
certain criteria are met regarding frequency of water main breaks. We have reviewed the
number of water main breaks within the proposed street reconstruction areas to determine
when the break criteria are met and when SPRWS would provide funding for the water
main replacement. The SPRWS break criteria are not met for a majority of the proposed
water main replacement work requiring Maplewood to provide an alternative funding
source.
Assuming that the city implements all of the street reconstruction work included within
the 5-year CIP, approximately 6,000 feet of water main replacement will be required each
year. This equates to approximately $500,000 in city funded water main improvements
annually. For reference, this level of investment is generally consistent with the water
main replacement work that has been performed on an annual basis within the city over
the last 10 years.
For the purposes of future planning, we have also assumed that subsequent 5-year CIP’s
will also include a $500,000 annual investment in water system improvements. We
understand that the city anticipates a reduction in street reconstruction work in the future;
however, we have assumed that inflationary costs would offset this reduction in work.
Since the original CIP analysis was completed, we understand that the City is planning to
decrease the amount of infrastructure improvements planned for the next five years. The
reduction in infrastructure improvements will likely reduce the water system annual
investment to $350,000-$400,000. This reduction in water main infrastructure
improvements will impact future City decisions on surcharge rate increases.
Attached Exhibit 3 in Appendix A illustrates the city’s 5-year CIP for street
reconstruction work and the areas requiring water main improvements.
Appendix B includes a technical memorandum dated June 17, 2010 that provides
additional details on the establishment of the 5-year CIP.
4.SURCHARGE ANALYSIS
Maplewood residents are currently billed for their water service directly by their water
provider. The SPRWS and North St. Paul bills include a Maplewood surcharge to
provide some city funds for water system related costs.
Agenda Item G4
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 51 of 290
4
Maplewood uses two funds for surcharge revenues related to water sales; the Water
Availability Charge Fund-St. Paul Water District (Fund 407) and the Water Availability
Charge Fund-North St Paul Water District (Fund 408). As stated above, the vast majority
of Maplewood residents are served by SPRWS and the majority of revenues are derived
from this source.
The following is a summary of each of these funds.
A.St. Paul Water District Fund 407
SPRWS sells approximately 1.5 billion gallons of water per year to Maplewood
residents. Water is metered and billed on either a monthly or quarterly basis,
depending on user type such as residential or commercial, and is charged based on
100 cubic feet of water. SPRWS remits a surcharge of 2% of the total water bill,
or approximately $100,000 on an annual basis, to Maplewood.
Exhibit 4 in Appendix A provides a summary of the current and projected status
of the St. Paul Water District fund. The fund shows a beginning fund balance
deficit of approximately ($150,000). The 2010 budget shows an ending balance
of $75,000. For the purpose of illustrating the projected status of the fund, we
have assumed the following:
x No increase in the 2% surcharge rate resulting in continued surcharge revenue
of approximately $100,000 per year
x CIP costs of $350,000-$400,00 per year (based on the City’s revised CIP
projections)
Based on these assumptions, the fund will have a deficit of over ($2.5 million) by
2020 unless other funding sources are identified for the water main replacement
work included in the proposed 5-year CIP.
Given the financial pressures that the St. Paul Water District Fund will continue to
experience, we have completed a projection of the surcharge revenues required to
bring the fund to a positive balance within approximately five to six years and
then to maintain a positive balance. We are recommending an increase in the
surcharge rate from 2% in 2010 to 4% in 2011, with future surcharge rate
increases as illustrated in the table below.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Surcharge
(%)
2% 4%5.25% 6.25% 7.00% 7.75% 8.50%
Revenues
($)
103,400 188,400 257,100 318,300 370,800 426,900 487,000
Agenda Item G4
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 52 of 290
5
In addition to the surcharge rate increases, we have assumed some limited
bonding to 2015 and a one-time permanent transfer of $600,000 into the fund in
2016. The resulting 2020 fund balance would be approximately $900,000.
Exhibit 5 in Appendix A illustrates the resulting impact on the St. Paul Water
District Fund with the recommended changes.
B.North St. Paul Water District Fund 408
The City of Maplewood collects $1.00 per account per month of surcharge
revenue for water provided to Maplewood residents by the City of North St. Paul.
North St. Paul remits the revenue to Maplewood on a monthly basis and this
equates to approximately $10,000 per year.
No increases are recommended in the North St. Paul District surcharge rate at this
time. There are currently no planned water main improvements in the North St.
Paul service area.
Appendix C includes a technical memorandum dated July 16, 2010 that provides
additional details on the surcharge rate analysis.
The surcharge analysis information was provided to the City Council at a work session on
July 26, 2010. Based on discussion at that work session, the City has increased the
surcharge from 2% to 4% for 2011.
5.WATER SYSTEM ACQUISITION
One of the primary purposes of this study was to determine whether changes should be
made in the way that the city provides water service to its residents. This has included an
analysis of the feasibility of Maplewood purchasing the water system back from SPRWS.
The following is a summary of this analysis.
A.Initial Costs
Disconnects and Master Meters
The SPRWS Maplewood water system is currently connected to the St. Paul
water system at several locations. If Maplewood took ownership of the water
system, they would need to separate or meter each location where the Maplewood
water main is connected to the St. Paul water system.
Based on previous studies and discussions with SPRWS staff, there are
approximately 40 locations where the existing water main would need to be
separated or metered. For the basis of this analysis, it is assumed that 25 locations
will be separated and 15 locations will require master meter installations. The
Agenda Item G4
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 53 of 290
6
estimated total project costs (construction and engineering/admin) associated with
these improvements are summarized below.
15 master meters @ $30,000/meter $ 450,000
25 disconnections @ $22,000/disconnection $ 550,000
Total Estimated Initial Cost $1,000,000
Service Meter Replacements
SPRWS is currently completing a system-wide project to replace all of the
individual service meters. This is a multi-year project and the service meters in
Maplewood are scheduled for replacement in 2012 and 2013. The estimated total
cost for the meter replacement in Maplewood is as follows:
8,067 Residential meters @ $162.25/meter = $1,310,000
1,059 Non-residential meters @ $450/meter =$ 480,000
535 Commercial/Municipal meters @ $1,325/meter =$ 710,000
Total =$2,500,000
The meter costs identified above are derived from an average of the actual
contract unit bid prices received from SPRWS.
B.Annual Costs
In addition to the initial costs to separate the water system and replace the service
meters, there are several other annual expenses that need to be considered with a
city-owned water system.
Operating Expenses
The city would incur typical operating expenses associated with ownership of the
water system. This analysis assumed that a utility clerk, utility crew chief, and
three utility workers would be hired to operate and maintain the water system. In
addition to the labor costs, there are also material and equipment costs included in
the operating expense assumptions. These assumptions are primarily based on
information provided by city and SPRWS staff.
Labor Cost
Utility Billing Clerk $ 60,000
Public Works Crew Chief $ 70,000
Public Works Crew (3)$ 195,000
Total $ 325,000
Material and Equipment Cost
Office and Operating Supplies $ 100,000
Contractual (Engineering, Insurance, Processing) $ 200,000
Agenda Item G4
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 54 of 290
7
Utilities (Electrical, Communications)$ 100,000
Operational and Maintenance $ 150,000
Total $ 550,000
Capital Expenses
The 5-year CIP for water main improvements established a budget of $500,000
for annual capital water main improvements.
The city also needs to budget for painting the three elevated storage tanks on an
assumed 15-year basis. The annual cost for tank painting assumes the project cost
to paint each tank every 15 years is $750,000.
Annual Tank Painting Cost = (3 Tanks) x ($750,000) = $150,000/year
15 years
Below is a summary of the annual capital expenses.
Annual Water Main Improvements $ 500,000
Annual Cost for Tank Painting $ 150,000
Total Annual Capital Expenses $ 650,000
C.SPRWS Acquisition Cost
Based on information provided by SPRWS, they have invested approximately $9
million in water main improvements since taking ownership of Maplewood’s
water system in 1997. This cost was based on the following information provided
by SPRWS staff:
95,976 Feet Water Main Reconstruction @ $85/foot = $8,157,960
Tank Maintenance Projects = $ 841,404
Total = $8,999,364
SPRWS has stated that, as a part of any water system ownership transition,
consideration needs to be given to the current value of these improvements. For
the purposes of this study, we have assumed that the acquisition cost would be $1,
which was the cost SPRWS paid to Maplewood in 1997 to take ownership of the
existing capital assets.
D.Financial Analysis
This analysis assumes that the city would use the current SPRWS water rates as a
basis for establishing their water rates under a city-owned water system scenario.
Agenda Item G4
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 55 of 290
8
The revenue generated from these water rates was evaluated with the expenditures
previously identified.
The purchase price for the SPRWS water system is an important consideration in
determining the feasibility of Maplewood ownership of the system. We have
evaluated the financial feasibility of a city-owned water system based on an
acquisition cost of $1. The table below assumes water rates could be increased on
an annual basis at an average rate of approximately 5%, which is consistent with
SPRWS annual rate increases. These rate increases assume that a change in water
system ownership would have little or no impact on water rates for Maplewood
users.
Acquisition Average Annual Payback
Cost Rate Increase Year
$1 5% 2018
If the city chose to take ownership of the water system, SPRWS would charge
Maplewood for the wholesale cost to provide water to its users. SPRWS currently
provides wholesale water to Little Canada and Roseville at a cost of 71% of the
retail rate. This analysis assumes that SPRWS would charge Maplewood this
same rate; however this rate may be negotiated in a city purchase scenario.
The SPRWS retail rates per 100 cubic feet of water are shown below.
Year Winter Rate Summer Rate
2010 $2.15 $2.25
2011 $2.27 $2.37
E.Rate Comparison
As previously mentioned, Maplewood water customers are currently served by
SPRWS, North St. Paul, Little Canada, Woodbury, and Roseville. The rates these
customers pay varies depending on who provides their water service. Below is a
rate table that compares typical winter usage and summer usage for each of the
city’s water suppliers.
Water Winter Summer
Supplier Rate (25,000 gallon) (40,000 gallon)
SPRWS 2010 $70.95 $121.50
SPRWS 2011 $74.91 $127.98
North St. Paul 2010 $50.70 $81.00
Little Canada 2010 $81.84 $126.39
Woodbury 2010 $25.36 $48.56
Roseville 2010 $76.50 $119.75
Roseville 2011 $83.05 $134.55
Agenda Item G4
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 56 of 290
9
Appendix D includes a report prepared by Ehlers that provides more detail on the
acquisition analysis.
6.ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Since 1997, city staff has coordinated with SPRWS staff on all aspects of the water
system, including design, construction, and funding for water system improvements.
Below are examples of some of the inherent challenges and inefficiencies that city staff
has observed with an outside agency owned water system.
A. Differing Philosophies on Water System Improvements
City staff considers all public infrastructure when considering the scope of work
for street reconstruction projects. Staff reviews roadway condition, as well as
sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer conditions. The city’s approach is to
replace aging underground utility infrastructure at the time streets are
reconstructed to avoid utility repairs that would require roadway patching. This
includes the replacement of all cast iron water main during street reconstruction
projects. SPRWS water main replacement criteria are based mainly on water
main break history instead of age or material type.
B. SPRWS Water Main Construction Requirements
On city street reconstruction projects with water main improvements, SPRWS
policy requires their crews to perform the water main construction; however,
SPRWS crews do not perform the excavation or backfilling operation. The city
must bid the excavation and backfill to the roadway contractor for the water main
construction. As a result, both the contractor and SPRWS crews are on site
during water main construction which creates some inefficiencies for water main
construction.
C. Invoicing
Since SPRWS operates independently from the city, agreements and invoicing
between the agencies occurs on a regular basis. City staff time and effort is
incurred to review and process these agreements and invoices.
There are some inherent inefficiencies and challenges with a public utility owned and
operated by an outside agency. City staff continues to build relationships with SPRWS
staff to minimize conflicts and streamline processes; however operating with a SPRWS
owned water system will continue to require coordination efforts.
Agenda Item G4
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 57 of 290
10
7.SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analysis completed as a part of this report, we recommend the following:
A.5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
The City Council should consider adopting a 5-year CIP for water main
improvements. The implementation of this CIP will address city concerns
regarding the need to replace all cast iron water main during street reconstruction
projects.
B.Surcharge Increase
The St. Paul Water District Fund 407 has operated in a deficit for several years.
The City Council should continue discussions from their July 26, 2010 workshop
regarding the need to increase the current surcharge rate to eliminate this ongoing
deficit. If the City Council adopts a 5-year CIP for water main improvements,
surcharge revenues will need to increase to cover these additional costs or other
funding sources must be identified for the improvements.
C.Water System Acquisition
This report identified a number of factors that should be considered in evaluating
the feasibility of a city purchase of the water system.
x Acquisition Cost
o Initial debt
o Payback duration
x Initial Costs
o Water system disconnects
o Master metering
x Water Rate
o Acceptable rate increases
x Increased City Staff
o Management
o Facility space
x Additional Equipment
o Facility space
o Maintenance
Based on the analysis completed as a part of this study and depending on City Council
policy objectives, it is financially reasonable for the city to consider the purchase of the
water system from SPRWS. The City Council should consider all of the various
engineering, political, and financial factors in determining how to proceed. Negotiation
with SPRWS to determine the initial acquisition cost would be the first task to be
Agenda Item G4
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 58 of 290
11
completed if the city elects to proceed further with the possible acquisition of the water
system.
Agenda Item G4
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 59 of 290
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Approval of Temporary Easement in Favor of Paris Realty LLC (Tillges)
DATE: Written June 17, 2011 for June 27, 2011 City Council Meeting
INTRODUCTION
The council will consider approving a temporary fence easement on a city owned parcel to allow for the
construction of a fence benefiting the Maplewood business, Tillges Orthotic Prosthetic.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Aaron Holm, Chief Operating Officer of Tillges Orthotic Prosthetic Inc. at 1570 Beam Avenue requested
permission of the city to install a fence within the city owned property at 1663 County Rd C E
(Hazelwood Park). The subject easement area is on the northwest side of Markham Pond which is on
the other side of any park activities.
Approval of this temporary fence easement, in favor of Paris Realty (Tillges), is needed to allow for the
construction of the fence and would address safety concerns of the business. As shown in the
attached aerial photo both the parking lot and building are tight against the property line which does not
allow for the construction of a fence within the limits of the Tillges property.
Tillges determined that a 15 foot easement on the north side of the 1663 County Rd C property
adjacent to its property would be needed for the fence. Upon the city receiving the easement exhibit
and description, staff prepared the easement document which further specifies expiration and permitted
activities and requirements within the easement.
The City Attorney has also reviewed the documents.
BUDGET
There are no financial implications by approving this action.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council approve the temporary fence easement in favor of Paris Realty
(Tillges) and further authorize the mayor and city manager to sign the easement document on behalf of
the city. It is also recommended that the city council authorize the city engineer to record the easement
once all necessary signatures have been obtained.
Attachments:
1. Aerial Photo
2. Easement Document
3. Easement Exhibit
Agenda Item G5
Packet Page Number 60 of 290
Tillges Orthotic (1570 Beam Ave)
DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and
data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only.
SOURCES: Ramsey County (May 31, 2011), The Lawrence Group;May 31, 2011 for County parcel and property records data; May 2011 for commercial and
Agenda Item G5
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 61 of 290
Property Recorded as: □ Torrens □ Abstract
TEMPORARY FENCE EASEMENT
THIS INDENTURE, made this _________ day of________________, 2011, by Paris Realty LLC, of Ramsey
County, Minnesota, a Limited Liability Corporation, Grantee, and the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, Ramsey County, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, Grantor.
Grantor hereby conveys and grants to the Grantee, its successors, and assigns a temporary easement for fence
purposes in, over, under, and across the following described property in Ramsey County, Minnesota:
Property Description:
(As per Schedule A of Commitment to Title from Land Title Inc. Commitment No. TC-107927 dated July 9th, 2001)
The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey
County, Minnesota.
Except the South 75.00 feet of the West 83.20 feet thereof,
And except that part of the North 492.00 feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter lying Easterly of the West 395.00 feet thereof;
And except that part of the North 492.00 feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter lying Northerly, Northeasterly, and Southeasterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, thence South 00
degrees 28 minutes 21 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter a distance of 239.62 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 80 degrees 01
minutes 09 seconds East 52.95 feet; thence South 84 degrees 16 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 111.00 feet;
thence Easterly a distance of 39.02 feet along a tangential curve concave to the Southwest having a radius of 72.12 feet
and a central angle of 31 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds; thence South 53 degrees 16 minutes 09 seconds East
tangent to said curve a distance of 90.00 feet; thence Southeasterly and Southerly a distance of 44.92 feet along a
tangential curve concave to the Southwest having a radius of 51.47 feet and a central angle of 50 degrees 00 minutes 00
seconds; thence South 03 degrees 16 minutes 09 seconds East tangent to said curve a distance of 37.89 feet thence
South 31 degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 107.76 feet to the South line of the North 492.00 feet of
said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and said line there terminating.
PIN 03-29-22-43-0022
Temporary Fence Easement:
Which easement shall include the temporary right of said Grantee to freely enter upon, over, across, through and under
the real estate designated as the Temporary Fence Easement as described below and depicted by drawing on Easement
Acquisition Exhibit “A” and at any time the GRANTEE may see fit, for the purpose of constructing, rebuilding, operating,
maintaining, and/or repairing said Fence and appurtenances. GRANTOR shall dedicate the easement at no cost to the
GRANTEE. This Temporary Fence Easement will expire on December 31, 2025.
Grantee agrees not to enter upon said fence easement without first securing the written or verbal approval of
Grantor. Grantor further reserves its right to terminate said Temporary Fence Easement with or without cause prior to
the December 31, 2025 expiration date; however Grantor must provide 60 days written notice prior to termination of
Temporary Fence Easement. Upon termination of said Temporary Fence Easement, Grantee shall remove Fence and
appurtenances at its own cost and restore the land to its original condition.
Temporary Fence Easement Description:
That part of the North 15 feet of the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 3, T29, R22, which lies East of
Hazelwood Street, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, together with all the hereditaments and appurtenances there unto
belonging, or in anyway appertaining, to the grantee, its successors and assigns forever.
No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of
Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) not required.
Certificate of Real Estate Value No. ________
_______________________, 2011
_________________________________
County Auditor
By_______________________________
Deputy
(Reserved for recording data)
Agenda Item G5
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 62 of 290
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written.
____________________________________
Exempt from Deed Tax per MSA 287.22F Will Rossbach, Mayor
____________________________________
James Antonen, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2011, by Will Rossbach, Mayor, and James
Antonen, City Manager, of the City of Maplewood, the Grantor.
Notarial Stamp or Seal
Signature of person taking acknowledgment
RETURN TO:
Public Works Department
1902 County Road B East
Maplewood Minnesota 55109
Document prepared by:
Maplewood Public Works
1902 County Road B East
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
Tax statements for the real property described in this instrument
should be sent to:
Maplewood City Clerk
1830 County Rd B East
Maplewood, MN 55109-1117
Agenda Item G5
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 63 of 290
Agenda Item G5 Attachment 3Packet Page Number 64 of 290
Agenda Item G6
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Jim Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Karen Guilfoile, Director Citizen Services
DATE: June 7, 2011
SUBJECT: Approval of Ramsey County Fair Miscellaneous Permits
Introduction
Joe Fox, Ramsey County Fair Manager, has applied for Carnival, Noise Control Waiver and
Fireworks permits for the Ramsey County Fair that will be held from July 13 through July 17,
2011. Below are the hours of operation:
July 13 and July 14 - 05:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
July 15 and July 16 - 12:00 noon to 11:30 p.m.
July 17 - 12:00 noon to 9:30 p.m.
Music (live bands) will end by 11:30 p.m. Fireworks are scheduled to be held on Friday, July 15
subject to the approval of Fire Marshal Gervais
Ramsey County Fair Board has requested that the City waive the fees for the aforementioned
permits, as has been prior council practice.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve the request to have the fees waived for the
aforementioned permits, as has been prior council practice.
Packet Page Number 65 of 290
Agenda Item G 7
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Steve Lukin, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting A Donation to the Fire Department
from Residential Mortgage Group
DATE: June 9, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The fire department has received a donation from RMG (Residential Mortgage Group) and city
council approval is required before this donation can be accepted.
BACKGROUND
RMG sent the fire department a $100 check as part of their charitable donation program called
“Refer a friend”. Build your community.”
In the letter accompanying the donation, it was explained that when a mortgage is closed with
RMG, a donation will be made to a local school, fire or police department on behalf of the client;
and it is the client’s choice which group will be the beneficiary of the donation. RMG instituted this
program because it lets their clients directly improve the communities where they will be living.
The company’s goal is to donate at least $200,000 to communities this year.
The clients who designated the Maplewood Fire Department for their $100 donation in conjunction
with their loan closing are Tom and Debbie Kivel of Shoreview.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the city council approve to accept this $100 donation and that the necessary
budget adjustments be made so the funds can be expended by the fire department as needed.
Packet Page Number 66 of 290
Agenda Item G 7
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, Tom and Debbie Kivel wish to grant the city of Maplewood the following: $100.00, and;
WHEREAS, Tom and Debbie Kivel have instructed that the City will be required to use the aforementioned
for: use by the fire department to directly improve the community, 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 four-fifths majority of its governing body’s
membership pursuant to Minnesota Statute §465.03;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to Minnesota Statute §465.03, that the Maplewood
City Council approves, receives and accepts the gift aforementioned and under such terms and conditions as
may be requested or required.
The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution by four-fifths or more majority vote of its membership
on ________________________________, 20______.
Signed: Signed: Witnessed:
________________________ _________________________ __________________________
(Signature) (Signature) (Signature)
Mayor ____ Chief of Fire City Clerk .
(Title) (Title) (Title)
________________________ _________________________ __________________________
(Date) (Date) (Date)
Packet Page Number 67 of 290
Agenda #G-8
AGENDA REPORT
To: City Manager James Antonen
From: Chief of Police David J. Thomalla
Subject: Resolution Accepting Donation to Volunteers in Police Service From
Qwest
Date: June 20, 2011
Introduction
The Volunteers in Police Service have again received a donation from the Qwest
Foundation, and City Council approval is needed before this donation can be accepted.
Background
A member of the Police Department's Volunteers in Police Service program is an
employee of Qwest, and the Qwest Foundation has again made a $500 donation to
Volunteers in Police Service in recognition of her volunteerism to her community as part
of their Spirit of Service program. Their donation is based upon the number of hours of
participation by their employee.
Qwest has stipulated that the funds from this donation be used only for the Volunteers
in Police Service program and, to ensure fiscal responsibility, may monitor the
expenditures made with this money.
Budget Impact
The necessary budget adjustments would have to be made to expend these funds for
the stated purpose.
Recommendation
It is recommended that City Council approval be given to accept this donation from the
Qwest Foundation for their employee’s participation in the Maplewood Police
Department Volunteers in Police Service program.
Action Required
Submit to the City Council for review and approval.
DJT:js
Attachment
Packet Page Number 68 of 290
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, the Qwest Foundation wishes to grant the City of Maplewood the following:
$500, and;
WHEREAS, the Qwest Foundation has instructed that the City will be required to use
the aforementioned for: the Maplewood Police Department Volunteers in Police Service
(VIPS) program, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has agreed to use the subject of this resolution for
the purposes and under the terms prescribed, and;
WHEREAS, the City agrees that it will accept the gift by a super majority of its
governing body’s membership pursuant to Minnesota Statute §465.03;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to Minnesota Statute §465.03, that
the Maplewood City Council approves, receives and accepts the gift aforementioned
and under such terms and conditions as may be requested or required.
The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution by a super majority vote of its
membership on _________________________, 20_____.
Signed: Signed: Witnessed:
___________________ ____________________ ___________________
(Signature) (Signature) (Signature)
Mayor______________ Chief of Police_________ City Clerk____________
(Title) (Title) (Title)
___________________ _____________________ ____________________
(Date) (Date) (Date)
Packet Page Number 69 of 290
Agenda Item G9
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: James Antonen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Consider Adopting Resolution of Support for Tubman to Allow City as
Fiscal Agent for State Bonding Proposal
DATE: June 21, 2011
INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY
On January 25, 2010 the city council approved a resolution of support for Tubman in securing
state of Minnesota bonding for their project at the former St. Paul Monastery’s building at
Century Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue and further directing that the City Manager develop
documents to approve the city as fiscal agent for Tubman in this endeavor.
Tubman staff is requesting that a similar resolution of support be approved by the city council for
2012.
The City staff have been working with Tubman Alliance to assist with the financial support for
operations and improvement to the former Monastery location. Tubman is requesting state of
Minnesota bonding to support their project to make necessary code, accessibility and security
improvements to the former St. Paul Monastery’s building at their Century Avenue – Larpenteur
Avenue location. Their proposed project totals nearly $6.6 million, with their bonding request at
$2.0 million toward this project.
State bonding is provided to only state agencies, so Tubman cannot receive the funds directly.
That requires that a local government agency act as the fiscal agent. Tubman has requested
that Maplewood, as the host city for their operations, act in this regard. It is proposed that the
City Council adopt a resolution of support for acting as the fiscal agent for this project. The final
details of the agreement between Tubman and Maplewood have not been finalized by
Tubman’s legal counsel or City Attorney Kantrud. That agreement will need to provide for
minimal to no risk to the Maplewood tax payers for acting in this role.
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution of support to be used for
further considerations by the state legislature in considering Tubman’s request for funds.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution of support for Tubman in
securing state of Minnesota bonding for their project at the former St. Paul Monastery’s building
at Century Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue and further directing that the City Manager develop
documents to approve the City as fiscal agent for Tubman in this endeavor.
Packet Page Number 70 of 290
RESOLUTION
Resolution of Support for Tubman
To Allow City as Fiscal Agent for State Bonding Proposal
WHEREAS, Tubman has received approval for a Regional Multi-Service Center and
Learning Institute as a domestic violence shelter at the former St. Paul’s Monastery at Century
Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue, and
WHEREAS, Tubman is proposing nearly $6.6 million in necessary code, accessibility
and security improvements to the old Monastery building to facilitate this service center, and
WHEREAS, Tubman is requesting state bonding support through legislation to provide
for up to $2.0 million in financial support for this much needed facility, and
WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council has previously expressed support for the
services provided by Tubman for the citizens of our City and region, and
WHEREAS, Tubman requires that a local government agency act as the fiscal agent for
any state funding provided for this type of facility.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, as follows:
1. Hereby acknowledges its support for Tubman’s request for state funding for this important
project and improvement, a further supports said legislation as introduced on behalf of Tubman
in the 2012 legislative session.
2. Hereby directs the City Manager to prepare documents for Council approval such that the City
of Maplewood will act as the fiscal agent for Tubman in receiving financial support from the
State of Minnesota.
Packet Page Number 71 of 290
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration of the Conditional Use Permit Annual Review for the St. Paul
Regional Water Services Materials Recycling Operation
LOCATION: County Road B West of I-35E
DATE: June 14, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The conditional use permit (CUP) for the St. Paul Regional Water Services Material Recycling
Operation is due for its annual review.
BACKGROUND
November 27, 2006: The city council approved this CUP.
January 14, 2008: The city council reviewed this CUP and moved to review it again in one year.
September 14, 2009: The council heard complaints from the surrounding residents about all-
hour hauling and the resulting noise, dust and general disturbance due to the “capping” of
Sandy Lake. The council directed staff to meet with representatives of the neighborhood and
the SPRWS to work toward an amicable resolution to the nuisances being experienced due to
the dirt-hauling activities and to schedule a public hearing for October 12, 2009 for
reconsideration of this CUP.
October 12, 2009: The city council reviewed this CUP again and amended the conditions of
approval as follows:
1. The applicant shall comply with the site plan date-stamped October 6, 2006. All
construction shall follow that approved site plan. The director of community development
and parks may approve minor changes.
2. The paving of the driveway apron must be completed by November 15, 2009. The area to
be paved shall be from County Road B a distance of 50 feet in.
3. The city council shall review this permit at the beginning of June 2010.
4. The applicant shall complete the restoration of the easterly slope to the pond by June 1,
2010 and shall apply erosion and sediment controls immediately, subject to city engineer
requirements.
Agenda Item G10
Packet Page Number 72 of 290
5. The annual materials-crushing operation shall be reviewed by staff to evaluate whether
there were any problems or nuisances caused by this activity. The city council may prohibit
any subsequent crushing activity if problems and complaints occur. The crushing operation
shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The applicant shall notify the
abutting residents three days prior to commencing the periodic crushing operations.
6. The applicant must keep the site watered to control the dust.
7. All SPRWS vehicles shall enter and leave the site, via the County Road B driveway, to the
west from Rice Street.
8. If there are complaints concerning the hauling or crushing operations, the applicant and
those complaining shall attempt to resolve the problems via Dispute Resolution.
9. The temporary conditional use permit approved by the city council on September 14, 2009,
shall end and the permanent amendment to the conditional use permit replaces and
repeals the temporary CUP from September 14, 2009.
June 14, 2010: The city council reviewed the status of condition compliance for this project.
The SPRWS was very close to the completion of the slope stabilization of the west side of the
abutting pond. All the other required site work was completed. The council gave the applicant
until the end of June 2010 to complete the slope stabilization and to provide the city engineer
with a maintenance and management plan.
DISCUSSION
The applicant has completed all required work for this site. There have not been any complaints
about the periodic operation of the materials recycling operation. Truck hauling has ended for
the capping of Sandy Lake. Complaints about late truck noise have ended as well.
Staff feels that this CUP can now be reviewed only if the SPRWS proposed a change or if the
city receives complaints.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the conditional use permit for the St. Paul Regional Water Services Material Recycling
Operation at Sandy Lake only if a problem arises or if the applicant proposes a change to their
operation.
Packet Page Number 73 of 290
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 8.5 acres (this is the northeast corner of a larger site totaling over 30 acres)
Existing land use: Undeveloped, but currently used as a storage site for recycled materials (dirt,
concrete and bituminous) from watermain breaks for the SPRWS.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Single dwellings and County Road B
South: Single dwellings
East: Undeveloped open space and the St. Paul Business Center West
West: The Soo Line Railroad, the Minnesota Waldorf School and the Harambee School
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designations: OS (open space)
Zoning: F (farm residential)
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Section 44-1092(1) of the city code requires a conditional use permit for public utility, public service
or public building uses.
Section 44-1101(b) states that the city council may review a conditional use permit at any time. If
the council decides to consider adding, dropping or changing conditions, the council shall follow
the procedures in Section 44-1096 (public hearing requirement) for approving a new permit. The
council shall not change conditions unless the conditional use no longer meets one of the
standards in Section 44-1097 for approving a new permit.
p:sec18\Sandy Lake-SPRWS\Sandy Lake Recycling annual CUP Rev 6 11 te
Attachments:
1. Location/Zoning Map
2. Site Plan
Packet Page Number 74 of 290
Packet Page Number 76 of 290
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: David Fisher, Building Official
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Heritage Preservation Commission Ordinance Amendments –
Consider Approval of the First Reading
DATE: June 20, 2011, for the June 27, 2011, City Council Meeting
INTRODUCTION
The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) Ordinance Amendments are being considered
tonight for approval. This is the first reading. The purpose of these amendments is to clarify the
criteria for reviewing applications of historical sites, landmarks and buildings. The goal is to obtain
approval from the city council and resubmit the ordinance to the Minnesota State Historical
Preservation Society Office (MSHPSO) for Certified Local Government Status (CLGS).
BACKGROUND
Over the past two years the HPC has been reviewing the HPC Ordinance so the city can achieve
CLGS. The purpose of achieving CLGS is to strengthen existing local preservation programs and
promote the development of new programs. Cities that have CLGS are eligible to apply annually
for grants administered through the State Historical Preservation Society from a designated
federal pass-through allocation.
The current HPC Ordinance was adopted by the city council on June 28, 2010. The HPC was
established as an independent advisory commission to the city council. The HPC Ordinance was
adopted to engage the city in a comprehensive program of historic preservation and promote the
use and conservation of historic properties for the education, inspiration, pleasure and enrichment
of the community.
DISCUSSION
The HPC Ordinance needs to be amended for the second time. The updated HPC Ordinance
was submitted to the MSHPO in December of 2010. On February 8, 2011, the MSHPO replied to
the submittal and found some items that were overlooked in the previous HPC Ordinance
amendment.
The HPC Ordinance has been amended with the recommendations from the MSHPO. In Section
2-90(a) the word “Preservation” was added. In Section 2-93(e) 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,and11 language
was added to clarify the standards and guidelines that are used when reviewing historic sites,
properties or project permits.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the first reading of the Heritage Preservation Commission Ordinance
amendments.
P:\com-dev\HPC\ memo first reading June 27, 2011CCmeeting
Attachment: 1. Amendment Ordinance 905 Heritage Preservation Commission Ordinance
Agenda Item H1
Packet Page Number 77 of 290
AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 905
THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ORDINANCE
Section 1 This amendment revises Sections 2-87 to 2-91
DIVISION 4 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION (“Commission”)
Section 2-87 Authority for Establishment
There is hereby established for the City a Heritage Preservation Commission as an
independent commission to the City Council, as provided in Minnesota Statutes Annotated
Sections 471.193 and 138.51.
Section 2-88 Statement of public policy and purpose
The City Council hereby declares as a matter of public policy that the protection,
preservation, perpetuation and use of places, areas, buildings, structures and other objects
having a special historical, community or aesthetic interest or value is a public necessity and is
required in the interest of the people. The purpose of this Chapter is to:
(a) Safeguard the cultural resources of the City by preserving sites, structures, districts and
landmarks which reflect elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political or
architectural history;
(b) Protect and enhance the City's attractions to residents and visitors;
(c) Foster civic pride in the beauty and notable achievements of the past;
(d) Enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and interest of the City; and
(e) Promote the use and preservation of historic sites and landmarks for the education and
general welfare of the people of the City.
Section 2-89 Advisory body
All actions of the Commission shall be in the nature of recommendations to the City Council,
and said Commission shall have no final authority with reference to any matters, except as the
Council may lawfully delegate authority to it.
Section 2-90 Composition; Appointment; Qualifications; Terms
(a) The Heritage Preservation Commission shall be composed of seven (7) members
appointed by the City Council, who shall be residents of the City, and shall be selected to
assure that the Commission is representative of the various areas of the City and responsive to
the needs of the people.
(b) Commission membership shall be drawn from persons with demonstrated interest and/or
expertise in historic preservation. If available in the community, at least two members of the
Commission shall be heritage preservation-related professionals (e.g. the professions of history,
Packet Page Number 78 of 290
architecture, architectural history, archeology, planning, real estate, design, building trades,
landscape architecture, or law). A member of the Maplewood Heritage Preservation
Commission is required to be a representative to the Ramsey County Historical Society. The
City shall pay for the membership of the Commission or designee.
(c) The members of the Heritage Preservation Commission shall serve staggered terms. All
appointments shall be assigned by the city council for a term of three years.
Section 2-91 Officers Generally
The chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Commission shall be elected by the
Commission at the first meeting in January May of each year from among the members of the
Commission. The Chairperson shall be responsible for calling and presiding over all meetings
and shall be entitled to an equal vote with other members of the Commission. If the
Chairperson is unable to attend a meeting, the vice-chairperson shall conduct the meeting.
Section 2-92 Designation of historic sites and landmarks
(a) Procedures: The City Council, upon the request of the Commission, may by resolution
designate an historic site, landmark, or district. Prior to such designation, the city council shall
hold a public hearing, notice of which shall be published at least ten (10) days prior to the date
of the hearing. Notice of the hearing shall also be mailed to all owners of property which is
proposed to be designated as an historic site, landmark or district and to all property owners
within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the area to be designated. Every nomination
shall be forwarded to the Minnesota Historical Society for review and comment within sixty (60)
days of the Commission’s request.
(b) Eligibility criteria: In considering the designation of any area, site, place, district, building
or structure in the city as an historic site, landmark, or district the Commission shall consider the
following factors with respect to eligibility:
(1) Its character, interest or value as part of the history or cultural heritage of the
City, the State or the United States;
(2) Its association with persons or events that have made a significant contribution to
the cultural heritage of the City;
(3) Its potential to yield information important in history or prehistory;
(4) Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of architectural type or style, or
elements of design, detail materials or craftsmanship; and
(5) Its unique location or singular physical appearance representing an established
or familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or community of the City.
Section 2-93 Alterations to landmarks, sites or districts; review
(a) Review and recommendations generally: The Commission shall review and make
recommendations to the Council concerning proposed alterations to an historic site, landmark or
district.
Packet Page Number 79 of 290
(b) Land use permit: Every application for a land use permit which may result in the
alteration of a designated historic site, landmark or district in the City shall be reviewed by the
Commission; thereafter, the Commission shall make a recommendation and may recommend
conditions regarding approval to the City Council concerning the proposed permit.
(c) Other building permits: The Commission shall review and make recommendations to
the Council concerning the issuance of building permits to do any of the following in a historic
district or State designated historic site:
(1) New construction – New building or new addition to an existing building
(2) Remodel – Alter, change or modify building or site
(3) Move a building – Building or structure moved into the city.
(4) Excavation – Dig out materials from the ground.
(5) Demolition – Destroy, remove or raze – completely tear down
(d) Factors considered: The Commission, upon receipt of the permit application and plans,
shall determine if the work to be performed adversely affects the designated historic site,
landmark or district. In determining whether or not there is an adverse effect to the historic site,
landmark, or district the Commission shall consider the following factors:
(1) Whether the work will significantly alter the appearance of the building or
structure so as to remove the features which distinguish the historic site, landmark or district as
a significant cultural resource.
(2) Whether the use of the property will destroy, disturb or endanger a known or
suspected archaeological feature site.
(e) Standards and guidelines: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties (listed below) shall be required basis for permit review decisions.
1. The Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City shall be the authoritative guide to
reviewing permits in relation to designated historic sites, landmarks and historic districts.
2. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires
minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and
environment.
3. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of
historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall
be avoided.
4. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural
features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
5. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic
significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
6. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship
that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
Packet Page Number 80 of 290
7. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity
of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match
the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or
pictorial evidence.
8. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic
materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be
undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
9. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and
preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be
undertaken.
10. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the
old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to
protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
11. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a
manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
(f) Appeals: Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Commission shall within ten (10)
days of the Commission’s action recommending denying the issuance of a building permit within
a historic district have a right to appeal such decision to the City Council. The Commission in
recommending denial of a building permit shall advise the applicant of his/her right to appeal to
the City Council. The aggrieved party shall file with the Building Official a written notice
requesting Council review of the action taken by the Commission.
Section 2-94 Maintenance of records and documents
The Commission shall conduct a continuing survey of cultural resources in the City
which the Commission has reason to believe are or will be eligible for designation as historic
sites, landmarks or districts. The Commission shall also prepare and maintain a Comprehensive
map and survey.
(a) Register of Historic Sites and Landmarks: The City shall maintain a register of historic
sites and landmarks.
(b) Repository for Documents: The office of the Building Official is designated as the
repository for all studies, surveys, reports, programs, and designations of historic sites and
landmarks.
Section 2-95 Violation
It shall be a misdemeanor to alter, disturb, deface or materially change the appearance or use
of a designated historic site, landmark, or district without a permit.
Packet Page Number 81 of 290
This Heritage Preservation Commission recommended approval of this ordinance.
This ordinance shall take effect after publishing in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City
Council approved this ordinance.
_______________________________
Will Rossbach, Mayor
Attest:
________________________________
Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
Packet Page Number 82 of 290
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Gladstone Area Redevelopment Improvements, City Project 04-21,
Assessment Hearing, 7:00 pm – Continued from May 23, 2011 – To be
Continued to July 11, 2011
DATE: June 21, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The assessment hearing was scheduled for May 23, 2011 at 7:00pm, continued to June 27th, 2011, and
is again being recommended for continuance to July 11th, 2011. An assessment notice was sent to
both the land owner (Rand Corporation) and developer (Maplewood Senior Living, LLC) previously.
The council will consider continuing these actions as stated in the staff recommendation.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
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 July 11, 2011
council meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council continue the assessment hearing for the project to the July 11,
2011 council meeting.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
Agenda Item H2
Packet Page Number 83 of 290
Agenda Item H2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 84 of 290
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II
SUBJECT: NPDES Phase II Permit Annual Report, Public Hearing - 7:00 pm
DATE: June 14, 2011
INTRODUCTION
As part of Maplewood’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, the City of
Maplewood 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 hold a public hearing for the City’s permit at their June 27, 2011 regular 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 with the next issuance of the permit scheduled for January 2012.
The permit application requires the city to develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
The MPCA has established six minimum control measures the SWPPP must address. They are:
- Public Education and Outreach
- Public Participation and Involvement
- Illicit Discharge, Detection and Elimination
- Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control
- Post-Construction Storm Water Management
- Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping
Maplewood’s SWPPP defines the Best Management Practices (BMPs) the city intends to use to
minimize pollution from stormwater runoff for each of the six minimum control measures.
Agenda Item H3
Packet Page Number 85 of 290
DISCUSSION
The City’s SWPPP has been available for public viewing at the Public Works Department front Counter
and is also posted on the City’s website under the Stormwater page. An advertisement for the public
hearing and the Plan viewing was first posted on May 25, 2011 in anticipation of the 30-day public
comment period. Thus far, the City has received one comment from City of North Saint Paul resident
John Schmall, who owns property abutting Casey Lake. The question was regarding the ownership
and maintenance of an outlet control structure from a connecting wetland.
Staff has prepared a draft of the City’s annual report, will make a short presentation on the SWPPP,
and will report on progress made toward the permit goals in 2010. City staff also presented before the
Environment and Natural Resources Commission on June 20, 2011 and will present those comments
with the presentation. Following the presentation, City Council will hold a formal public hearing on the
plan.
When all comments have been received, staff will address those comments, incorporate the comments
and then finalize the report for submittal to the MPCA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that following the presentation on the City’s SWPPP and NPDES permit annual
report that the City Council open the floor to public comment. When all public comments have been
addressed and incorporated into the report, the report will be finalized. At that point, the report and
executive summary will be submitted to MPCA. The deadline for the annual report is June 30, 2011.
Attachments
1. Full Maplewood SWPPP can be viewed at www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/stormwater
Agenda Item H3
Packet Page Number 86 of 290
1
Agenda Item H.4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
SUBJECT: Consider Approval of First Reading – Chicken Ordinance DATE: June 21, 2011, for the June 27 City Council Meeting
INTRODUCTION
Urban communities throughout the country are considering allowing chickens in residential
areas as a way of promoting urban agriculture and sustainability. There has been an interest by
some Maplewood residents and the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission
to allow chickens in Maplewood for this purpose as well. Maplewood’s zoning code prohibits
the raising or handling of poultry (including chickens) in all single dwelling residential zoning
districts.
BACKGROUND
ENR Commission Drafts Chicken Ordinance
In October 2009 the ENR Commission began to review the feasibility of allowing chickens in
residential zoning districts as a means of promoting more sustainable food products. Since that
time the Commission has reviewed comments from residents, the Maplewood Animal Control
Officer, Chief of Police, and Health Officer in regard to this matter. Staff has also conducted
and presented research on other cities in the metropolitan area that have developed chicken
ordinances.
The comments received reflected both positive and negative impacts due to the raising of
chickens in residential areas. Positive impacts include homeowners producing their own
organic eggs and using the manure for garden fertilizer. The main negative impacts outlined by
the Animal Control Officer, Chief of Police, and Health Officer were possible nuisance
complaints from neighbors and the time and costs associated with enforcement of such an
ordinance.
After review of the research and comments, the ENR Commission recommended approval of a
draft chicken ordinance on July 19, 2010. The ordinance would allow up to ten chickens on a
residential lot of any size with a permit. The permit can only be approved if at least 75 percent
of the property owners within 150 feet consent to the permit. The ENR Commission attempted
to address all of the possible negative impacts of raising chickens in residential areas with
regulations such as prohibiting roosters (noise impacts), requiring chickens to be housed in
chicken coops located in the back or side yard, requiring chickens to be contained in a fenced
area, requiring chickens to be banded for identification in the event they get loose, and
prohibiting the slaughtering of chickens on the property.
Planning Commission Reviews Chicken Ordinance
In August and September 2010 the Planning Commission reviewed the chicken ordinance
(Attachment 1 and 2). Several issues were raised by the Commission during the review
including concerns about lot size, requirements for 100 percent of the neighbors to approve of a
Packet Page Number 87 of 290
2
permit, permit cost, and chicken coop and run placement. The Planning Commission ultimately
recommended denial of the ordinance by a vote of four to three, with some of the
commissioners who voted against the ordinance indicating they would be more supportive if
additional protections were built in for surrounding residential properties such as requiring larger
lots for the keeping of chickens.
City Council Reviews Chicken Ordinance
On March 7, 2011, the City Council held a workshop to discuss the proposed chicken ordinance
(Attachment 3). Following is a summary of their discussion and staff comments:
1. Comment: What would Hillcrest Animal Hospital do with an unclaimed chicken?
Response: By law the city is required to hold a domestic animal for seven days. After
those seven days, the animal becomes the property of the Hillcrest Animal Hospital, as
outlined in the city’s animal boarding contract with Hillcrest. Hillcrest Animal Hospital
attempts to find homes for animals that are unclaimed. However, if they are unable to
find a home for an animal they do euthanize animals. That would cost the city an
additional $58 on top of drop off and boarding fees. There was discussion among the
City Council that it would be easy for Hillcrest Animal Hospital to find a new home for
chickens if they are still producing eggs.
2. What if a neighbor signs a petition, and then determines after the fact that it is a
nuisance and no longer wants the chickens next to their property?
Response: The requirement is for the property owner to obtain a yearly permit. The city
could notify the adjoining property owners prior to issuance of a yearly permit to
determine if there are any complaints. However, staff does not recommend that a yearly
permit require the same neighborhood petition. Property owners must invest in a
chicken coop, fencing, and chickens prior to the issuance of the first permit. It would not
be fair to pull that permit and take away a property owner’s investment because a new
neighbor did not support the use. The permit should be reissued if there are no ongoing
nuisance issues.
3. Ten chickens on any size lot may not be fair. The city should look into allowing chickens
based on a sliding scale depending on lot size.
Response: The City of Minneapolis allows chickens in residential zoning with a permit.
The permit allows a maximum of 25 chickens, which is determined by a chicken per
square foot calculation.
During the workshop a majority of the City Council expressed support for allowing chickens in
residential zoning districts. The City Council requested that staff bring the ordinance back
before the ENR Commission for final review and recommendation.
ENR Commission Final Recommendation
During the April and May 2011 ENR Commission meetings, the Commission reviewed the
Planning Commission recommendation and City Council comments on the draft chicken
ordinance. To address the remaining issues and concerns regarding the ordinance, the ENR
Commission made changes to the ordinance based on the “Recommendations for Municipal
Packet Page Number 88 of 290
3
Regulation of Urban Chickens" document, which has been endorsed by the Humane Society
(Attachment 4). Following is a summary of ENR Commission’s final changes based on this
review:
1. New construction requirements for the chicken coop, run, and yard.
2. Added a definition for exercise yard.
3. Modified the definition of a run.
4. Modified the definition of chicken coop.
5. Added a requirement for the disposal of dead birds.
These changes should address two issues: Establish space requirements on a "per chicken"
basis that will result in the "sliding scale" of birds per lot size discussed by the City Council,
while also ensuring humane conditions for the chickens. The maximum number of ten chickens
is still being proposed, but the space requirements may prohibit some very small residential lots
from accommodating the coop, run and/or exercise yard for the maximum number of chickens.
DISCUSSION
Summary of Chicken Ordinance
Up to ten hens (no roosters) allowed in all single dwelling residential districts with a
yearly permit.
Initial permit must be approved by 75 percent of the property owners within 150 feet of
the property.
Permit fee to be approved by City Council by ordinance.
Slaughtering of chickens on the property is prohibited.
Leg banding of all chickens is required. The bands must identify the owner and the
owner’s address and telephone number.
A separate coop is required to house the chickens. Coop must be located in the rear or
side yard and be setback at least five feet from the property lines.
All premises on which hens are kept or maintained shall be kept clean from filth,
garbage, and any substances which attract rodents. The coop and its surrounding must
be cleaned frequently enough to control odor. Manure shall not be allowed to
accumulate in a way that causes an unsanitary condition or causes odors detectible on
another property.
All grain and food stored for the use of the hens on a premise with a chicken permit shall
be kept in a rodent proof container.
Dead chickens must be disposed of according to the Minnesota Board of Animal Health
rules which require chicken carcasses to be disposed of as soon as possible after death,
usually within 48 to 72 hours. Legal forms of chicken carcass disposal include burial off-
site incineration or rendering, or composting.
Sampling of Cities Which Permit Chickens in Residential Districts
1. Minneapolis
Permit requirements:
o Fee- $50 (first year) and $30 (any renewals)
o Map showing chicken coop location in the yard
o Up to 25 chickens are allowed, determined by a chicken/square foot
calculation
Packet Page Number 89 of 290
4
o Permit must be approved by at least 80 percent of neighbors within 100 feet
of the property
o Chickens are allowed in garages
o Roosters are prohibited
Inspection: required before issuing permit and renewal
The city has not received any complaints about loose chickens
2. St. Paul
Permit requirements:
o Fee- $25 (first year) and $15 (any renewals)
o Fee increases if a household has four or more chickens-$72
o Map showing location of chicken coop in the yard
o No maximum number of chickens is specified in the St. Paul ordinance
o Permit must be approved by at least 75 percent of neighbors within 150 feet
of the property
o Chickens are allowed in garages
o Rodent proof food containers are required
Impounding costs:
o Initially: $55
o Additional days: $18 per day
5 complaints a week—households that own chickens but do not have a permit
3. Oakdale:
Permit requirements:
o Permit must be approved by at least 75 percent of neighbors within 150 feet
of the property
o No maximum number of chickens is specified in the Oakdale ordinance
Inspection: required before issuing permit
The city has not received any complaints about loose chickens.
Currently the City of Oakdale only has one permit issued for chickens.
4. Shoreview:
Permit requirements:
o Fee- $30
o Up to four chickens are allowed on residential property of two acres in size or
less.
o More than four chickens are allowed on residential property greater than two
acres in size
o Map showing location of chicken coop in the yard
o Roosters are prohibited
o Slaughtering of chickens is prohibited
Inspection: required before issuing permit and renewal
5. Burnsville:
Permit requirements:
o Fee- $50
o Up to four chickens are allowed on residential property
o Map showing location of chicken coop in yard
o Chickens are not allowed to be stored inside garages or attached structures
to homes.
Packet Page Number 90 of 290
5
o The city provides leg bands for the chickens to be identified if a chicken goes
missing.
o Chickens must be fenced
6. Rosemount:
Permit requirements:
o Up to three chickens allowed on a residential property, no permit required
o License is required in order to have chickens and is issued on an annual
basis.
o Residents must be informed of the proposed chicken coop
o Rodent proof food containers are requires.
o Map showing location of chicken coop in yard
o The chicken coop must be 75 feet from any other residential structure and ten
feet from the property line.
o The chickens must be raised in a manner not to cause injury or annoyance to
persons on other property in the vicinity by reason of noise, odor, or filth.
Inspection: required before issuing a license
A chicken may be humanely euthanized or sold after it has been impounded for a
violation of the ordinance and no owner has claimed the chicken within five business
days.
Chicken Permit Application Process
Following is a summary of the proposed chicken permit application process:
Initial Chicken Permit
1. Applicant would submit chicken permit application to the Community Development
Department. Environmental Planner and/or City Planners would process permit: verify
requirements of permit application are met including zoning, neighbor petition, site plan
and fee. Community Development Department would sign off on permit and request
inspection by Animal Control Officer. Time commitment – 1 to 4 hours.
2. Animal Control Officer would inspect the property to verify requirements of permit
including chicken coop and fence location. Animal Control Officer would sign off on
permit and request the Licensing Specialist process permit. Time commitment – 1 hour.
3. Licensing Specialist would issue permit and leg bands to applicant. Time commitment –
1 hour.
Overall Staff Time – 3 to 6 hours.
Chicken Permit Renewal
1. Licensing Specialist would send renewal notice letter to applicant. Applicant would
submit renewal application to Licensing Specialist. Licensing Specialist would process
permit: verify requirements of renewal are met including application and fee. Licensing
Specialist would forward renewal application to Community Development Department.
Time commitment – ½ hour.
Packet Page Number 91 of 290
6
2. Environmental Planner and/or City Planners would verify that there were no outstanding
issues with the raising of chickens on the property throughout the year. Community
Development Department would sign off on renewal application and forward to Licensing
Specialist. Time commitment – 1 hour.
3. Licensing Specialist would issue permit and new leg bands if necessary. Time
commitment – ½ hour.
Overall Staff Time – 2 hours.
Permit Fee
To estimate the cost of issuing a chicken permit, staff used average hourly salaries of those
staff involved in the process as follows:
1. Initial chicken permit - $95 to $165.
2. Chicken renewal permit - $60.
More specifics on costs and a recommendation on a permit fee will be presented to the City
Council during the second reading of the chicken ordinance.
Chicken Ordinance Enforcement
The chicken ordinance would be enforced similar to all other ordinances which require various
staff expertise. The city’s code enforcement officer (currently handled by the Building Official)
would receive the initial complaint and work with the appropriate department and staff to resolve
the complaint. As an example, the following scenarios would dictate different staff positions to
become involved in enforcement of the chicken ordinance:
1. Raising of chickens without a permit – Community Development Department.
2. Complaints about chickens on properties with a permit:
a. Unsanitary or Inhumane Conditions – Health Officer or Animal Control Officer
b. Chicken Coop Setback, Etc. – Community Development Department
3. Stray chicken – Animal Control Officer.
Resident Comments
The June 2011 edition of Maplewood Seasons focused on Maplewood’s local foods movement.
One of the articles included in the Seasons spotlighted the proposed chicken ordinance. Since
the publication of the article, city staff has received five e-mails supporting the ordinance
(Attachment 5).
Police Department Review
Police Chief Thomalla has reviewed the draft chicken ordinance and has submitted a
memorandum identifying concerns regarding the ordinance (Attachment 6). In summary, Chief
Packet Page Number 92 of 290
7
Thomalla expresses concern over the requirement for only 75 percent neighborhood consent,
rather than 100 percent; costs associated with impounding stray chickens; and the amount of
staff time that might be required to issue and enforce chicken permits.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the first reading of the attached chicken ordinance (Attachment 7). This ordinance
revises portions of the Zoning Code and adds language to the Animal Chapter to allow for the
raising of chickens in single dwelling residential districts with a permit.
Attachments:
1. August 17, 2010, Planning Commission Minutes
2. September 2010 Planning Commission Minutes
3. March 7, 2011, City Council Workshop
4. Recommendations for Municipal Regulation of Urban Chickens, 2010
5. Resident Comments
6. June 22, 2011, Memorandum from David J. Thomalla, Chief of Police
7. Draft Chicken Ordinance
Packet Page Number 93 of 290
August 17, 2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1
Attachment 1
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2010
(PARTIAL MINUTES)
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Al Bierbaum Present
Commissioner Joseph Boeser Present
Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Present
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Present
Commissioner Robert Martin Absent
Commissioner Tanya Nuss Present
Commissioner Gary Pearson Present
Commissioner Dale Trippler Present
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Absent
Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner; Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Ordinance Review to Consider Allowing the Keeping of Chickens in Residential
Areas
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner, and Melissa Weigant, Community Development
Intern, presented the proposed ordinance that has been under development by the
environmental and natural resources commission (ENR) since October 2009. The purpose of
the ordinance is to promote urban agriculture and sustainability. Current zoning code
prohibits the raising of poultry in all zoning districts.
In the development of the ordinance, the ENR researched the ordinances of six other cities
that allow chickens to be kept in residential areas; these cities are: Minneapolis, Saint Paul,
Shoreview, Rosemount, Oakdale and Burnsville. The ENR also spoke with health experts as
well as citizens who either own or have owned chickens at their residence.
The ENR recommended approval of this ordinance on July 19, 2010. The proposed
ordinance carries the following restrictions:
1. Up to 10 chickens would be allowed on any size lot with a permit.
2. Applicant must have approval of 75% of home owners within 150 feet of the
applicant’s property.
Packet Page Number 94 of 290
September 21, 2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1
Attachment 2
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
(PARTIAL MINUTES)
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Al Bierbaum Present
Commissioner Joseph Boeser Absent
Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Present
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Present
Commissioner Robert Martin Present (Arrived at 7:07)
Commissioner Tanya Nuss Present (Arrived at 7:05)
Commissioner Gary Pearson Present
Commissioner Dale Trippler Present
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Absent
Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Ordinance Review to Consider Allowing the Keeping of Chickens in Residential
Areas (heard out of order)
Ms. Finwall presented the revised ordinance and led the discussion. Ms. Finwall addressed
the Planning Commission’s previous concerns from their August 17, 2010 meeting from that
meeting. Additional questions and concerns were discussed.
Mr. Ekstrand requested a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Ms. Finwall
explained that this ordinance requires review by the Planning Commission because it involves
the City’s zoning code. The Planning Commission is being asked to review it from the
perspective of if it is an appropriate use of residential land and if it is in the best interest of the
health and safety of the public.
Commissioner Trippler moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council not move forward with this ordinance.
Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion.
Ayes 4 (Bierbaum, Desai, Pearson and Trippler ); Nays 3 ( Fischer, Martin, Nuss)
Motion carries.
Chair Fischer and Commissioner Nuss explained that, although they voted against the
motion, they do not necessarily support the ordinance as is it currently written.
Ms. Finwall has not yet scheduled this ordinance to go before the City Council.
Packet Page Number 95 of 290
August 17, 2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2
3. No roosters can be kept.
4. Chickens must be kept in a separate coop; no chickens may be kept in human-use
buildings, including garages, etc.
5. Leg banding is required as a means of identifying ownership of each chicken
6. Slaughtering of chickens is prohibited.
Additional application requirements are also included in the ordinance.
The following questions/issues were raised and discussed:
1. Allergies among neighbors
2. Make the ordinance specific in requiring chickens to be kept in the back yard
3. All adjacent neighbors must approve
4. Cost to the city/tax payers versus permit fees:
Commissioner Trippler noted that, as the ENR was developing the ordinance, it
was always stressed that it should not cost the tax payers to allow people to have
chickens, yet, while the costs to process would be approximately $115, the ENR
commission is recommending a fee of $50. The ordinance does not actually state
what the fees would be.
5. Assess fees per chicken like it is for dogs.
6. How will the ordinance be policed?
7. What are the requirements for dealing with feces and deceased chickens? How will
that be regulated?
8. What are the set backs for the location of the coops?
9. Some questioned the “sustainability” of keeping only hens.
10. Concern that allowing chickens will lead to residents wanting to keep other types of
livestock.
Ms. Finwall made the following clarifications:
1. The ordinance would be policed the same as any other animal ordinance. Leg bands
are intended to reduce the cost of boarding stray chickens. Slaughtering can be done
by an outside company with the chicken is no longer producing eggs. Similar to the
policing of other ordinances, policing would be done based on complaints received.
2. Portable chicken coops are quite innovative and a practical way to keep them, so the
ordinance allows for the use of these portable coops; therefore, there are no specific
setbacks included.
3. ENR heard from people have concerns about the eggs they are buying in the store.
They are people who prefer to grown their own food on their own property. Ms.
Finwall believes this ordinance will be used only by people who know what they are
getting into. Sustainable agriculture is also preferred by a large part of the immigrant
cultures.
Commission members agreed to review and consider the ordinance again if the following
changes are made:
1. Include language to address the handling of feces and deceased chickens.
2. Include specific language on how the ordinance will be policed.
3. Define “officer” to distinguish between animal control and police.
Packet Page Number 96 of 290
August 17, 2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
3
4. Add the word “live” to references of keeping chickens.
5. Require the approval of 100% of adjacent neighbors.
6. Require the approval of neighbors as part of the annual permit renewal.
7. Increase the distance for neighbor approval to 300 feet.
8. Limit the number of chickens based on the lot size using a ratio of chickens to
area.
9. Establish set-backs.
10. Address disposal of a deceased chicken and the waste.
11. Make the fees strong enough to make people serious about doing it.
12. Require rodent-proof coops.
A guest raised concerns about the city being at risk for law suits filed due to incidents that
occur with chickens. Commissioner Boeser recommended that the liability issue be
investigated.
The ENR will modify the ordinance as discussed and present this updated ordinance to the
Planning Commission at a future meeting.
Packet Page Number 97 of 290
March 7, 2011
City Council Manager Workshop Minutes
1
Attachment 3
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
5:15 p.m., Monday, March 7, 2011
Council Chambers, City Hall
(PARTIAL MINUTES)
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 until 6:45 p.m.
John Nephew, Councilmember Present
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Rossbach requested that the agenda items be renumbered after adding a new D1.
Discussion of Visitor Presentations.
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Chicken Ordinance Update
a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the update on the Chicken Ordinance and
answered questions of the council.
b. Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Member, Ginny Yingling addressed
the council regarding the Chicken Ordinance.
c. Maplewood Police Chief, Dave Thomalla answered questions of the council.
d. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud answered questions of the council.
E. NEW BUSINESS
None.
F. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rossbach adjourned the meeting at 7:39 p.m.
Packet Page Number 98 of 290
!"#$%%"&'()*$&+,-$!,%.&*#*/(0,
!"1.0()*$&,$-,.!2(&,#3*#4"&+
!"#$%&'(#&)*+",$("$-*).&/$0,%$-1#2&($0--.&/0,('
2(+*#,#3*#4"&,#(!",*&+)!.#)*$&+,,,,56789:,;<=>
!"?.*!"%"&)+,-$!,4""/*&1,#3*#4"&+,56789,@>
%7AB,2ACDEF,#GEH:9
#ICJK9F,!HF,!9:JH9
;LML
"FNEA:9N,OB
Chicken Run Rescue
Eastern Shore Sanctuary and Education Center
Farm Sanctuary
The Humane Society of the United States
Sunnyskies Bird and Animal Sanctuary
United Poultry Concerns
Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary
http://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/! Page 1 2/15/101
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 99 of 290
2(+*#,#3*#4"&,#(!",*&+)!.#)*$&+
#$&+*'"!()*$&+,2"-$!",(#?.*!*&1,(,#3*#4"&
0CP9:67F
!"#$%&'()*"&+)",%-("+*",.)/"+*"+"0./".1"&+23"45"2."67"8(+1*".1",.)/(19"
!"://",+8%)/";.1"+"$()"/()(1+,,8"*2+12*"+2"<"=.)2$*".,0>"5(+'*"+2"6?"=.)2$*"+)0"0(&,%)(*"@%2$"+/(9
#E:Q
!"A2+12!B5"&.*2*";.1"&..5>"=+%)2()+)&(>"2..,*>"&,(+)%)/"(C4%5=()2>"$(+D)/"E"&..,%)/"+55,%+)&(*>"0%*$(*>"
)(2*>";..0"*2.1+/(>"*&+,(>";()&%)/>"*(&41%28",.&'*>",%/$D)/>"=.D.)"0(2(&2.1*>"=.)%2.1*>"&+=(1+*>"5(1=%2"
+55,%&+D.)"FGH!I>JJJK
!"L))4+,"*455,%(*"5(1"M%10";.1";..0>"M(00%)/>")421%D.)+,"*455,(=()2*>"$8/%()("*455,%(*>"5(1=%2";((>"
4D,%D(*"FGIJJK
!"N(2"&+1("5(1"M%10"5(1"*(1-%&("F.O&("(P+="G<<>";(&+,"2(*2"GH?>"5,4*".2$(1"*(1-%&(*"+*")((0(0";.1"%,,)(**".1"
%)Q418K9"L1("8.4"+M,("2."51.-%0("2$("M%10*"@%2$"51.5(1"-(2(1%)+18"&+1(")((0(0R
)CR9
!"L-(1+/("6"$.41"5(1"M%10"5(1"0+8"=%)%=4=";.1"&,(+)%)/>"5+1+*%2("&.)21.,>"/1..=%)/>"5$8*%&+,"(P+=>"
21+-(,"D=("2."541&$+*("*455,%(*>"&.)*214&D.)>"1(5+%1>"=(0%&+D.)>";((0%)/>"*45(1-%*(";1(("D=(".42".;"
5()9
!"#$%&'()*")((0"2."M("2()0(0"2."2@%&("0+%,89"S%,,"8.4"$+-("+"5(1*.)"1(+08"2."*4M*D242(";.1"8.4"@$()"8.4"
$+-("1(+*.)"2."M("+M*()2R
+67J9,
L2",(+*2"+"<"T"P"6HT"P"<"T"$%/$"*5+&("%)"+"8+10"%*")((0(0";.1"+"&..5"+)0"5()";.1"7"M%10*>"%)"+00%D.)"2."+"
,+1/(1";()&(0"+1(+";.1"1(/4,+1"(P(1&%*(9
0EJ7SEF
#..5"+)0"5()"*$.4,0"M(",.&+2(0"%)"+)"+1(+"2$+2"51.-%0(*"*$+0(>"0%1(&2"*4),%/$2>"/..0"01+%)+/("+)0"
51.2(&D.)";1.="51(-+%,%)/"@%)0*"+)0"@%,,").2"51(*()2"+"51.M,(="2.")(%/$M.1*9
.FCFTCQ9N,8H9:Q:
#$%&'()*"@%,,"+U1+&2"M%10!=%2(*"+)0",%&(>"=%&(>"8+10"M%10*>"*C4%11(,*>"1+&&..)*>"0./*>"&.8.2(*>";.P>"=%)'>"
.5.**4=>"1+2*>".@,*>"M.M&+2*>"$+@'*>"*)+'(*>"@(+*(,*>";(11(2*>"V*$(1*>"=+12()*"+)0"$4=+)*9
(#?.*!*&1,(,#3*#4"&U,('$/)*$&,$!,/.!#3(+"V2!""'*&1W
W$("1(&()2"%)2(1(*2"%)"$+-%)/"&$%&'()*"$+*".-(1@$(,=(0"+)%=+,"1(*&4(".1/+)%X+D.)*"@%2$"%)C4%1%(*";1.="
5(.5,("@+)D)/"2."/%-("45"4)@+)2(0"&$%&'()*9"L*"@%2$"+,,".2$(1"+)%=+,*"*411()0(1(0"2."*$(,2(1*>"1(*&4("
.1/+)%X+D.)*"&+)).2"$(,5"2$(="+,,9"W$(1("+1(")(-(1"().4/$"$.=(*";.1"0%*5,+&(0"+)%=+,*>"*."+0.5D.)".;"
M%10*"@$.")((0"$.=(*"%*"+,@+8*"2$("'%)0(*2"&$.%&(9"%)*2(+0".;"541&$+*%)/";1.="+"M1((0(1".1"$+2&$(189
(NE6SEF<,Y8"+0.5D)/";1.="+"1(*&4(".1/+)%X+D.)".1"+"51%-+2("%)0%-%04+,>"8.4"&+)"').@"@$+2"2."(P5(&2"
@%2$"1(/+10"2."2$("M%10Z*"$(+,2$>"*(P>"M($+-%.1"+)0"5(1*.)+,%289"[(542+M,("1(*&4(".1/+)%X+D.)*"&+)"
51.-%0("+0-%&(".)"*(,(&D)/"2$("1%/$2"M%10"+)0"&+1("%);.1=+D.)>"+)0"2$(8"/()(1+,,8"$+-("+"/()(1.4*"
1(241)"5.,%&8"2."%)*41("2$+2"M%10"@%,,"M("$+558>"&.=5+DM,("+)0"@(,,"&+1(0";.19
/HAJI7:9VOA99NCF8<,W$("%0()DV&+D.)".;"2$("*(P".;"&$%&'*"M8";((0"*2.1(*>"M1((0(1*"+)0"$+2&$(1%(*"%*"
.T()"@1.)/"+)0").2"+55+1()2"4)D,"2$("M%10"%*"<"=.)2$*".,09"\J]".;"2$("&$%&'*"$+2&$(0"+1("1..*2(1*"@$."
+1("'%,,(0".1".2$(1@%*("0%*&+10(0".;"+*"@+*2(9"^(@M.1)"&$%&'*"*$%55(0"2$1.4/$"2$("5.*2+,"*(1-%&("+1("
0(51%-(0".;"2$(%1"=.2$(1*>"@+1=2$"+)0";..09"W$("8.4)/(1"2$("M%10*>"2$("=.1(";1+/%,("+)0"0%O&4,2"2$(8"
+1("2."&+1(";.19"
http://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/! Page 2 2/15/102
Packet Page Number 100 of 290
3"(0)3X,2*!',#3"#40*+)
"B9:_"&,(+1>"&,(+)>"@%0(".5()>"+,(12
-7J9,V,JERO,V,Y7DG9_"&,(+)>"*.T>"M,(=%*$";1((>"$(+,2$8"0((5"1(0"%)0%&+D)/"/..0"M,..0"*455,8>"F*.=("
;+&(*"+1(").2"1(0K
/E:QHA9_"$(+0"(1(&2>"/..0"M+,+)&(>"*2+)0*".1"5(1&$(*".)"M.2$";((2".)"(P2()0(0",(/*>"/..0"/1%5".)"5(1&$>"
;+&%)/"+&D-%28
$NEA_").)(".1"*,%/$2,8";(1=()2(0"$+8
297K,V,FE:QACG:U"&,(+)>"4)%;.1=>"*$%)8"+)0"*.,%0
098:,V,P99QU"&,(+)>"*$%)8>"4)%;.1="*&+,(*"+)0")+%,*`";..2"M.U.="*.T"+)0"M,(=%*$!;1((`",(/*"+)0"2.(*"
*21+%/$2"+)0";4)&D.)+,
-97QI9A:Z"&,(+)>"M1%/$2>"*$%)8>"*=..2$".1"a4b8`";1((".;"=%2(*".1",%&(
[CF8:U"$(,0"&,.*("2."M.08>"*8==(21%&+,>"*=..2$"=.-(=()2"%)"Q.%)2*"@$()"a(P(0>"a%/$2";(+2$(1*"%)2+&2
+KCFU"&,(+)>"*.T>"5+,("5%)'"+)0"21+)*,4&()2"F*.=("M1((0*"$+-("M+1("1(0"5+2&$(*"+2"*$.4,0(1*"+)0"'((,K>"
;1((".;"=%2(*".1",%&(
'AE66CF8:U"cJ]".0.1,(**"/1(()E"@$%2(>"V1=>"IJ]"*D)'8"M1.@)"5+*28"F&(&+,K>"@+2(18"%;"*21(**(0
499G,5:Q9AFHR>U"A21+%/$2>"/..0"=4*&,("=+**".)"(%2$(1"*%0(>",4=5";1((
#AE6,5EF,OCAN\:,AC8IQ,:CN9,EP,GEY9A,F9JK>U";4,,>"&.)2()2*".;"&.)*4=(0";..0"(+*%,8"5+,5+2(0
]9FQU"5(D2(>"&,(+)>"=.%*2>"*.T>"5,%+)2
!9:6CA7SEFU,6H!Ic"5(1"=%)9>"%)$+,+D.)",.40(1"+)0"*$.12(1"2$+)"(P$+,+D.)>"=%)%=+,"&$(*2"=.-(=()2>"
&,.*(0"M(+'
&.%2"!,$-,2*!'+
#+,&4,+D)/"+-+%,+M,("*5+&(>"D=(>"+)0"&.*2"F*(("+M.-(K"@%,,"0%&2+2("$.@"=+)8"M%10*"&+)"M("51.5(1,8"&+1(0"
;.1_
#EE6_"7"*C9";((2".;"a..1"*5+&("=%)%=4="5(1"M%10";.1"2$("%)2(1%.1"F+)"+1(+"H"T"P"H"T"5(1"M%10K
/9F_""6J"*C9"T".;"a..1"*5+&("=%)%=4="5(1"M%10"F+)"+1(+"I"T"P"I9I"T"5(1"M%10K
!7F89V,9^9AJC:9,B7AN_""6c7"*C9"T"5(1"M%10"F+)"+1(+"+M.42"6J"T9"P"6c"T"5(1"M%10K
L"*%)/,("&$%&'()"%*"+"*+0"&$%&'()9"d,+)"2."$+-("+2",(+*2"H3"2$(8"+1("a.&'"+)%=+,*"+)0")((0"2$("
&.=5+)%.)*$%5".;".2$(1"&$%&'()*9"e()(1+,,8>"I!\"&.=5+DM,("&$%&'()*"&+)"M("@(,,"=+%)2+%)(0"%)"+"285%&+,"
&%28"()-%1.)=()29"f)0%-%04+,"M%10*Z"*(P>"+/(*"+)0"2(=5(1+=()2*"&+)"+b(&2"&.=5+DM%,%289"g-(1"&1.@0%)/"
&$%&'()*"%*"2$("=.*2"&.==.)"=%*2+'(9"h()*"*$.4,0".42)4=M(1"1..*2(1*9"A.=(D=(*"*%)/,("M%10*"&+)"
2$1%-("@%2$"+"$4=+)";1%()0"%;"2$(8"$+-("*5(&%+,")((0*9"[..*2(1*>"*%)/,(".1"%)"5+%1*>""+1("-(18"*.&%+M,("+)0"
&+)"=+'("2(11%V&"&.=5+)%.)*"%;"$+)0,(0"/()2,8"+)0".T()9""
3(&'0*&1,_,!"+)!(*&)
^(-(1"$+)0,("+"&$%&'()"M8"@%)/*>";((2".1",(/*9"h(10"M%10"2."&.1)(1"4*%)/"*,.@"0(,%M(1+2("=.-(=()29"
Fi+*2j"51(0+2.1>"*,.@"j",(**"2$1(+29K"d,+&("$+)0*".-(1"2.5"5+12".;"@%)/*"F*$.4,0(1*K"+)0"$.,0"*(&41(,8"M42"
0.").2"*C4((X(9"d%&'"45"+)0"$.,0"4)0(1"+1="2."'((5"@%)/*"%)"5,+&(9"A455.12";((2"@%2$".2$(1"$+)0"%;"M%10"
@%,,"2.,(1+2(9"W."1(*21+%)";.1"21+)*5.12".1"(P+=%)+D.)>"01+5("+"2.@(,".-(1"*$.4,0(1*"&+5(!*28,("+)0"@1+5"
+1.4)0"M.089"
)!(&+/$!)()*$&
#.)*%0(1"21+-(,"D=("+)0"+-.%0"(P21(=("@(+2$(1"&.)0%D.)*9"h(+2"(P$+4*D.)"&+)"0(-(,.5"C4%&',8>"+)0"
%)2(1%.1"&+1"2(=5*"&+)"1(+&$";+2+,"5.%)2"6J"=%)42(*9"k(0%4=!*%X(0>"$+10"5(2"&+11%(1*"@.1'"@(,,";.1"
*(&41%28>"*+;(28>"*21(**9"l%)("@%2$"+"2.@(,>"*$1(00(0"5+5(1".1"*21+@9"i..0"%*"+"/..0"*21(**"1(04&(19"gb(1"
@(2";..0",%'("/1(()*".1"&4&4=M(1";.1",.)/"21%5*9
(!!*](0
f;".2$(1"M%10*"+1("+,1(+08"51(*()2>"+"H!@(('"C4+1+)D)("%)"+"*(5+1+2("+1(+"%*"1(&.==()0(0"2."@+2&$";.1"
http://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/! Page 3 2/15/103
Packet Page Number 101 of 290
*%/)*".;"%,,)(**"+)0"5+1+*%2(*9"L-.%0").%*8>"$%/$!21+O&"+1(+*>"+)0"+,,.@"2$("M%10"2."+&&,%=+2("M(;.1("
%)21.04&%)/"2.".2$(1"M%10*>"+)%=+,*"+)0";+=%,89
/!$]*'*&1,(,1$$',3$%"
&().!(0,3*+)$!X
f2"%*"%=5.12+)2"2."4)0(1*2+)0"$.@"&$%&'()*",%-("%)"2$("@%,0"+)0"2."51.-%0("2$(="@%2$"+)"()-%1.)=()2"
2$+2"=((2*"2$.*("%)*D)&D-("5$8*%&+,"+)0"5*8&$.,./%&+,")((0*"+*"&,.*(,8"+*"5.**%M,(9"#$%&'()*"+1("+,,"
0(*&()0(0";1.="W1.5%&+,"m4)/,("i.@,"+)0"+1("+0+52(0"2.",%-%)/"%)"+")+241+,"$+M%2+2"2$+2"%*"*5+&%.4*>"1%&$,8"
-(/(2+2(0>"0%-(1*("+)0"@+1=9"W$%*"51(*()2*"+"5+1D&4,+1"&$+,,()/("%)"+"*=+,,>"41M+)"*(n)/"%)"+"&.,0"
&,%=+2(",%'("k%))(*.2+9
i,.&'*"$+-("+"$%/$,8"0(-(,.5(0"*.&%+,"*214&241("+)0"=(=M(1*"0(5()0".)".)("+).2$(1";.1"&.=5+)%.)*$%5"
+)0"*(&41%289"^+241+,%*2*"$+-(".M*(1-(0"2$+2"2$(8"&+)"1(&./)%X("+)0"1(=(=M(1"6?J".2$(1"%)0%-%04+,"a.&'"
=(=M(1*9"W$(8"+1("/1.4)0!0@(,,%)/"M%10*9"k.*2"+1("&+5+M,(".;",.@"a%/$2"%)"*$.12"0%*2+)&(*`"*=+,,(1"M%10*"
&+)"a8"$%/$(1"+)0";+12$(19"
f)"2$("@%,0>"2$(8"1..*2"%)"21((*"+2"04*'"M(;.1("2$(8"*,((5".1"2."(*&+5("51(0+2.1*9"W$(8"$%0("2$(%1")(*2*"%)"
&+-%D(*"%)"2$("/1.4)09"W$("=+Q.1%28".;"2$(%1"@+'%)/"$.41*"+1("*5()2"+&D-(>"@%0(,8"1+)/%)/>"/1+X%)/"+)0"
;.1+/%)/";.1";..03"5,+)2*>"M4/*"+)0".&&+*%.)+,,8"*=+,,"1.0()2*9"f)"2$(%1")+241+,"*2+2(>"2$(8"285%&+,,8"21+-(,"
6EH"=%,(";1.="2$(%1"1..*2"(+&$"0+89"f)"2$("@%,0>"2$(8"+1(")(-(1".-(1"&1.@0(0`"%;"2$("5.54,+D.)"M(&.=(*"
2.."0()*(>"=(=M(1*"@%,,"M1(+'".b"%)2."*4M/1.45*"+)0"*51(+0".429"W$(8"=.-(".)";1.=".)("+1(+"2."
+).2$(1>"@$%&$"+,,.@*";..0"*.41&(*"2."1(/()(1+2("+)0"51(-()2*"2$(%1"@+*2(";1.="&.)&()21+D)/"%)".)("
5,+&("*."%2"&+)"0(&.=5.*("@%2$.42"$(+,2$"1%*'"2."2$("a.&'9
[..*2(1*"+,(12"2$("a.&'"2."0+)/(1>"V)0";..0"+)0"&+,,"2$("$()*"2."%2"+)0"*2+)0"/4+10"+*"2$(8"(+29"W$(8"
*(,(&2"+)0"M4%,0")(*2*"+)0"@%,,"(-()"5+1D&%5+2("%)"&+1%)/";.1"2$("8.4)/9"W$(8"+,*."+&2"+*"5(+&("'((5(1*"2."
%)2(1-()("%)"0%*542(*"2$+2"&+)"0(-(,.5"M(2@(()"a.&'"=(=M(1*9"[..*2(1*"@%,,"*2+12"2."&1.@"+)0"0%*5,+8"
&.41D)/"M($+-%.1*"+2"+M.42"<"=.)2$*".;"+/(9"f2"%*"(**()D+,"2."/()2,8"$+)0,("+"1..*2(1".)"+"0+%,8"M+*%*"2."
(*2+M,%*$"2$+2"8.4"+1("2$("a.&'",(+0(1"FL,5$+K"+)0"=+%)2+%)"+"@(,,!*.&%+,%X(0"&.=5+)%.)9
W$("$()*"*5()0"2$(%1"D=("*&1+2&$%)/";.1";..0>"04*2"M+2$%)/>"51(()%)/>"5,+8%)/"+)0")+55%)/9"h()*"M(/%)"
2.",+8"(//*"+2"+M.42"<"=.)2$*".;"+/(9"h()*"%)"2$("@%,0"51.04&(".),8"+";(@"&,42&$(*".;"(//*"+"8(+1";.1"2$("
*.,("5415.*(".;"1(51.04&D.)9"o.=(*D&+2(0"$()*"$+-("M(()"M1(0"2.",+8".)("(//"+"0+8>"M42"M8"6?"=.)2$*"
.;"+/(>"(//!,+8%)/";1(C4()&8"/()(1+,,8"0%=%)%*$(*>"+)0"=+)8"+04,2".1"*()%.1"$()*"*2.5",+8%)/"+,2./(2$(19"
#$%&'()*"+1("*.&%+M,(>"&$((1;4,"+)0"%)2(,,%/()2"&1(+241(*"@$."&+)";.1=",%;(,.)/"M.)0*"@%2$"(+&$".2$(1"
+)0".2$(1"*5(&%(*"%)&,40%)/"$4=+)*>"0./*"+)0"&+2*9"Y(&+4*(".;"2$(%1"'(()"%)2(,,%/()&("+)0"%)*D)&D-("
5$8*%&+,"+&D-%28>"2$(8")((0"+"*D=4,+D)/"()-%1.)=()2"2$+2"=%=%&*"+*"=4&$"+*"5.**%M,("2$("1%&$"+)0"
0%-(1*("@.1,0")+241("0(*%/)(0"2$(="2."()Q.89
#$$/`,/"&`,!(&1"V,"a"!#*+",X(!'
!h.4*%)/"+)0"%);1+*214&241(9"W$("51%=+18"5415.*(".;"5.4,218"$.4*%)/"%*"2."51.2(&2"a.&'*"+/+%)*2"+0-(1*("
@(+2$(1"+)0"51(0+2.1*"F&.8.2(>";.P>"*21+8"0./*>"1+&&..)*"+)0"1+52.1*K9,S(+2$(1"%*".;"&1%D&+,"&.)&(1)"%)"
2$("B55(1"k%0@(*2>"@$(1("*4==(1*"&+)"M("(P21(=(,8"$.2"+)0"@%)2(1*"M%U(1,8"&.,09"h.4*%)/"=4*2"
51.-%0("*$+0(";1.="*4)"+)0"&.-(1";1.="1+%)9"f2"=4*2"M("+M,("2."@%2$*2+)0"$%/$"@%)0*"+)0"*).@",.+0*"%;"%2"
%*"2."M("4*(0";.1"8(+1!1.4)0".5(1+D.)9"W$(*("M+*%&"$.4*%)/"&.)*%0(1+D.)*"+55,8"2."+,,"5.4,2189p
"#$%&'()*+$%(*,-).*/*0%123*'$*4-5-63735'*/&'3(5-893:*;$(*'<3*=>>3(*412?3:'@*k%))(*.2+"
o(5+12=()2".;"L/1%&4,241(>"HJJ\,
http://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/! Page 4 2/15/104
Packet Page Number 102 of 290
#$$/.*A<3*<$%:3@*B&$:32*:'(%B'%(3*$(*35B&$:32*($$7*?<1B<*>($9123:*:<3&'3(*;($7*B$&2@*<3-'@*?152@*(-15@*
:5$?*-52*>(32-'$(:*;$(*>($'3B'32*($$:856@*53:856@*;332156*-52*?-'3(156*:>-B3C
#EF:QAHJSEF,_,%7Q9AC7G:,q"#..5*"&+)"M("541&$+*(0"1(+08"=+0(".1"%)"'%2*>"&.)*214&2(0"@%2$%)"+)""
(P%*D)/"*214&241(".1"M4%,2";1.="*&1+2&$9"l.&+,"M4%,0%)/"&.0(*"*$.4,0"M(";.,,.@(0"2."51(-()2"0+=+/(";1.="
*).@>"@%)0>"(2&9"&$)"_"1+MM%2"$42&$(*>"5,+*D&"%/,..*>"0./"$.4*(*"+)0"*4&$"+1(").2"+551.51%+2("
*214&241(*9
!9bHCA9N,P97QHA9:U
+Cc9_"7"*C9";((2".;"a..1"*5+&("=%)%=4="%*"1(C4%1(0"5(1"M%10";.1"2$("%)2(1%.1"F+)"+1(+"H"T"P"H"T"5(1"M%10K9"
A.>";.41"M%10*"@%,,")((0"+"&..5"@%2$"+)"%)*%0("a..1"*5+&(".;"+2",(+*2"7"T"P"7"T>").2"%)&,40%)/")(*2"M.P(*9"
g42*%0("0%=()*%.)*"*$.4,0"M("+M.42"\"T"P"\"T"P"<"T"$%/$9"g-(1&1.@0%)/"%*"2$("=.*2"&.==.)"&+4*(".;"
M($+-%.1"51.M,(=*>"%)Q418"+)0"0%*(+*(9"#..5*"*$.4,0"M("$%/$"().4/$";.1"+"$4=+)"2."*2+)0"45"
&.=;.12+M,8";.1"&,(+)%)/>"=+%)2()+)&("+)0"(//"&.,,(&D.)9"f2"+,*."+,,.@*";.1"+00%D.)+,"1..*D)/9"
W(=5(1+=()2"+)0"*.&%+,"*214&241(*"*$.4,0"M("2+'()"%)2."+&&.4)2>"+)0"5+1DD.)*"*$.4,0"M("+-+%,+M,(";.1"
M%10*"@$."+1("*%&'>"%)Q41(0".1",.@(1"%)"2$("5(&'%)/".10(19
(JJ9::,QE,9G9JQACJCQBU,)IC:"%*"1(C4%1(0"%)";1(("*2+)0%)/"*214&241(*9"
-GEEAU"W$("a..1"*$.4,0").2"&.,,(&2"+)0"$.,0"=.%*241(>"*$.4,0"M("(+*8"2."&,(+)>"*$.4,0"1(2+%)"$(+2"%)"&.,0"
@(+2$(1"+)0"*$.4,0"(P&,40("1.0()2*E51(0+2.1*9"L"0%12"a..1"01+@*"$(+2"+@+8"+)0"%*").2"(+*8"2."&,(+)".1"
2."1.0()2E51(0+2.1!51..;9"L"@..0"a..1"%*"+0(C4+2(>"51.-%0(0"%2"%*"+2",(+*2"+";..2".b"2$("/1.4)0>"
%)*4,+2(0"+)0"*(+,(0"51.5(1,83"M42"%2"%*"0%O&4,2"2."*+)%DX("M(&+4*("%2"%*"5.1.4*9""L"&.)&1(2("a..1"%*"%0(+,"
*%)&("%2"0%*&.41+/(*"1.0()2*E51(0+2.1*"+)0"%*"(+*8"2."*+)%DX(9"[(/+10,(**".;"2$("a..1"285(>"M(00%)/"
*21(@)".)"2$("*41;+&("%*")((0(0"%*"2."+M*.1M"=.%*2";(&+,"=+U(1"+)0";+&%,%2+2("&,(+)%)/9"l(+-(*".1"@..0"
*$+-%)/*"@.1'"M(*2"+)0"&+)"M("&.=5.*2(0".1"(+*%,8"M+//(0"+)0"0%*5.*(0".;"+*"*.,%0"@+*2(9"
[7GG:<,k+2(1%+,*"2$+2"+1("1(*%*2+)2"2."=.%*241("+)0"=.,0"+)0"(+*%,8"&,(+)(0"+1("M(*29"#$(=%&+,,8"21(+2(0"
=+2(1%+,*"*$.4,0"M(").)2.P%&9"L"/..0"&.=5.4)0"@%2$"+)D";4)/+,"+/()2*"%*"/..0";.1"$4=%0"+1(+*9"#,(+1"
-+1)%*$"%*"+,*."/..09":-(182$%)/"*$.4,0"M("21(+2(0".1"5+%)2(0"M(;.1("%2"%*"+**(=M,(09"S..0()"*214&241(*"
*$.4,0"M("01+T";1(("+)0"M4%,2"@%2$"0.4M,("@+,,*"2$+2"$+-("+2",(+*2"6"6EH"%)&$"%)*4,+D.)",+8(1"M(2@(()"
2$(=9
!EEP_""W$("&..5"1..;"*$.4,0"M("=+0(".;"+"=+2(1%+,"2$+2"@%,,").2"&.,,(&2"+)0"$.,0"$(+2"+)0"*$.4,0"M("M4%,2"
@%2$"0.4M,("@+,,*"2$+2"$+-("+2",(+*2"6"6EH"%)&$"%)*4,+2(0",+8(1"M(2@(()"2$(=9"W$("1..;"*41;+&("*$.4,0"M("
&.-(1(0"@%2$"+)"%)*4,+D)/"2+1"5+5(1"2."51.2(&2"%2";1.="$(+-8"1+%)*9"W$("1..;"*$.4,0"M("*,%/$2,8"%)&,%)(0>"
2."+,,.@"@+2(1"2."14)".b9"L)".-(1$+)/"+2"2$(";1.)2"@+,,"@%,,"51.2(&2";1.="0.@)5.41*9"L";(@"*=+,,"
.5()%)/*"+,.)/"2$("(+-(*"+,,.@"=.%*241("2."(*&+5("+)0"51.-%0(";1(*$"+%19
'EEA:_"g)("$4=+)!*%X(0"0..1"%*")((0(0";.1"0+%,8"+&&(**9"o..1*";.1"&$%&'()*"*$.4,0"M("Q4*2",+1/("().4/$"
;.1"2$(",+1/(*2"M%10"+)0"&+)"M("5.*%D.)(0"+)8@$(1(";1.="/1.4)0",(-(,"2."+M.42"H";((2"$%/$"@%2$"+"*2+M,("
1+=5"@%2$"&,(+2*9"#$%&'()*"+1("/1.4)0"0@(,,(1*>").2"5+11.2*3*=+,,"0..1*"+2"$(%/$2*"/1(+2(1"2$+)"I";((2"
@%2$"a%=*8>"4)*2+M,(",+00(1*"+1(").2"+551.51%+2(9"o..1*"=4*2"M("+M,("2."M("*(&41(0"+/+%)*2"51(0+2.1*"+2"
)%/$29
[CFNEY:_"#$%&'()*",.-("@%)0.@*"+)0")((0")+241+,",%/$29"o.4M,("/,+X(";.1"@+1=2$9"#.-(1"@%2$"6EHp"
=(2+,"*&1(()"*."2$(8"&+)"M(".5()(0";.1"-()D,+D.)"%)"$.2"@(+2$(19"L,,.@".)("*C4+1(";..2".;"@%)0.@";.1"
(+&$"6J"*C4+1(";((2".;"a..1"*5+&(9
!EE:Q:U,l4=M(1".1"M1+)&$(*"&+)"M("4*(09"W$(8"*$.4,0"M("*21.)/"().4/$"+)0"=.4)2(0"*(&41(,8"().4/$"
2."$.,0"+,,"M%10*9"W$("*41;+&("*$.4,0"M("1.4/$";.1"/..0"/1%5"@%2$")."*5,%)2(1*".1"*$+15"(0/(*9"i.1"=(0%4="
*%X(0"M%10*>"Hp".1"7r"a+2".1"6"6EHp"0%+=(2(1"%*"M(*2";.1";..2"&.=;.129"W$(",.)/(1"2$("1..*2>"2$("M(U(1"%2"@%,,"
51(-()2"&.=5(DD.)9"W$(8"*$.4,0"M("*(2"6?p";1.="2$("@+,,>"H"!I";((2".b"2$("a..19"f;"=.4)2(0"$%/$(1>"
14)/"*2(5*"+1(")((0(0>"*5+&(0"?!6H"%)&$(*"+5+129"W$("+00%D.)".;"+"01.55%)/"M.+10"4)0(1)(+2$"+)0"+)"
(,(-+2(0"1..*2"@%,,"&.,,(&2"01.55%)/*"+)0"'((5"a..1"*5+&("M(,.@"&,(+)"+)0"%)$+M%2+M,(9
#GCR7Q9U,A$(,2(1*"*$.4,0"M("'(52"+2"+"&.=;.12+M,("2(=5(1+241(";.1"2$("+)%=+,*9"L&&.10%)/"2."2$(""k%))9"
o(529".;"L/1%&4,241(>"rk%)%=4="W(=5(1+241("\\sFiK">"=+P%=4="2(=5(1+241("cJs
FiK9p"FfM%09K" " "
W$("&..5"*$.4,0"M("$(+2(0"2."=+%)2+%)"+"2(=5(1+241("+M.-("IHt"i"041%)/"2$("&.,0(*2"5+12".;"2$("@%)2(1"
+)0"&..,(0"M(,.@"?\t"i"%)"2$("$.U(*2"5+12".;"2$("*4==(19
http://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/! Page 5 2/15/105
Packet Page Number 103 of 290
Y(,.@"IHt"i>"M%10*"+1("4)&.=;.12+M,("+)0"&+)).2"=+%)2+%)"M.08"2(=5(1+241(9"Y(,.@"6\ti>";1.*2M%2("
M(/%)*>"+)0"$85.2$(1=%+"%)&1(+*(*9"g%,!".1"@+2(1!V,,(0"*+;(28"$(+2(1*"F%9(9"M1+)0*"d(,.)%*>"o(l.)/$%>"
h.)(8@(,,K"+1("&.=5,(2(,8"&,.*(0>""*(+,(0"*8*2(=*"2$+2"14)".)"(,(&21%&%289"W$(".%,"%*"$(+2(0";1.="@%2$%)"
+)0"2$("$(+2"%*"1+0%+)2>"*."2$(1("+1(")."(P5.*(0"$(+D)/"(,(=()2*"2."&1(+2("0+)/(1.4*"51.M,(=*"(-()"%;"
2$(8"D5".-(19"h(+2",+=5*"*$.4,0".),8"M("4*(0"@%2$"(P21(=("&+4D.)"+)0"*$.4,0"M("V1=,8"+U+&$(0"+2"
,(+*2"I";((2";1.="+)%=+,*"+)0";+1";1.="+)8"a+==+M,("%2(=>"(*5(&%+,,8"018"*21+@".1"M(00%)/9"A=.'("
+,+1=*"+1("$%/$,8"1(&.==()0(09":P21+"M(00%)/"*$.4,0"M("+-+%,+M,("2."'((5"+)%=+,*"@+1="+)0"
&.=;.12+M,("%)"&.,0"*(+*.)*9"
Y(2@(()"c\t"+)0"?\t"i>"5+)D)/"+)0"0($801+D.)"M(/%)`"+M.-("?\t"i>"$(+2"*21(**"+)0"0+)/(1".;"$(+2"
51.*21+D.)"%)&1(+*(*9"
]9FSG7SEFU,o..1*>"@%)0.@*"+)0"-()2*")(+1"2$("&(%,%)/"*455,8".P8/()>"1(=.-("$(+2";1.="M1(+2$%)/>"
1(=.-("=.%*241(";1.="M1(+2$"+)0"01.55%)/*>"1(=.-("$+1=;4,"/+**(*"+)0"04*2"5+1D&,(*>"+)0"0%,42("
0%*(+*(!&+4*%)/>"+%1M.1)(".1/+)%*=*9"i+)*"*$.4,0"M("51.-%0(0";.1"$.U(*2"@(+2$(19
0C8IQU,^+241+,",%/$2";1.="@%)0.@*"+)0E.1"*'8,%/$2*"+1("1(C4%1(09"#+)"M("*455,(=()2(0"@%2$";4,,"*5(&214="
%)&+)0(*&()2",%/$2"2.";.,,.@").1=+,"*(+*.)+,",%/$2"&8&,(*"+)0";.1"&,(+)%)/"+)0"=+%)2()+)&(9"W$("
=%)%=4=",%/$2"%)2()*%28"8.4"*$.4,0"51.-%0("*$.4,0"M("().4/$"2."&,(+1,8"*(("2$("$()*";((0"@$()"
*2+)0%)/".-(1"2$(";((0(19"
-99N9A:U,i..0"1(&(52+&,(*"*$.4,0"M("=+0(".;").)!&.11.*%-("=+2(1%+,"2$+2"%*"(+*%,8"&,(+)(0>"=%)%=%X(*"
*5%,,+/(>"51(-()2*"&.)2+=%)+D.)"@%2$"01.55%)/*"+)0"'((5*";..0"0189"W$("&.)2+%)(1*"*$.4,0"M(",+1/("
().4/$";.1"+,,"2$("M%10*"2."&.=;.12+M,8"(+2"+2".)&(".1")4=(1.4*"().4/$"2."51(-()2"&.=5(DD.)".1"
%)D=%0+D.)9"l+1/(>"$(+-8>"14MM(1";((0"M4&'(2*"@.1'")%&(,89"h+)/%)/"0%*$(*".1";((0(1*"@.1'"+*"@(,,"+)0"
*$.4,0"M("$4)/"+2"+M.42"2$(",(-(,".;"2$("M%10Z*"M+&'9"f;"0%*$(*"+1(".42*%0("2$("&..5>"2$(8"*$.4,0"M("*(2"
4)0(1"+)".-(1$+)/"2."'((5"2$(="018"@$()"%2"1+%)*9
[7Q9A9A:_"S+2(1"1(&(52+&,(*"*$.4,0"M("=+0(".;").)!&.11.*%-("=+2(1%+,"2$+2"&+)"M("&,(+)(0"+)0"
0%*%);(&2(0"@%2$"+"*.,4D.)".;"&$,.1%)("M,(+&$>"51(-()2"&.)2+=%)+D.)"@%2$"01.55%)/*"+)0"%*"*5%,,"+)0",(+'"
51..;9"W$("&.)2+%)(1*"*$.4,0"M(",+1/("().4/$";.1"+,,"2$("M%10*"2."&.=;.12+M,8"01%)'"+2".)&("+)0"$.,0"
().4/$"@+2(1";.1"+,,"M%10*";.1"+)"()D1("0+89"W$(8"*$.4,0"M("*,%/$2,8"5.*%D.)(0"$%/$(1"2$+)"2$(";((0(1".1"
;+1"().4/$"+@+8"2."51(-()2"&.)2+=%)+D.)"@%2$";..09
&9:QOE^9:<,g)(")(*2"M.P"%*")((0(0";.1"(-(18"I"$()*9"L"6HpS"P"6Hpo"P"67ph"M.P"%*"=.*2"-(1*+D,(9"
#$%&'()*"51(;(1"@..0()")(*2"M.P(*"@%2$"&.-(1(0".5()%)/";.1"51%-+&8"5,+&(0".)".1"+*",.@"2."2$("a..1"+*"
5.**%M,(9"f;"*(2"$%/$(1>"2$(8"1(C4%1("+"5(1&$"%)";1.)2".;"2$(".5()%)/9"W$(8"*$.4,0"M("V,,(0"@%2$"H!7"%)&$(*"
.;"*21+@>",%U(1>".1"/1+**9""W$(8"51(;(1"2.")(*2"%)"2$("*.42$(+*2"&.1)(1".;"2$("*214&241("@$()(-(1"5.**%M,(9
/"&.*A<3*>35*1:*-*;35B32*-(3-*:%(($%52156*'<3*B$$>*'<-'*>($9123:*:3B%(3*-BB3::*'$*3D3(B1:3@*:%5&16<'@*
3-('<*-52*9363'-8$5*-52*1:*;(33&)*-9-1&-E&3*'$*'<3*E1(2:*?<35*'<3)*-(3*%5:%>3(91:32C*F'*1:*B$5:'(%B'32*'$*
>(3935'*'<3*E1(2:G*3:B->3*-52*>(3935':*35'()*E)*15'(%23(:H>(32-'$(:C
#EF:QAHJSEF,_,%7Q9AC7G:,q"u())(,"5()*"&+)"M("541&$+*(0"1(+08!=+0(".1"%)"'%2*>".1"M4%,2";1.="*&1+2&$9"
l.&+,"M4%,0%)/"&.0(*"*$.4,0"M(";.,,.@(0"2."51(-()2"0+=+/(";1.="*).@>"@%)0>"(2&9""W(=5(1+=()2"+)0"
*.&%+,"*214&241(*".;"a.&'"*$.4,0"M("2+'()"%)2."+&&.4)2>"+)0"5+1DD.)*"*$.4,0"M("+-+%,+M,(";.1"M%10*"@$."
+1("*%&'>"%)Q41(0".1",.@(1"%)"2$("5(&'%)/".10(19
!9bHCA9N,P97QHA9:U
+Cc9U,6J"*C9";((2".;"a..1"*5+&("F+)"+1(+".;"I"T"P"I9I"TK"=%)%=4="5(1"M%10""%*"1(C4%1(0>"*."7"M%10*"@%,,")((0"
a..1"*5+&(".;"+2",(+*2"<";((2"P"c";((29"f;"2$("&..5"%*"+0Q+&()2"2."2$("5()>"+2",(+*2"+"<"P"6H";..2"*5+&("%)"+"
8+10"%*")((0(09"f;"2$("&..5"%*"(,(-+2(0"H";((2"*."2$("&$%&'()*"&+)"4*("2$("*5+&("4)0(1)(+2$>"2$("&..5"+)0"
5()"&+)".&&458"*.=(>"M42").2"+,,>".;"2$("*+=(";..251%)29"h+-%)/"=.*2".;"2$("5()""%)"0((5"*$+0("+,,".;"2$("
D=("%*"&.)04&%-("2."4)$(+,2$8"M+&2(1%+,"+)0";4)/+,"0(-(,.5=()29"W$("5()"*$.4,0"M("$%/$"().4/$";.1"
8.4"2."*2+)0"45"&.=;.12+M,8";.1"&,(+)%)/>"=+%)2()+)&(>"&+5241("+)0"+,*."2."+,,.@";.1"+00%D.)+,"1..*D)/9
+HO:QA7Q9U,#$..*("+"@(,,!01+%)(0"+1(+9"A4M*21+2("=+2(1%+,";.1"2$("5()"*$.4,0"M("&,(+)>").)2.P%&>"
M%.0(/1+0+M,(>"1(+0%,8"+-+%,+M,(>"%)(P5()*%-("+)0"1(5,+&(+M,(9"A%)&("%2"@%,,"M(&.=("&.=5+&2(0";1.=",%U,("
;((2"+)0"&.)2+=%)+2(0"M8"&.)&()21+2(0"01.55%)/*"+)0"5+1+*%2(*>"%2"@%,,")((0"2."M("1+'(0".42"+)0"
http://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/! Page 6 2/15/106
Packet Page Number 104 of 290
1(5,+&(0";1(C4()2,8"2."1(04&(".0.1"+)0"a8"+&D-%289"d,+8!*+)0>",(+-(*>"=4)%&%5+,"@..0"&$%5*>"*.0"+)0"
$+10!@(+1%)/"/1.4)0"&.-(1"@.1'"@(,,9
%9Q7G,P9FJCF8,V,6A9N7QEA,JEFQAEGU"W$("285(".;";()&%)/"0(5()0*".)"@$+2"2$("=.*2",%'(,8"51(0+2.1*"+1("%)"
8.41"+1(+9"o./*>"1+2*>"1+&&..)*>"$+@'*"+)0"&.8.2(*"+1("2$("=.*2"51(-+,()2"%)"&%28")(%/$M.1$..0*>"M42"
.2$(1*"%)&,40(";.P>"=%)'>".5.**4=>"M.M&+2*>"*)+'(*>"@(+*(,*>";(11(2*>"V*$(1"+)0"=+12()9"f2Z*"M(*2"2."M4%,0"
2$("*21.)/(*2"0(2(11()2*"5.**%M,(9"#$+%)!,%)'"5+)(,*".1"@(,0(0".1"@.-()";()&%)/".)"+"*24108";1+=(>"
1(%);.1&(0"+2"2$("M.U.="@%2$"*=+,,!=(*$"=(2+,"@%1("2$+2"51(-()2*"51(0+2.1*";1.="24))(,%)/"4)0(1"2$("
;()&("@%,,"0%*&.41+/("=.*2"%)2140(1*9"[(/4,+1"%)*5(&D.)"%*"2$("'(8"2."*(&41%289
17Q9_"L"/+2("%*")((0(0";.1"(+*8"$4=+)"+&&(**9
#ET9AU,)I9,6()"*$.4,0"M("&.-(1(0"2."'((5"M%10*"%)"+)0"51(0+2.1*".429"W$("285(".;"&.-(1%)/")((0(0"@%,,"
0(5()0".)"2$("285(".;"51(0+2.1*9"#.-(1%)/"5+12".;"2$("5()"@%2$"+"1..;"*4&$"+*"&.114/+2(0"VM(1/,+**"&+)"
51.-%0("*$+0("+)0"1+%)"*$(,2(19
[CFNOA97KU,d1.-%0%)/"+"@%)0"+)0"*).@"M1(+'"@%,,"/%-("2$("M%10*"+"51.2(&2(0"+1(+"2."M(".420..1*"(-()"%)"
@%)2(19
+I7N9U,A$+0("=4*2"M("+-+%,+M,("+)0"&+)"M("51.-%0(0"M8"-(/(2+D.)".1"*21+2(/%&+,,8"5,+&(0"=+2(1%+,*9
'H:Q,O7QIU,W+'%)/"+"04*2"M+2$"%*"2$("&,.*(*2"2$%)/"2."$(+-()";.1"+"&$%&'()9"W$(8"0(1%-("5,(+*41("+)0"
&.)2()2=()2"M8"M+2$%)/"%)"2$("*4)"+)0"%)",..*(>"018"*.%,"0(51(**%.)*"%)"2$("0%12>"@$%&$"&,(+)*"2$(%1"
;(+2$(1*"+)0"1%0*"2$(=".;"5+1+*%2(*9"Y%10*"@%,,"4*4+,,8"0%/"2$(%1".@)"$.,(";.1"04*2"M+2$*9"u((5"2$("*.%,"%)"
2$("04*2"M+2$",..*(>"+)0"+00"5,+8!*+)0"%;"%2"%*"+"$(+-8"&,+8"*.%,9"L00%)/"+",%U,("5.4,218"04*2>"0%+2.=+&(.4*"
(+12$".1"@..0"+*$"%)&1(+*(*"2$("(b(&D-()(**".;"5+1+*%2("&.)21.,9"l+1/(>"$(+-8"14MM(1";((0"M4&'(2*"V,,(0"
@%2$"5,+8!*+)0"+1("+"@(,&.=("+00%D.)"2."2$("%)0..1"&..5"%)"2$("@%)2(19
"FACJIR9FQ,PHAFC:ICF8:U,W$(1("%*").2$%)/"*+00(1"2$+)"+"M+11()"5()>"@$()"&.=5+1(0"2."2$("1%&$"Q4)/,("
()-%1.)=()2"&$%&'()*"(-.,-(0"%)9"l.2*".;",+1/("M1+)&$(*>"*24=5*".1"5,+v.1=*"51.-%0("5,+&(*"2."/."+)0"
2$%)/*"2."0.>"+)0"2$(8",..'")+241+,"+)0"+U1+&D-("%)"2$("5()9"f)&,40("M4*$(*>"M.P(*".1".2$(1".MQ(&2*"2."*%2"
%)".1"$%0("M($%)09"d,+)2"'+,(".1".2$(1"*+;(>"(0%M,("-(/(2+D.)"+1.4)0"2$(".42*%0(".;"2$("5()";.1";.1+/(9"
g-(1&1.@0%)/>"M.1(0.="+)0"M+11()"5()*"+1("2$("=.*2"&.==.)"&+4*(*".;"M($+-%.1+,"51.M,(=*9
!(&1"V,"a"!#*+",X(!'U*A<3*&-(63(*;35B32*-(3-*&1I3*-*E-BI)-(2*'<-'*>($9123:*-7>&3*:>-B3*;$(*:-;3*
3D3(B1:3@*;$(-63@*:%5&16<'@*3-('<*-52*9363'-8$5*'<-'*1:*(36%&-(&)*-9-1&-E&3*'$*'<3*E1(2:*?<35*:%>3(91:32C
i.1"1(/4,+1"(P(1&%*(>"6c7"*C9"T"5(1"M%10"F+)"+1(+"+M.42"6J"T"P"6c"T"5(1"M%10K"%*"1(C4%1(09"i.41"M%10*"@%,,"
)((0"+&&(**"2."+"7J"T"P"cJ"T";()&(0"+1(+"%)"2$("8+109"f;"2$(1("%*")."+&&(**"2."+",+1/(1"1+)/(E"(P(1&%*("8+10>"
6<"*C9";((2".;"a..1"*5+&("=%)%=4="5(1"M%10"F+)"+1(+"7"T"P"7"T"5(1"M%10K"%)"2$("5()"=4*2"M("51.-%0(09"
-9FJCF8U"<";((2".;"51%-+&8";()&%)/"51(-()2*""+)0"0%*&.41+/(*"4)%)-%2(0"$4=+)"+)0"+)%=+,"-%*%2.1*9"f2"+,*."
51.=.2(*"2$("*+;(28"+)0"*(&41%28".;"2$("M%10*"+)0")(%/$M.1*9
&EFQE^CJ,6G7FQ:U,#$%&'()*"+1("%)C4%*%D-("+)0"-.1+&%.4*"(+2(1*".;"-(/(2+D.)"+)0"=+)8".1)+=()2+,"
/+10()"5,+)2*"&+)"M("2.P%&"2."2$(=9"l(+1)"@$%&$".;"8.41"5,+)2*"=%/$2"M("$+1=;4,"+)0";()&("2$(=".b".1"
M(U(1"8(2"1(5,+&("2$(="@%2$"*+;("+)0")421%D.4*"5,+)2*9
+9JHACQBU"#$%&'()*"+1("*4*&(5DM,("2."2$(T>"-+)0+,%*="+)0"51(0+2.1*"+)0")((0"2."M("*(&41(,8"*$42"%)"2$("
&..5"+2")%/$29"A(&41%28"&+=(1+*>",%/$2*"+)0"M+M8"=.)%2.1*"+1("+,*."$%/$,8"1(&.==()0(0"0(2(11()2*9
/!$]*'*&1,1$$',#(!"
-$$',V,[()"!
i1(*$";..0"+)0"@+2(1"+1("1(C4%1(0"0+%,8"+)0"*$.4,0"M("+-+%,+M,("+2"+,,"D=(*9"h+8>"/1+%)"+)0"51(5+1(0"
;((0"*$.4,0"M(";1(*$3,(**"2$+)".)("8(+1".,0"+)0";1((".;"=.,0>"%)*(&2*".1".2$(1"&.)2+=%)+)2*9"o+%,8"
%)2+'("*$.4,0"%)&,40(_"<J"]")421%D.)+,,8"M+,+)&(0>"51(5+1(0";((0"+551.51%+2(";.1"2$("+/(".;"M%10>"HJ]"
*&1+2&$"F&1+&'(0"&.1)>".+2*>"M,+&'".%,"*4)a.@(1"*((0*>"=%,.>"M+1,(8K"HJ]";1(*$"F)421%D.4*";..0*"+)0"2+M,("
*&1+5*3&+4D.)>"2.P%&_".)%.)>"+-.&+0.*>"&$.&.,+2(K9"A455,(=()2*_".8*2(1"*$(,,".1",%=(*2.)(";.1"&+,&%4=>"
/1+)%2("/1%2";.1"0%/(*D.)>"=%)(1+,"*+,2".1"/1.4)0"*+,2",%&'*9"#$%&'()*"01%)'"6!H"&45*".;"@+2(1"+"0+89
http://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/! Page 7 2/15/107
Packet Page Number 105 of 290
i((0"*$.4,0"M("*2.1(0"%)*%0("1.0()2!51..;"&.)2+%)(1*"%)"+"&..,>"018"+1(+"%)+&&(**%M,("2."+)%=+,*9"A2.1(0"
;((0M+/*"*$.4,0"M("1.2+2(0"2."()*41("2$+2";((0"%*"+,@+8*";1(*$9"i..0"2$+2"%*"4)(+2()".1"*5%,,(0"*$.4,0"M("
1(=.-(0";1.="+)%=+,"()&,.*41(*"0+%,89
+$#*(0,&""'+,
W(=5(1+=()2"+)0"*.&%+,"*214&241(*".;"+)%=+,*"*$.4,0"M("2+'()"%)2."+&&.4)2>"+)0"*(5+1+2("+1(+*"*$.4,0"
M("51.-%0(0";.1"%)&.=5+DM,("M%10*9
]"),#(!"
l.&+2("+"-(2(1%)+18"&,%)%&")(+1M8"2$+2"@%,,"*(("&$%&'()*"M(;.1(".)("%*")((0(0351(;(1+M,8".)("2$+2"
*5(&%+,%X(*"%)"+-%+)"&+1(9"#$%&'()*"+1("@(,&.=("%)"%)&1(+*%)/")4=M(1*".;"&%28"&,%)%&*9"#$(&'"-(2"
M+&'/1.4)0*"+2"$U5_EE@@@9-(2=(09*2+2(9=)94*Eo(;+4,29+*5PR2+M%0j?JI9"
h+-("+)"%*.,+D.)"+1(+".1"1..=8"&+11%(1"+)0"$(+D)/"5+0";.1"*%&'".1"%)Q41(0"M%10*9"#1%D&+,E(=(1/()&8"V1*2"
+%0"*455,%(*"*$.4,0"M("'(52>"%)&,40%)/"1.,,"/+4X(>"/+4X("5+0*>"2+5(>"-(2"@1+5>"M,..0!*2.5"5.@0(1>"
+)DM%.D&".%)2=()2>"+)DM+&2(1%+,"*&14M"+)0"*.,4D.)>"+)0"M+)0+/("*&%**.1*9""
+(&*)()*$&
k+)41("+)0"@(2"M(00%)/"*$.4,0"M("1(=.-(0";1.="2$("&..5"+)0"+)%=+,";((0%)/"+)0",.4)/%)/"+1(+*"0+%,89"
W$.1.4/$>"&.=5,(2("&,(+)%)/".;"@+,,*"+)0"5(1&$(*>"1(=.-+,".;"+,,"M(00%)/>"+)0"0%*%);(&D)/".;"2$("&..5"
+)0";41)%*$%)/*"*$.4,0"M("0.)("+2",(+*2".)&("+"8(+19"u((5%)/"*$(,2(1"+1(+*"&,(+)"+)0"018"@%,,"$(,5"
51(-()2"M+&2(1%+>";4)/%>"%)*(&2*>"1.0()2*>"(2&9"[.0()2",(-(,*"@%,,"M("=%)%=%X(0"M8"'((5%)/"+,,";((0"%)"
1.0()2!51..;"&.)2+%)(1*"+)0"1(=.-%)/"*5%,,(0".1"4)(+2()";..0"51.=52,89"l%U(1"&+)"M("0.4M,("M+//(0"+)0"
0%*5.*(0".;"+*"*.,%0"@+*2(".1"&.=5.*2(0>"M42"&.=5.*D)/"=4*2"M("0.)("%)"+)"+1(+"@$(1("&$%&'()*"@%,,"
).2"*&1+2&$";.1"+2",(+*2"+"8(+19
h.4*%)/"+)%=+,*"%)"*5+&%.4*>"&,(+)"+)0"1(,+D-(,8"04*2!;1(("()-%1.)=()2*"@%,,"'((5"2$(="$(+,2$8"+)0"@%,,"
=%)%=%X("$4=+)"(P5.*41("2."%);(&D.4*"0%*(+*(9"
Sources:
Poultry Your Way: A Guide to Management Alternatives for the Upper Midwest, Minnesota Department of
Agriculture, 2005
Standards of Care for Chickens, Adapted from Standards of Care for Farmed Animals, The Association Of
Sanctuaries (TAOS). Edited by Chicken Run Rescue. 6/2008, revised 4/7/09
Poultry Housing Considerations for Low Input Small Scale Producers, David Sullenberger, TimeWarrior Farm
Chronicle Special Reports, Revision E, fall 2003
Building Chicken Coops: Storey Country Wisdom Bulletin A-224, Gail Damerow, 1999
Chicken Health Handbook, Gail Damerow, 1994
http://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/! Page 8 2/15/108
Packet Page Number 106 of 290
http://www.brittonclouse.com/chickenrunrescue/! Page 9 2/15/109
Packet Page Number 107 of 290
1
Shann Finwall
From:Lindsay, Karla (ST PAUL, MN) [karla_lindsay@ml.com]
Sent:Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:49 PM
To:Shann Finwall
Subject:Support for chickens!
Hi! I just read about the proposed changes that might allow residents in Maplewood to keep chickens. I just
wanted to comment … I am in favor! Hopefully the chicken ordinance will pass.
Sincerely,
Karla Lindsay
1960 Greenbrier Street
Maplewood MN 55117
Karla B. Lindsay
Registered Client Associate
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
30 East Seventh Street, Suite 3400
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Ph: 651-298-1702
Fx: 651-319-9260
karla_lindsay@ml.com
This message w/attachments (message) is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential or proprietary. If you are not an intended recipient, please
notify the sender, and then please delete and destroy all copies and attachments, and be advised that any review
or dissemination of, or the taking of any action in reliance on, the information contained in or attached to this
message is prohibited.
Unless specifically indicated, this message is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of any investment products or
other financial product or service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official statement of Sender.
Subject to applicable law, Sender may intercept, monitor, review and retain e-communications (EC) traveling
through its networks/systems and may produce any such EC to regulators, law enforcement, in litigation and as
required by law.
The laws of the country of each sender/recipient may impact the handling of EC, and EC may be archived,
supervised and produced in countries other than the country in which you are located. This message cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses.
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 108 of 290
1
Shann Finwall
From:Sue Nordby [suenordby@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, June 03, 2011 9:39 AM
To:Shann Finwall
Subject:chickens
Our family thinks the opportunity to raise chickens in Maplewood would be great! Not sure if
we will, but definitely have considered it, and were sad to find it not an option previously.
Thanks for your efforts towards this,
Sue and Jim Nordby
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 109 of 290
1
Shann Finwall
From:William Carroll [whileecayote@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday, June 03, 2011 2:03 PM
To:Shann Finwall
Subject:chicken ordinance
To whom it may concern;
I am enthusiastically in favor of allowing chickens, for the reasons outlined in the mailer and because of my personal
experience
with the many benefits of having chickens on a property. Fresh eggs (free range) cannot be beat for nutrition. But
most importantly
with the economy and jobs as they are and the price of food being high, I feel it is essential to be able to provide as
much on one's own
food as is reasonably doable. I feel chickens is one of the VERY best options.
Thanks for listening,
Bill Carroll
1841 Myrtle st
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 110 of 290
1
Shann Finwall
From:Amanda Gutierrez [amgutierrez23@gmail.com]
Sent:Sunday, June 05, 2011 8:35 AM
To:Shann Finwall
Subject:Chicken Ordinance
Hello. I would just like to share my joy and excitement over the prospect of creating a chicken ordinance to
allow residents to raise their own chickens. I only buy natural or organic chicken eggs and meat. I prefer the
taste. I also feel better about reducing the amount of chemicals/hormones, etc. that I and my growing family
consume. I have many friends who live in other cities who raise chickens and I frequently go out of my way to
buy eggs from them. I also look forward to involving my children in helping to care for the chickens and collect
their eggs.
My grandfather, Forrest Schmid, was the first mayor of Maplewood back in 1963. I have been a resident of
Maplewood since I was five. As an adult, I now make Maplewood my home, along with my husband and our
three children. I have also been employed at St. John's hospital for 9 years. So my roots in the city run deep.
I sincerely hope that the city votes to approve this ordinance.
Please feel free to contact me if there is anything else I can share or add to the cause.
Thank you for your time,
Amanda Gutierrez
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 111 of 290
1
Shann Finwall
From:Pepe Barton [barton.pepe@gmail.com]
Sent:Wednesday, June 22, 2011 12:53 PM
To:Shann Finwall
Subject:Chicken Ordinance
Hello,
This may sound crazy, but I've been looking to buy a home based on whether cities allow chickens. Because
Maplewood does not allow them currently, I have ruled it out of my list. Since the council will soon take up the
issue, what is your barometer on the amended ordinance being successful?
Also I've gone through a lot of city ordinances to see which cities allow them, and I have to say your proposed
ordinance seems to be the most thorough so far. I've also read other city's council members' voice concerns
about chickens in their city, but their comments are so out of touch. For example, Little Canada recently
outlawed any chance of allowing chickens, thanks to the work of an ill-informed city manager and a council
member who called it a hobby for housewives in the suburbs. Please don't let them trash this idea.
Thank you.
Pepe Barton
Here's my spreadsheet of cities that allow chickens so far.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0AkE_sjjr_fX3dGt2Y3dxZlJHck
ExSjl0RTFhLUdHYmc&single=true&gid=0&output=html
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 112 of 290
Published by Google Docs – Report Abuse – Updated automatically every 5 minutes
Chicken Laws for Minnesota Cities : Sheet1
CITY CHICKENS ALLOWED INFO
accessory
building
Eagan NO
Oakdale YES-with permit http://oakdale.govoffice2.com/vertical/Sites/%7B9D2ABE6F-4847-
Mounds View NO http://www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us/vertical/Sites/%7B9DACB450-8
Little Canada NO
http://www.ci.little-canada.mn.us/vertical/Sites/%7BEB0504CE-
3D9E-4F5B-8199-A5A488B9A257%7D/uploads/%7B30DF8DD9
-62C0-48BE-BA01-C18D4804C1F6%7D.PDF
Recently banned every
possibility of farm animals
in city limits
Apple Valley NO
Cottage Grove YES-but w/ 1 1/2 acres http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=50
West St. Paul YES_w/permit & feet restr.
St. Paul YES_w/permit & feet restr.
Montrose YES http://www.montrose-mn.com/assets/files/docs/ZoningOrds/1022.p
Anoka YES-up to four http://www.anoka.govoffice2.com/vertical/Sites/%7B213A9A90-C8
Ramsey YES_with 3 acres
Otsego YES_with license http://www.ci.otsego.mn.us/vertical/Sites/%7B2D2448C9-1D69-4E
Maplewood Not allowed in R-1
St. Michael NO-in Residential under 4 acres
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Minnesota/smichael/cityof
f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:stmichael_mn
Ham Lake NO, only in R-A rural agriculture with 5 acres http://www.ci.ham-lake.mn.us/docs/article05.pdf
Dayton YES-with CUP in R-2
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Minnesota/dayton_mn/da
f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:dayton_mn
http://www.cityofdaytonmn.c
20regarding%20Farm%
20Animals.pdf
http://www
f=template
$vid=amleg
Andover YES_with restrictions http://files.andovermn.net/pdfs/Clerk/CityCode/TITLE_12_Zoning_
Champlin NO
http://library1.municode.com/default-now/home.htm?
infobase=14283&doc_action=whatsnew
Blaine NO
Domestic farm animals, including cattle, horses, sheep, goats
and chickens are only permitted in Agricultural (AG) and Farm
Residential (FR) zoning districts
Roseville YES http://www.cityofroseville.com/index.aspx?NID=1677
Brooklyn Park NO
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Minnesota/brooklyn/brook
f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:brooklynpark_mn
Fridley YES-just passed
http://www.ci.fridley.mn.us/images/article-files/citycode/100%
20Health,%20Safety%20and%
20Welfare/Ch_101_Animal_Control.pdf
http://fridley.patch.com/artic
-council-oks-backyard-
chickens#photo-5798490
Plymouth NO-only in FRD future restricted development
http://plymouthmn.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?
documentid=754
Brooklyn Park NO
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Minnesota/brooklyn/brook
f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:brooklynpark_mn
Minnetonka Yes-1 per .10 acres
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Minnesota/minneton/cityo
f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0
$vid=amlegal:minnetonka_mn$anc=
Maple Grove NO- at least 1 acre
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?
clientId=13556&stateId=23&stateName=Minnesota
Shorewood MAYBE-no laws against?
Vadnais Heights 1 acre required
http://www.cityvadnaisheights.com/Government/City-
Code/Zoning-Code.aspx
New Brighton No rules?
Lexington NO
Burnsville YES
http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?
book_id=468
Richfield YES-up to three in residential zoning http://www.cityofrichfield.org/Residents/Codes/docs/ch09.pdf
Page 1 of 1Chicken Laws for Minnesota Cities
6/22/2011https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0AkE_sjjr_fX3dGt2Y3dxZlJ...
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 113 of 290
1
Attachment 6
Memo
To: Shann Finwall
From: David J. Thomalla, Chief of Police
Date: 6/22/2011
Re: Chicken Ordinance
The proposed chicken ordinance has been reviewed and the following concerns have been identified.
The requisite of obtaining permission from the neighbors should be an absolute approval versus a 75%
approval. The partial approval of neighbors creates a situation where a person obtains signatures from
75% of their neighbors except the neighbor who resides five feet from where the chickens are located.
It seems impractical that the opinion of the people who would be impacted the greatest would not be
considered. In my career I have seen extreme measures taken for one neighbor to “get back at”
another neighbor who they do not like. Permission to place chickens within five feet of that neighbor’s
property is setting the stage for legalized harassment.
Our current animal ordinance and state statute requires stray or abandoned animals to be sheltered for
five days prior to disposal or placing them for adoption. Housing chickens that are not banded seems
somewhat pointless and potentially costly to the city. We currently expend thousands of dollars
housing feral cats under this provision.
The term “officer” is used throughout the ordinance, but many of the issues the “officer’ will judge and
be responsible for evaluating extend well beyond the job function of any one person or position.
Although the ordinance does not state the fee for obtaining a permit, it sounds as though a great deal of
staff time will be involved in doing inspections and permitting.
The City of White Bear Lake voted down a proposed chicken ordinance in 2010. It was pointed out that
“White Bear Lake is not a rural community” and they “don’t have the sized lots to accommodate this”.
Maplewood is no more rural and has similar lot sizes to those in White Bear Lake.
Many years ago it was determined that Maplewood was no longer the setting to raise livestock and
poultry as reflected in ordinance. The Cityscape has not changed indicating raising chickens in this
community is a better idea today than it was many years ago.
Packet Page Number 114 of 290
1
Attachment 7
ORDINANCE NO. _____
An Ordinance Allowing the Raising of Chickens in Single Dwelling Residential Zoning
Districts
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances:
Section 1. This section amends the Maplewood Zoning Code to allow the raising of
chickens in the R-1 (single dwelling residential district). (Additions are underlined and
deletions are stricken from the original ordinance.)
Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 3 (R-1 Residence District)
Sec. 44-6. Definitions.
Poultry means domesticated birds that serve as a source of eggs or meat and that
include among commercially important kinds, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, peafowl,
pigeons, pheasants and others.
Sec. 44-103. Prohibited uses.
The following uses are prohibited in the R-1 Residence district:
(1) The raising or handling of livestock, poultry (except for chickens as outlined in
Sections 10-476 through 10-487, Chickens) or animals causing a nuisance,
except for licensed kennels.
Section 2. This section amends the Maplewood Zoning Code to add clarifying language
to the R-1S (small-lot single dwelling residential district) and R-1R (rural single dwelling
residential conservation district). The language added will ensure all permitted uses in
the R-1 zoning amendment described in section 1 above are allowed in these districts as
well.
There are five single dwelling residential districts in the city as follows: R-1, R-1S, RE-
30,000, RE 40,000, and R-1R. The R-1 zoning district lists the specific uses and
subsequent single dwelling residential districts refer to the R-1 district permitted and
prohibited uses as well. Two of the city’s single dwelling zoning districts (R-1S and R-
1R) do not have the required references and require an amendment as follows (additions
are underlined and deletions are stricken from the original ordinance):
Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 5 (R-1S Small-lot Single
Dwelling Residential District)
Sec. 44-192. Permitted uUses.
(1) Permitted uses. The only permitted uses allowed in the R-1S small-lot single
dwelling residential district are the permitted uses in the R-1 district.
Packet Page Number 115 of 290
2
(2) Prohibited uses.
(a) Accessory buildings without an associated dwelling on the same
premises.
(b) The raising or handling of livestock, poultry (except for chickens as
outlined in Sections 10-476 through 10-487, Chickens) or animals
causing a nuisance, except for licensed kennels.
Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 3.5 (R-1R Rural
Conservation Dwelling District)
Sec. 44-118. Uses.
(a) …
(b) …
(c) Prohibited uses. The city prohibits the following uses in the R-1R zoning
district:
(1) Accessory buildings without an associated single dwelling on the
same property.
(2) The raising or handling of livestock, poultry (except for chickens
as outlined in Sections 10-476 through 10-487, Chickens) or
animals causing a nuisance, except for licensed kennels.
Section 3. This section adds language to the city’s Animal Ordinance (Chapter 10) to
address the permitting requirements for chickens in residential areas (additions are
underlined).
Chapter 10 (Animals), Article IX (Chickens)
Sec. 10-476. Definitions.
Brooding means the period of chicken growth when supplemental heat must be
provided, due to the bird’s inability to generate enough body heat.
Chicken means a domesticated bird that serves as a source of eggs or meat.
Coop means the structure for the keeping or housing of chickens permitted by the
ordinance.
Exercise yard means a larger fenced area that provides space for exercise and foraging
for the birds when supervised.
Hen means a female chicken.
Officer means any person designated by the city manager as an enforcement officer.
Rooster means a male chicken.
Run means a fully enclosed and covered area attached to a coop where the chickens
can roam unsupervised.
Sec. 10-477. Purpose.
Packet Page Number 116 of 290
3
It is recognized that the ability to cultivate one’s own food is a sustainable activity that
can also be a rewarding past time. Therefore, it is the purpose and intent of this
ordinance to permit the keeping and maintenance of hens for egg and meat sources in a
clean and sanitary manner that is not a nuisance to or detrimental to the public health,
safety, and welfare of the community.
Sec. 10-478. Investigation and Enforcement.
Officers designated by the city manager shall have authority in the investigation and
enforcement of this article, and no person shall interfere with, hinder or molest any such
officer in the exercise of such powers. The officer shall make investigations as is
necessary and may grant, deny, or refuse to renew any application for permit, or
terminate an existing permit under this article.
Sec. 10-479. Limitations for each dwelling unit in residential zones.
(1) No more than ten (10) hens shall be housed or kept on any one (1) residential lot
in any area of the city zoned for single dwelling residential with a permit as
outlined below.
(2) Roosters are prohibited.
(3) Slaughtering of chickens on the property is prohibited.
(4) Leg banding of all chickens is required. The bands must identify the owner and
the owner’s address and telephone number.
(5) A separate coop is required to house the chickens. Coops must be constructed
and maintained to meet the following minimum standards:
(a) Located in the rear or side yard.
(b) Setback at least five (5) feet from the rear or side property lines.
(c) Interior floor space – four (4) square feet per bird.
(d) Interior height – six (6) feet to allow access for cleaning and maintenance.
(e) Doors – one (1) standard door to allow humans to access the coop and
one (1) for birds (if above ground level, must also provide a stable ramp).
(f) Windows – one (1) square foot window per ten (10) square feet floor
space. Windows must be able to open for ventilation.
(g) Climate control – adequate ventilation and/or insulation to maintain the
coop temperature between 32 – 85 degrees Farenheit.
(h) Nest boxes – one (1) box per every three (3) hens.
Packet Page Number 117 of 290
4
(i) Roosts – one and one-half (1 ½) inch diameter or greater, located
eighteen (18) inches from the wall and two (2) to three (3) inches above
the floor.
(j) Rodent proof – coop construction and materials must be adequate to
prevent access by rodents.
(k) Coops shall be constructed and maintained in a workmanlike manner.
(6) A run or exercise yard is required.
(a) Runs must be constructed and maintained to meet the following minimum
standards:
1) Location: rear or side yard.
2) Size: Ten (10) square feet per bird, if access to a fenced exercise
yard is also available; sixteen (16) square feet per bird, if access
to an exercise yard is not available. If the coop is elevated two
(2) feet so the hens can access the space beneath, that area may
count as a portion of the minimum run footprint.
3) Height: Six (6) feet in height to allow access for cleaning and
maintenance.
4) Gate: One gate to allow human access to the run.
5) Cover: Adequate to keep hens in and predators out.
6) Substrate: Composed of material that can be easily raked or
regularly replace to reduce odor and flies.
(b) Exercise yards must be fenced and is required if the run does not provide
at least sixteen (16) square feet per bird. Exercise yards must provide a
minimum of one-hundred seventy-four (174) square feet per chicken.
(7) Chickens must not be housed in a residential house or an attached or detached
garage, except for brooding purposes only.
(8) All premises on which hens are kept or maintained shall be kept clean from filth,
garbage, and any substances which attract rodents. The coop and its
surrounding must be cleaned frequently enough to control odor. Manure shall
not be allowed to accumulate in a way that causes an unsanitary condition or
causes odors detectible on another property. Failure to comply with these
conditions may result in the officer removing chickens from the premises or
revoking a chicken permit.
(9) All grain and food stored for the use of the hens on a premise with a chicken
permit shall be kept in a rodent proof container.
(10) Hens shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance to the
occupants of adjacent property.
(12) Dead chickens must be disposed of according to the Minnesota Board of Animal
Health rules which require chicken carcasses to be disposed of as soon as
possible after death, usually within 48 to 72 hours. Legal forms of chicken
carcass disposal include burial, off-site incineration or rendering, or composting.
Packet Page Number 118 of 290
5
Sec. 10-480. Permit required.
The officer shall grant a permit for chickens after the applicant has sought the written
consent of seventy-five (75) percent of the owners or occupants of privately or publicly
owned real estate within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the outer boundaries of the
premises for which the permit is being requested, or in the alternative, proof that the
applicant’s property lines are one hundred fifty (150) feet or more from any structure.
Where a property within one hundred fifty (150) feet consists of a multiple dwelling or
multi-tenant property, the applicant need obtain only the written consent of the owner or
manager, or other person in charge of the building. Such written consent shall be
required on the initial application and as often thereafter as the officer deems necessary.
Sec. 10-481. Application.
Any person desiring a permit required under the provisions of this article shall make
written application to the city clerk upon a form prescribed by and containing such
information as required by the city clerk and officer. Among other things, the application
shall contain the following information:
(1) A description of the real property upon which it is desired to keep the chickens.
(2) The breed and number of chickens to be maintained on the premises.
(3) A site plan of the property showing the location and size of the proposed chicken
coop and run, setbacks from the chicken coop to property lines and surrounding
buildings (including houses and buildings on adjacent lots), and the location,
style, and height of fencing proposed to contain the chickens in a run or exercise
area. Portable coops and cages are allowed, but portable locations must be
included with the site plan.
(4) Statements that the applicant will at all times keep the chickens in accordance
with all of the conditions prescribed by the officer, or modification thereof, and
that failure to obey such conditions will constitute a violation of the provisions of
this chapter and grounds for cancellation of the permit.
(5) Such other and further information as may be required by the officer.
Sec. 10-482. Permit conditions.
(1) If granted, the permit shall be issued by the city clerk and officer and shall state
the conditions, if any, imposed upon the permitted for the keeping of chickens
under this permit. The permit shall specify the restrictions, limitations, conditions
and prohibitions which the officer deems reasonably necessary to protect any
person or neighboring use from unsanitary conditions, unreasonable noise or
odors, or annoyance, or to protect the public health and safety. Such permit may
be modified from time to time or revoked by the officer for failure to conform to
such restrictions, limitations, prohibitions. Such modification or revocation shall
be effective after ten (10) days following the mailing of written notice thereof by
certified mail to the person or persons keeping or maintain such chickens.
Packet Page Number 119 of 290
6
Sec. 10-483. Violations.
(1) Any person violating any of the sections of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be punished in accordance with
section 1-15.
(2) If any person is found guilty by a court for violation of this section, their permit to
own, keep, harbor, or have custody of chickens shall be deemed automatically
revoked and no new permit may be issued for a period of one (1) year.
(3) Any person violating any conditions of this permit shall reimburse the city for all
costs borne by the city to enforce the conditions of the permit including but not
limited to the pickup and impounding of chickens.
Sec. 10-484. Required; exceptions.
No person shall (without first obtaining a permit in writing from the city clerk) own, keep,
harbor or have custody of any live chicken.
Sec. 10-485. Fees; issuance.
For each residential site the fee for a permit is as may be imposed, set, established and
fixed by the City Council, by ordinance, from time to time.
Sec. 10-486. Term.
The permit period under this section shall expire one (1) year from the date the permit is
issued.
Sec. 10-487. Revocation.
The city manager may revoke any permit issued under this ordinance if the person
holding the permit refuses or fails to comply with this ordinance, with any regulations
promulgated by the city council pursuant to this ordinance, or with any state or local law
governing cruelty to animals or the keeping of animals. Any person whose permit is
revoked shall, within ten (10) days thereafter, humanely dispose of all chickens being
owned, kept or harbored by such person, and no part of the permit fee shall be refunded.
Packet Page Number 120 of 290
Agenda Item I.1
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
SUBJECT: Trash Collection System Analysis Update and Discussion of Draft Request
for Proposal for Organized Collection System
DATE: June 23, 2010 for the June 27 City Council Meeting
BACKGROUND
On March 28, 2011, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to Organize Trash
Collection. The adoption of this resolution is required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 115A.94,
subdivision 4 to begin the planning process for organized trash collection.
On April 25, 2011, the City Council approved a scope of work for the Trash Collection System
Analysis. The scope included the formation of a Trash Hauling Working Group made up of two
City Councilmembers (Councilmembers Nephew and Juenemann), three Environmental and
Natural Resources Commissioners (Commissioners Schreiner, Trippler, Yingling), two city staff
(Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner and Steve Kummer, Engineer), and the city’s solid
waste management consultant (Dan Krivit, Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC). The scope
of work included five Working Group meetings in May and June to analyze trash collection
systems and update the City Council monthly. All Working Group reports and outcomes will be
approved by the full City Council.
DISCUSSION
Goals and Objectives
The City Council adopted goals and objectives that will be referred to as the city continues to
analyze trash collection systems:
1. Economic
a. Cost savings on road repairs and reconstruction.
b. Lower cost for residents (cost per household per month) due to competitive bidding.
2. Service
a. Greater leverage to correct problems with service.
b. Customized service options for residents such as:
1) Rebates for extended vacations (e.g., over four weeks without service)
2) Special collection options (e.g., garage-side pickup)
3) Large/bulky items pick up.
4) Special events pickups (e.g., Spring and Fall Clean Up events)
3. Environmental
a. To better manage solid waste and recycling.
b. Better able to direct waste to the best environmental destination.
c. Less gas and/or diesel burned.
d. Less CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.
4. Safety
a. Safer streets.
Packet Page Number 121 of 290
2
5. Efficiency*
a. Maximizing efficiency in solid waste collection.
6. Planning Process
a. Achieving the stated organized collection goals of the city.
b. Ensuring participation of all interested parties in the decision-making process.
7. Aesthetics
a. Less traffic, noise, and dust.
b. More consistent and neater looking streets during collection days.
8. Hauler Impacts*
a. Minimizing displacement of collectors.
*Required by state statute.
Working Group
The Trash Hauling Working Group has met four times, with one additional meeting scheduled
for Wednesday, June 29, 2011, from 5 to 7 p.m. The meetings are held in the Maplewood City
Council Chambers. They are open to the public, aired live on Channel 16, streamed live on the
City’s website, and replayed periodically on Channel 16. City staff sends the meeting notices
and agendas to all trash haulers licensed in the city, posts the information on the city’s website
and the lobby at City Hall.
During the meetings, the Working Group has been analyzing two areas of collection systems
including a contractual (or “organized trash hauling”) system and improvements to the city’s
subscription (or “open trash hauling”) system. A report on the proposed two-track strategy was
given to the City Council during the May 23, 2011, City Council Workshop.
Review of Request for Proposal
The analysis of a contractual system will include the creation of a request for proposal (RFP) for
residential trash collection. This memorandum is intended to update the City Council on the
RFP document and obtain feedback and comment prior to the final Working Group meeting on
June 29.
Dan Krivit of Foth has been contracted to assist the Working Group on the creation of the RFP.
Mr. Krivit has submitted a memorandum and draft RFP for the City Council’s review
(Attachments 1 and 2). A short summary of the contents of the RFP follows:
City-wide trash collection for all single-family residential properties (properties with one to
four units).
Term of Contract: Seven years with two one-year extensions possible.
Proposals can be submitted by one hauler or a joint proposal from two haulers.
Single or multiple contracts possible
RFP assumes billing directly by the Hauler to the residents.
Packet Page Number 122 of 290
3
RFP assumes City-owned carts (either at the beginning of the contract or amortized
throughout the term of the contract).
Proposals require the vendor to submit a base price for all properties, with variable pricing
for cart sizes (i.e., 20/30/60/90 gallon).
Tentative dates for release of RFP:
o July 11, 2011, City Council authorizes release
o July 12, 2011, City releases RFP
o July 21, 2011, pre-proposal meeting
o July 25, 2011, questions due from haulers
o August 2, 2011, responses due from City
o August 19, 2011, proposals due
Competitive Proposal Development and Negotiating Period
The RFP and subsequent proposals are intended to serve as the final stages of the required
planning period as described in Minnesota Statutes, section 115A.94. This also serves as the
city’s competitive proposal period to determine the best value for a city-wide trash collection
system. Once the proposals have been submitted by the haulers, however, the required 90-day
minimum negotiation period required by state statute will begin. During this period the Working
Group will evaluate the proposals and the city will have additional discussions with the haulers.
City Council Review of All Proposals
The two-tracks of the Trash Collection System Analysis will be reviewed simultaneously by the
City Council, which is tentatively scheduled for September 26, 2011. During this review the City
Council will receive a final report from the Trash Hauling Working Group on possible
improvements to the City’s existing open trash collection system and recommendations on
proposals received during the competitive and negotiation periods.
SUMMARY
Dan Krivit of Foth will be present at the July 27, 2011, City Council meeting to give a brief
summary of the key elements of the draft Residential Trash Collection RFP. This item is for
information purposes only in order to gain feedback from the City Council. No formal action is
requested at this time.
Attachment:
1. Foth Memorandum
2. Draft Maplewood Residential Trash Collection Request for Proposal
Packet Page Number 123 of 290
Memorandum
The information contained in this memorandum is considered privileged and confidential and is
intended only for the use of recipients and Foth.
Eagle Point II 8550 Hudson Blvd. North, Suite 105 Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (651) 288-8550 Fax: (651) 288-8551
\\mw-remote\mwdfsys\Pri_Data\WORKS\ENVIRONMENTAL\Trash Hauling\RFP\M - Foth to City staff re draft RFP DFK 6-23-11.doc
June 23, 2011
TO: Shann Finwall, Planner for the City of Maplewood
CC: Jim Antonen, City Manager
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer for the City of Maplewood
Alan Kantrud, City Attorney for the City of Maplewood
FR: Dan Krivit, Senior Project Manager, and
Warren Shuros, Client Director
Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC
RE: Preliminary Draft RFP for Trash Collection Services for the City of Maplewood
Attached is the most current, preliminary draft request for proposals (RFP) for the City of
Maplewood’s potential new contract for trash collection services. This draft is still a work in
progress and includes some gaps in attachments and forms not yet produced, but reflects the
feedback provided by the City’s Trash Hauling Working Group to-date through the Fourth
meeting held last night, June 22. We anticipate further changes as a result of future Working
Group feedback and City Council direction.
We understand that this latest, preliminary draft RFP will be forwarded to City Council as part of
the City Staff update for the Monday, June 27, 2011 regular City Council meeting. You have
asked Foth staff to present a brief summary of the key elements of this preliminary draft RFP and
stand for comments and questions from City Council members. We understand that this item is
for information purposes only and that no formal City Council action is requested at this time.
We further understand that there is one remaining Trash Hauling Working Group meeting on
Wednesday, June 29 when further feedback should help refine this draft RFP into more final
form.
The most critical issues in the draft RFP that must still be addressed include:
Citywide (single contract) vs. Districts (multiple contracts)
Funding sources (e.g., financing terms) of trash cart purchase
We understand that additional comments from City Council or staff that are provided outside of
these meetings should be directed through the City staff project manager (e.g., Shann Finwall) as
the designated contact person for such communications. This communication procedure will
help manage Foth’s consultant services to assure we are best addressing City needs and
priorities.
Thank you.
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 124 of 290
Preliminary Draft (as of 6-23-2011)
Request for Proposals (RFP)
for
Comprehensive, Residential
Trash Collection Services
City of Maplewood
Community Development Department
City Hall
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
July, 2011
Scheduled Release Date:
July 12, 2011
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 125 of 290
\\mw-remote\mwdfsys\Pri_Data\WORKS\ENVIRONMENTAL\Trash Hauling\RFP\MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11.doc i
Request for Proposals (RFP)
For Comprehensive, Residential
Trash Collection Services
Contents
Page
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Statement of Intent .........................................................................................................1
1.2 City Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................1
1.3 Background ....................................................................................................................2
1.4 Summary Scope of Services ...........................................................................................3
2 Definitions ...............................................................................................................................4
2.1 Additional Overflow Trash Collection Service ..............................................................4
2.2 Anticompetitive Conduct ................................................................................................4
2.3 Automated Collection .....................................................................................................4
2.4 Base Collection Fee (BCF) ............................................................................................4
2.5 Bulky Items .....................................................................................................................4
2.6 Bulky Items Requiring Special Processing ....................................................................4
2.7 City’s Designated Contact Person .................................................................................5
2.8 Collection .......................................................................................................................5
2.9 Collection Service ..........................................................................................................5
2.10 Competitive Proposal Development Period ...................................................................5
2.11 Contract .........................................................................................................................5
2.12 Contractor ......................................................................................................................5
2.13 Contractor’s Annual Trash Public Education Flyer .....................................................5
2.14 Contractor’s Trash Bill ..................................................................................................5
2.15 Day Certain Collection ..................................................................................................5
2.16 Disposal Facility ............................................................................................................6
2.17 Electronic Waste ............................................................................................................6
2.18 Every-Other-Week Collection Trash Collection Service ...............................................6
2.19 Food Waste (See also: “Organic Waste”) .....................................................................6
2.20 Hazardous/Toxic Waste .................................................................................................6
2.21 Litter Wind Screens ........................................................................................................6
2.22 Manual Collection .........................................................................................................6
2.23 Major Appliances ...........................................................................................................7
2.24 Organic Waste (See also “Food Waste”) ......................................................................7
2.25 Other Bulky Items (Not Requiring Special Processing) ................................................7
2.26 Prohibited Mailings .......................................................................................................7
2.27 Prohibited Waste ............................................................................................................7
2.28 Regular, Weekly Residential Trash Collection Service .................................................7
2.29 Residential Dwelling Unit ..............................................................................................7
2.30 Residential Trash Rates .................................................................................................7
2.31 Resource Recovery Facility ...........................................................................................8
2.32 Respondent .....................................................................................................................8
2.33 RFID (Radio Frequency Identification).........................................................................8
Packet Page Number 126 of 290
Contents
ii Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
2.34 Semi-Automated Collection ...........................................................................................8
2.35 Single-Family Dwelling (SFD) ......................................................................................8
2.36 Special Bulky Item Collection Service ...........................................................................8
2.37 Special Walk-In Collection Service ...............................................................................8
2.38 Tipping Fees...................................................................................................................8
2.39 Town Home ....................................................................................................................8
2.40 Trash ..............................................................................................................................9
2.41 Trash Cans .....................................................................................................................9
2.42 Trash Carts ....................................................................................................................9
2.43 Volume Based Fee Schedule ..........................................................................................9
2.44 Yard Waste .....................................................................................................................9
3 General Requirements for All Collections ..............................................................................9
3.1 Residential Trash Collection – General Description...................................................10
3.2 Exclusions ....................................................................................................................10
3.3 Contractor Licensing Requirements ............................................................................10
3.4 Collection Vehicle Equipment Requirements ...............................................................10
3.5 Trash Carts ..................................................................................................................11
3.6 Special Every-Other-Week Collection Frequency .......................................................12
3.7 Trash Cart Collection Point.........................................................................................12
3.8 Special Walk-In Collection Service .............................................................................12
3.9 Municipal, County and State Road Construction Projects that May Impact the
Contractors Truck Routes ............................................................................................12
3.10 Pollution Reduction and Environmentally Sustainable Initiatives ..............................12
3.11 Personnel Requirements ..............................................................................................13
3.12 Regular Trash Collection Hours and Days .................................................................13
3.13 Additional, Overflow Trash Amounts ..........................................................................14
3.14 Special, Bulky Waste Collections .................................................................................14
3.15 Special Electronic Waste Collections ..........................................................................14
3.16 Separate Christmas Tree Collection Service ...............................................................15
3.17 Holidays .......................................................................................................................15
3.18 Severe Weather ............................................................................................................15
3.19 Missed Collections .......................................................................................................16
3.20 Direct Billing by Contractor to Residents ...................................................................16
3.21 Credits for Extended Vacations ...................................................................................16
3.22 Customer Complaints...................................................................................................16
3.23 City Retains Right to Specify Resident Instructions .....................................................16
3.24 Publicity, Promotion and Education............................................................................17
3.25 Weighing of Loads .......................................................................................................17
3.26 Monthly and Annual Reports .......................................................................................18
3.27 Annual Performance Review Meeting .........................................................................18
3.28 Scavenging Prohibited .................................................................................................19
3.29 Cleanup of Spillage or Blowing Litter .........................................................................19
3.30 Payment of Disposal Facility Tipping Fees .................................................................19
3.31 Compliance with City, County and State Road Weight Limit Restrictions ..................19
4 Separate Yard Waste Collection Service ...............................................................................19
Packet Page Number 127 of 290
Contents
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC iii
July 2011
4.1 Residents May Subscribe to Yard Waste Service as an Option ...................................19
4.2 Scheduled Months for Yard Waste Collection Service ................................................19
4.3 Contractor Education Tag Required if Yard Waste Collection Service is Refused .....20
4.4 Delivery to Permitted Yard Waste Facilities ...............................................................20
4.5 Education .....................................................................................................................20
5 Food Waste and Other Organic Waste ..................................................................................20
6 Municipal Facilities Collection Requirements ......................................................................20
7 Designated Disposal Facilities ..............................................................................................21
8 Collection Equipment ............................................................................................................21
8.1 Trucks ...........................................................................................................................21
8.2 Automatic Lifters Preferred but Not Required .............................................................21
8.3 State and County Licenses ...........................................................................................22
8.4 Clean and Well Maintained Trucks .............................................................................22
8.5 All Loads Shall be Secure and Leak Proof ..................................................................22
8.6 Registration with the City ............................................................................................22
9 Payment Terms ......................................................................................................................23
9.1 Proposed Residential Trash Rate Schedule for Direct Billing by the Contractor .......23
9.2 Tipping Fee Disposal Costs Shall be Itemized Separately ..........................................23
9.3 CPI Price Adjustment on the Non-Fuel Portion of the BCF .......................................23
9.4 Fuel Adjustment on the Fuel Portion of the BCF ........................................................24
9.5 Trash Cart Exchange/Replacement Delivery Fee ........................................................24
9.6 Proposed Fees for Other Services ...............................................................................24
10 Term of Contract ...................................................................................................................24
11 City Intent to Use Competitive Procurement Process for Next Contract Round ..................25
12 Submitting Proposals .............................................................................................................25
12.1 Proposed Schedule .......................................................................................................25
12.2 Pre-Proposal Conference ............................................................................................25
12.3 City’s Project Contact Person .....................................................................................26
12.4 Addenda to the RFP/Notification of Interest in Receiving Addenda ...........................26
12.5 Questions......................................................................................................................26
12.6 Proposals Held Confidential .......................................................................................27
12.7 Review Committee ........................................................................................................27
12.8 Negotiations .................................................................................................................27
12.9 Cost of Proposal Preparation and Negotiation ...........................................................27
12.10 Inspections ...................................................................................................................27
12.11 Availability of Information ...........................................................................................27
12.12 New Contract ...............................................................................................................28
13 Proposals May be Rejected in Whole or Part ........................................................................28
14 How to Submit Proposals ......................................................................................................28
15 Proposal Content ...................................................................................................................29
15.1 Proposal Content Checklist .........................................................................................29
15.2 References ....................................................................................................................29
15.3 Safety Plan Required ....................................................................................................29
15.4 Litigation ......................................................................................................................29
15.5 Price Worksheet Form .................................................................................................29
Packet Page Number 128 of 290
Contents
iv Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
16 Vendors May Team with a Maximum of One (1) Other Company as a Subcontractor ........29
17 RFP and Proposal to Become Part of Final Contract ............................................................29
18 Evaluation Criteria and Methodology ...................................................................................30
18.1 Proposed Prices (___ Points) ......................................................................................30
18.2 Qualifications (___ Points) ..........................................................................................31
18.3 Service (___ Points) .....................................................................................................31
18.4 Environmental Benefits and Street Impacts (___ Points) ............................................31
18.5 Safety (___ Points) .......................................................................................................31
18.6 Aesthetics (___ Points) ................................................................................................31
18.7 Proposal Content and Overall Responsiveness (___ Points) ......................................32
19 Liquidated Damages ..............................................................................................................32
20 Insurance and Other Legal Requirements .............................................................................32
20.1 Insurance......................................................................................................................32
20.1.1 Workers Compensation Insurance ...................................................................32
20.1.2 Commercial General Liability Insurance .........................................................32
20.1.3 Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance ..................................................33
20.1.4 Professional Liability Insurance or Errors & Omissions Insurance .................33
20.1.5 Environmental Liability Insurance ..................................................................33
20.2 Transfer of Interest ......................................................................................................33
20.3 Performance Bond .....................................................................................................34
20.4 Independent Contractor .............................................................................................34
20.5 Hold Harmless .............................................................................................................34
20.6 Accounting Standards ..................................................................................................34
20.7 Retention of Records ....................................................................................................34
20.8 Data Practices .............................................................................................................35
Attachment A: Map of Weekly Trash Collection Zones ........................................................36
Attachment B: Current Residential Household Counts ...............................................................36
Attachment C: Other Service Level Assumptions ................................................................36
Attachment D: Current Trash Collection from City Buildings: Specifications of Service
Levels 36
Form A: Proposal Content Checklist .........................................................................................37
Form C: Certification of Binding Signature ..................................................................................37
Form D: Certification of Independent Proposal Pricing ............................................................37
Form E: Price Worksheet ..............................................................................................................38
Form F: Itemized Listing of Trucks and Other Collection Equipment .....................................42
Form G: Acknowledgement of Receipt of Addenda .................................................................42
Packet Page Number 129 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 1
July 2011
1 Introduction
The following sections describe the City of Maplewood’s intent, background, general
information, and decision process about this request for proposals (RFP) for
comprehensive residential trash collection services.
1.1 Statement of Intent
This RFP defines the service standards, specifications and proposal requirements of the
comprehensive, residential trash collection services for the City of Maplewood,
Minnesota (City). The City seeks to enter into a contract with a company (or companies)
that has (have) the resources and ability to provide the specified residential trash
collection services.
It is the intent of the City to accept and evaluate proposals for comprehensive, residential
trash collection including primary services such as trash collection, separate yard waste
collection, separate collection of bulky items, special clean-up events and public
education.
1.2 City Goals and Objectives
The following goals and objectives are established for this RFP:
1. Economic:
a. To reduce impacts on roads leading to City savings on road repairs and
reconstruction.
b. To lower trash collection service costs for residents.
2. Service:
a. To provide improved quantity, quality, accountability and management of
service.
b. To provide improved standardization of collection methods and
technology.
c. To improve service options for residents such as:
i. Rebates for extended vacations
ii. Special collection options (e.g., “walk up” or “garage-side
pickup”)
iii. Large/bulky items pick up.
iv. Special events pickups (e.g., spring and fall clean up events)
3. Environmental:
a. To better manage overall solid waste management and increase recycling.
Packet Page Number 130 of 290
2 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
b. To improve management and control in order to designate that residential
trash from the City be delivered to the best environmental location such as
a local resource recovery facility.
c. To reduce the amount of fuel consumed for trash collection operations.
d. To reduce the amount of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide,
emitted into the atmosphere.
4. Safety:
a. To improve the safety of streets by reducing trash truck traffic and
improving accountability.
5. Efficiency:
a. To maximize the efficiency in trash collection.
6. Planning Process:
a. To efficiently manage a planning process to achieve the above stated
goals.
b. To encourage participation of all interested parties in the planning process.
7. Aesthetics:
a. To reduce trash truck traffic and its associated noise and dust.
b. To provide more consistent and neater looking streets during collection
days.
8. Hauler Impacts:
a. To minimize displacement of trash haulers.
1.3 Background
The City of Maplewood currently has a subscription (also known as “open hauling”)
form of residential trash collection services. This existing system requires individual
homeowners to contract for trash collection services with the licensed hauler of their
choice.
A City web provides further details about the current trash hauling system:
Refuse Hauler
(http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us)
The City already contracts for curbside recycling as a separate service. Therefore,
recycling collection service is not included in this RFP or proposed trash collection
contract.
An overall solid waste management / recycling education effort is managed by the City
and described on the City web page:
Recycle and Waste
(www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/recycling)
Packet Page Number 131 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 3
July 2011
The City requires annual trash collection licenses of each hauler and posts the company
names and rates on the City’s web page:
Licensed Trash Haulers and Rates
(http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1988)
The 2010 population of Maplewood is 38,0181. The City has approximately 11,680
single-family dwellings (SFD's) that are served by trash collection. There are
approximately 4,292 multi-family dwelling (MFD) units and most of these MFD units are
served by the City’s recycling contractor.
The City’s recycling contractor provides special walk-in (“house-side” or “garage-side”)
collection of recyclables from residents with physical limitations. In 2011, this special
walk-in service is being provided to thirteen (13) City residences for recycling service.
The City already contracts for trash collection service from City buildings (see
Attachment E for details). This contract expires December 31, 2013. This RFP requests
a proposal element for trash collection service from City buildings during the last two
years of this Contract in 2014 and 2015.
On March 28, 2011, the City of Maplewood City Council passed a resolution of intent to
organize its trash collection system pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes
(M.S. 115A.94). This RFP is the next step in the City’s planning process as a part of its
larger trash collection system analysis. For more background information of the history
and most recent results of this trash collection system analysis, see the City’s web page:
Collection System Analysis
(http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/trash)
1.4 Summary Scope of Services
The proposed contract trash collection service is specified in this RFP to be provided in a
manner similar to the existing recycling collection service. The weekly trash collection
will continue to be by the same specific city service areas every Monday through Friday
(see Attachment A: Map of Weekly Trash Collection Areas). The City is divided into
five service areas which correspond to each of the five days collection is provided. The
number of SFD’s in each service area is listed below:
Monday 2,934
Tuesday 1,561
Wednesday 2,667
Thursday 1,856
Friday 2,662
TOTAL 11,680
1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census, March 17, 2011
(www.stats.metc.state.mn.us/metadata/Decennial_Census_SF3.htm)
Packet Page Number 132 of 290
4 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
A 2010 map of the City’s existing scheduled trash and recycling collection days, by
service area, can be found in Attachment A. The proposed City trash hauling contract
will require that these collection days, by service area, remain the same under the contract
for trash collection.
The City encourages proposing vendors to submit their best proposal possible. This RFP
specifies the “base” requirements of a proposed new system for residential trash
collection services.
2 Definitions
2.1 Additional Overflow Trash Collection Service
Trash in excess of the capacity of the trash cart with lid fully closed incurring an
additional collection fee.
2.2 Anticompetitive Conduct
City-approved cooperation, coordination or communications between companies as part
of the negotiating period as defined in this RFP and in Minnesota Statutes 115A.94,
Subd. 7.
2.3 Automated Collection
Use of trucks equipped with robotic arms that mechanically grab, lift, empty and set
down empty trash carts using remote controls operated by the driver such that no manual
lifting of carts is required.
2.4 Base Collection Fee (BCF)
Base collection price proposed for trash collection service (see Form E – Price Worksheet
for more details). This BCF does not include: disposal fees; prices or costs of other
services (e.g., yard waste, bulky items, clean-up events, etc.); taxes; or other government
administrative fees.
2.5 Bulky Items
A generic term including all large, bulky household items which are too large for one
person to pick up and/or do not fit within the trash cart. Bulky items include (but are not
limited to) carpeting and padding, mattresses, chairs, couches, tables, wheels/rims/tires,
major appliances, and electronic waste.
2.6 Bulky Items Requiring Special Processing
A specific term including large, bulky household items that required special processing to
remove harmful substances such as Freon, poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s), or
mercury and may include (but are not limited to) items such as refrigerators, freezers, air
conditioners, dehumidifiers, electronic waste, or thermostats.
Packet Page Number 133 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 5
July 2011
2.7 City’s Designated Contact Person
The City has designated Shann Finwall, Planner, as the City’s sole point of contact for
prospective vendors and eventually the Contractor.
2.8 Collection
The aggregation and transportation of trash from the place at which it is generated
including all activities up to the time when it is delivered to a designated disposal facility.
2.9 Collection Service
Collection service is the process of collection and transportation of trash, yard waste, and
bulky items.
2.10 Competitive Proposal Development Period
The period of time from the release of this final RFP and the final date that proposals are
due.
2.11 Contract
The legal agreement executed between the City and the Contractor (or multiple
Contractors). The Contract shall include, but not be limited to, this RFP document, RFP
addenda, the successful proposal, and any written clarifications or modifications as
specified in Section 17, “RFP and Proposal to Become Part of Final Contract.”
2.12 Contractor
The City’s trash service Contractor (or multiple contractors) under the proposed new
Contract. (All references in this RFP to “Contractor” shall be implied by this definition
to mean “Contractor or Contractors”.) .
2.13 Contractor’s Annual Trash Public Education Flyer
The City shall require the Contractor to publish and distribute an annual public education
flyer that contains the following trash information for City residents:
Annual calendar and map of trash zones for Single-Family Dwellings;
Prohibited waste;
Yard Waste;
Bulky Materials and Electronic Waste.
2.14 Contractor’s Trash Bill
The Contractor’s bill for services as submitted directly to residents.
2.15 Day Certain Collection
Day-certain collection is a City-approved plan for weekly collection services by an
established day-certain schedule. This schedule requires refuse, yard waste, and
Packet Page Number 134 of 290
6 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
recyclable collection on the same day of the week and is based on a five (5) day, Monday
through Friday, workweek. The only exceptions to the "day-certain" plan shall be during
those weeks in which occur legal holidays.
2.16 Disposal Facility
The licensed and permitted landfill or resource recovery facility where the trash is tipped
for disposal.
2.17 Electronic Waste
Electronic waste as defined in Minnesota Statutes (M.S. 115A.XXX) includes items such
as: television and computer monitors, computers, computer peripheral devices (e.g.,
printers, modems), fax machines, and other small appliances with an electric cord.
2.18 Every-Other-Week Collection Trash Collection Service
Residents who apply and receive City permission for every-other-week (EOW) collection
service shall be collected on the same day of the week as per the day-certain schedule but
on a specified EOW dates.
2.19 Food Waste (See also: “Organic Waste”)
Residential food waste includes meal preparation and leftover food scraps from
households intentionally separated at the source by residents for purposes of backyard
composting or separate collection for centralized recovery (e.g., large scale composting,
anaerobic digestion, etc.).
2.20 Hazardous/Toxic Waste
Hazardous and/or toxic waste includes materials as defined by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
such as liquid paint, motor oils, batteries, poisons, pesticides, herbicides, acids, caustics,
pathological wastes, radioactive materials, flammable or explosive materials, and similar
harmful chemicals and wastes. Hazardous/toxic wastes require special handling and must
be disposed of in a manner as specified by Minnesota Statutes and Ramsey County
ordinances and policies to protect the environment and ensure health and safety of the
public and collection crew.
2.21 Litter Wind Screens
Windscreens or shields mounted on the collection vehicle’s dumping hopper to minimize
wind-blown litter when tipping the carts.
2.22 Manual Collection
Residential and other trash collection systems that require manual lifting and tipping of
trash carts, trash cans or other trash containers into the trash truck hopper.
Packet Page Number 135 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 7
July 2011
2.23 Major Appliances
Household appliances including items such as refrigerators, freezers, ranges and stoves,
dishwashers, clothes washers and dryers, water heaters, trash compactors, conventional
and microwave ovens, garbage disposals, residential furnaces, air conditioners and
dehumidifiers.
2.24 Organic Waste (See also “Food Waste”)
Residential organic waste includes food waste and other non-recyclable organic waste
such as soiled paper and household plants.
2.25 Other Bulky Items (Not Requiring Special Processing)
A specific term including other large, bulky household items that do not require special
processing. May include (but are not limited to) bulky items such as carpeting and
padding, mattresses, chairs, couches, tables, wheels/rims/tires, windows/doors, and
plumbing fixtures such as sinks, toilets, etc.
2.26 Prohibited Mailings
Notices sent to residential dwelling units within the City of Maplewood such as for
advertising rates or services not available under the proposed Contract. Also includes
other notices sent to residential dwelling units without prior City written approval.
2.27 Prohibited Waste
Waste materials that are prohibited from disposal in with mixed trash or that may be
hazardous, toxic or otherwise harmful to the environment, collection crew safety, or
resource recovery system. Such prohibited waste items shall be itemized and explicitly
excluded from the definition of regular trash collection service in the proposed Contract.
2.28 Regular, Weekly Residential Trash Collection Service
The normal pre-scheduled trash collection services as specified in this RFP (including
special walk-in service). This does not include: separate bulky item collections;
collections from City buildings; separate electronic waste collections; other special on-
call collections, or special events.
2.29 Residential Dwelling Unit
A residential dwelling unit is a separate dwelling place with a kitchen in buildings with
up to four units per structure.
2.30 Residential Trash Rates
City-approved rates as per the Contract specifications for various trash and other
collection services as charged by the Contractor directly to residents.
Packet Page Number 136 of 290
8 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
2.31 Resource Recovery Facility
A facility that receives and processes mixed trash for purposes of recovering energy
and/or materials for beneficial use as per the Minnesota Waste Management Act (M.S.
115A).
2.32 Respondent
Proposers that elect to respond to this RFP and submit a proposal pursuant to the
requirements in this RFP.
2.33 RFID (Radio Frequency Identification)
RFID tags or chips are installed in trash carts to provide for automatic monitoring, data
collection and data analysis by stop (or “account”) as part of modern residential and other
trash and recyclables collection systems.
2.34 Semi-Automated Collection
Mechanical lifting devices installed on the trash truck hopper to mechanically lift and tip
the trash carts to avoid manual lifting by the collection crews. Semi-automated collection
systems require the crew to manually move and mount the trash cart onto the mechanical
lifting device.
2.35 Single-Family Dwelling (SFD)
A building containing up to four (4) residential dwelling units.
2.36 Special Bulky Item Collection Service
Special on-call collection services as requested by residents to the City for extra,
collection of bulky items.
2.37 Special Walk-In Collection Service
Special walk-in collection service for elderly residents or other residents with physical
limitations who require “house-side” or “garage-side” collection service. These special
walk-in accounts shall be pre-approved by the City and designated by address to the
Contractor.
2.38 Tipping Fees
The financial payment that trash haulers make to facilities such as resource recovery
plants, transfer stations or landfills that covers the costs of recovery and/or disposal of the
material unloaded.
2.39 Town Home
Structures containing two or more units of not more than two (2) stories each and
contiguous to each other. Said units shall also be governed by an association for the
entire series of structures within any such development.
Packet Page Number 137 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 9
July 2011
2.40 Trash
(Also known as: garbage, refuse, rubbish, mixed municipal solid waste, solid waste)
Garbage is organic waste, including discarded material resulting from the handling,
processing, storage, preparation, serving, and consumption of food. Refuse is solid waste
including garbage and rubbish, and specifically excluding yard waste, recyclables, and
hazardous/toxic waste. Refuse further excludes industrial, commercial, agricultural, and
construction garbage or rubbish and wastes. Rubbish is solid waste, including ashes,
consisting of both combustible and noncombustible wastes, such as wood, bedding,
crockery, and other non-reusable waste. Rubbish also includes non-recyclable types of
glass, paper, cardboard, metal cans and plastics.
2.41 Trash Cans
Metal or plastic cans purchased by or for residents to contain and store regular trash
waiting for collection. Most often is not standardized and purchased by residents at local
retail stores.
2.42 Trash Carts
Standardized trash carts equipped with wheels and a lid as specified and purchased by the
City in the following standardized sizes (approximate/nominal capacities):
20-gallon
30-gallon
60-gallon
90-gallon
Actual trash cart capacities by cart size will depend on the cart manufacturer selected by
the City through a separate procurement process.
2.43 Volume Based Fee Schedule
A trash collection service rate schedule as charged to residents that increases
incrementally with larger trash container sizes and is intentionally designed to encourage
waste reduction and recycling. Also known as “Pay as You Throw” and/or “Variable
Rate Pricing”.
2.44 Yard Waste
All organic plant material that can be composted including grass clippings, leaves, soft
garden material, brush and tree limbs under four inches in diameter and four feet in
length provided they are bundled with twine or other compostable material.
3 General Requirements for All Collections
The following general requirements are pertinent to all residential trash collection
services.
Packet Page Number 138 of 290
10 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
3.1 Residential Trash Collection – General Description
The Contractor shall provide regular, weekly residential trash collection and disposal
from City SFD’s on the day-certain schedule specified within this RFP. Yard waste,
bulky items, and electronic waste shall each be collected separately.
3.2 Exclusions
Weekly trash collection service shall not include the collection of:
1. Hazardous/toxic waste including items such as batteries, tires, construction material,
motor oils, and paint in liquid form or other hazardous/toxic waste as defined and
specified by Minnesota Statutes and Ramsey County ordinances and policies.
2. White goods, except as provided for in the special bulky item collection service
Section 3.14.
3. Large tree limbs, brush exceeding four-inches in diameter, and such other tree waste
items, except as provided for in yard waste collection service Section 4.
4. Animal waste and solid waste materials resulting from industrial, commercial, and
agricultural operations.
5. Earthen fill, boulders, rock, and other materials normally handled in construction
operations.
6. Biosolids or dissolved materials from domestic sewage, wastewater, storm water, or
other significant liquid wastes such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in
industrial waste water effluent, dissolved materials in irrigation return flows; or
other common water pollutants.
7. Electronic waste such as televisions and computer monitors containing cathode ray
tubes (CRT’s) and other electronic waste except as provided for in the special
electronic waste collection Section 3.15.
3.3 Contractor Licensing Requirements
Haulers of trash must have a Collection license issued by the City, per City Code Section
30.
3.4 Collection Vehicle Equipment Requirements
Vehicles shall be designated to accommodate Collection material as specified by the
Contract, and shall be clearly signed on both sides as a trash Collection vehicle. In
addition, all Collection vehicles used in performance of the Contract shall:
Be duly licensed and inspected by the State of Minnesota;
Be Minnesota Department of Transportation (DOT)-compliant at all times;
Packet Page Number 139 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 11
July 2011
Have a maximum loaded weight not to exceed 40,000 pounds; and
Be kept clean and as free from offensive odors as possible.
Each Collection vehicle shall be equipped with the following:
a. Two-way communications device.
b. First aid kit.
c. An approved fire extinguisher.
d. Warning flashers.
e. Warning alarms to indicate movement in reverse.
f. Sign on the rear of the vehicle which states “This Vehicle Makes Frequent
Stops.”
g. A broom and shovel for cleaning up spills.
All of the required equipment must be in proper working order. All vehicles must be
maintained in proper working order and be as clean and free from odors as possible. All
vehicles must be clearly identified on both sides with Contractor’s name and telephone
number prominently displayed. The lettering must be at least three inches in height.
3.5 Trash Carts
All occupants of residential dwelling units in the City shall be required by ordinance to
keep trash in approved wheeled trash carts. Standardized trash carts will be purchased
and owned by the City but delivered, maintained and inventoried by the Contractor.
Carts shall will be received, assembled, distributed, spares warehoused, and maintained
by Contractor.
The Contractor shall take reasonable care to prevent damage to residential carts during
collection. Contractor shall repair or provide sanitized replacements in accordance with
the City policy for replacement of carts. Requests for replacement of existing carts must
be handled within 5 business days after the request is received. Repairs to existing carts
must be handled within 3 business days from the time the request is received. The
Contractor shall document and report the cart replacement and repair rate in accordance
with the City’s Trash Cart Policy and Procedures. The Contractor will be responsible
for managing and completing warranty work on the carts. Residents shall have the option
of requesting an additional cart(s) for an additional fee(s).
Trash carts design and manufacturing requirements shall be specified by the City as per
Attachment D. The City shall require all new carts used in the City to be manufactured
and installed with radio frequency identification (RFID) tags for later integration into a
data management system to be implemented at some time in the future within this
Contract term.
Packet Page Number 140 of 290
12 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
3.6 Special Every-Other-Week Collection Frequency
Residents may apply to the City for permission to reduce collection frequency to every-
other-week (EOW) collections. Residents will be required to use the minimum trash cart
size (e.g., 20-gallon) for a period of six months prior to applying for EOW collection
service. Residents who are granted special City permission to use EOW collections will
be given an annual calendar of specified dates of collection. The Contractor shall
approve in writing these EOW collection dates by address prior to City granting
permission.
3.7 Trash Cart Collection Point
Residential dwelling units shall have, as required by the City ordinance, their container
located at the boulevard adjoining the curb (or alternative location in the alley) on or
before 6:00 a.m. on the designated day of collection. The Contractor shall approve in
writing the alley collection points before City designation of alley collection.
Containers shall be returned to the designated set-out location as set out by the resident at
each location. Contractor shall make a conscious effort to return the cart with the lid
closed and in a standing position.
3.8 Special Walk-In Collection Service
Special walk-in Collection service shall be provided to selected, City-designated
residents who require house-side or garage-side Collection service.
3.9 Municipal, County and State Road Construction Projects that May
Impact the Contractors Truck Routes
The City, County and State reserve the right to improve any street or alley that may
prevent the Contractor from traveling its accustomed route or routes for collection. The
Contractor shall bear the responsibility for contacting the City Public Works Director
prior to each construction season to determine areas of conflict and possible alternate
routes or solutions. The Contractor shall maintain regular service during street
reconstruction project, regardless of access with no additional compensation for service
modifications.
3.10 Pollution Reduction and Environmentally Sustainable Initiatives
Contractor shall demonstrate a commitment to reducing air pollution from Collection
vehicles. Contractor shall submit as part of its proposal, a list of specific steps it has
taken to reduce air pollution throughout the company’s overall operations and proposed
operations within the City of Maplewood. Examples may include:
A description of its current use of low-sulfur diesel fuel, biodiesel, or compressed
natural gas (CNG);
A description of its current use of particulate filters for its fleet; and/or
Packet Page Number 141 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 13
July 2011
A timetable for converting its fleet to using alternative fuels and installing air
pollution reduction technology.
In addition, proposers shall describe their current efforts and future plans to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions (from collection operations, transporting materials for recovery
or disposal, etc.) as well as any environmentally sustainable initiatives that are currently a
part of the proposer’s business operations or are planned for the future.
3.11 Personnel Requirements
Contractor shall retain sufficient personnel and equipment to fulfill the requirements and
specifications of the services described in this RFP. The Contractor will provide a Route
Supervisor to oversee the trash route drivers servicing the City. The Route Supervisor
will be available to address customer complaints each day. The Contractor shall have on
duty Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. a dispatch customer service
representative to receive customer calls and route issues. The Contractor shall provide a
24-hour answering service line or device to receive customer calls. The Route Supervisor
and all Collection vehicles must be equipped with 2-way communication devices.
Contractor’s personnel will be trained both in program operations and in customer service
and insure that all personnel maintain a positive attitude with the public and in the work
place and shall:
a. Conduct themselves at all times in a courteous manner and use no abusive or foul
language.
b. Perform their duties in accordance with all existing laws and ordinances and
future amendments thereto of the Federal, State of Minnesota, and local
governing boards.
c. Be clean and presentable in appearance, as far as possible.
d. Wear a uniform and employee identification badge or name tag.
e. Drive in a safe and considerate manner.
f. Manage trash carts in a careful manner so as to avoid spillage and littering or
damage to the trash cart.
g. Monitor for any spillage and be responsible for cleaning up any litter or breakage.
h. Avoid damage to property.
i. Not perform their duties or operate vehicles while consuming alcohol or illegally
using controlled substances or while under the influence of alcohol and/or such
substances.
3.12 Regular Trash Collection Hours and Days
The City requires all trash Collection to begin no sooner than 6 a.m. and shall be
complete by 7 p.m. The City requires scheduled Collection days to be Monday through
Friday (as shown in Attachment A) and pre-selected Saturdays during holiday weeks (see
Section 3.17). The Contractor may request City authorization of exceptions to these time
Packet Page Number 142 of 290
14 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
restrictions (e.g., pursuant to the “Severe Weather” provision described in Section 3.18).
The Contractor must request such exception from the City’s Designated Contact Person
via telephone or email, prior to the requested Collection event and specify the date, time
and reason for the exception.
3.13 Additional, Overflow Trash Amounts
Residents may request additional, overflow trash collection service. Proposers may
propose to bill the City for such additional, overflow collection service charges as set
forth in “Form E - Price Worksheet” Such overflow trash must be securely bundled and
tied shut in a separate plastic garbage bag and set next to the trash cart. Residents will be
required to call in their requests for such additional, overflow trash amounts at least two
working days prior to their regularly scheduled, day-certain collection day.
Collection service for additional, overflow trash may have prior arrangements with the
Contractor for collection and shall be billed in accordance with final agreed upon terms
of the Contract.
The Contractor will be required to collect additional, overflow trash amounts regardless if
the residents have called in the request ahead of time or regardless if the City has notified
the Contractor ahead of time. Residents who do not call in their additional, overflow
trash amounts and still set out said overflow may be charged an extra handling fee by the
City.
3.14 Special, Bulky Waste Collections
Residents may request special, bulky item collection service. Proposers may propose to
bill the City for such collection service charges as set forth in “Form E - Price
Worksheet” Such bulky items must be set next to the trash cart. Residents will be
required to call in their requests for such special, bulky item collections at least two
working days prior to their regularly scheduled, day-certain collection day.
Collection service for special, bulky item trash must have prior arrangements with the
Contractor for collection and shall be billed in accordance with final agreed upon terms
of the Contract.
The Contractor will be required to collect special bulky items if the residents have called
in the request ahead of time and if the City has notified the Contractor ahead of time.
Residents who do not call in their special bulky items and still set out said bulky items
may be charged an extra handling fee by the City and may not receive bulky item
collection services.
3.15 Special Electronic Waste Collections
Residents may request special, electronic waste collection service. Proposers may
propose to bill the City for such collection service charges as set forth in “Form E - Price
Worksheet”. Such special, electronic waste shall be set next to the trash cart. Residents
Packet Page Number 143 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 15
July 2011
will be required to call in their requests for such electronic waste collections at least two
working days prior to their regularly scheduled, day-certain collection day.
Collection service for special, electronic waste must have prior arrangements with the
Contractor for collection and shall be billed in accordance with final agreed upon terms
of the Contract.
The Contractor will be required to collect special electronic waste if the residents have
called in the request ahead of time and if the City has notified the Contractor ahead of
time. Residents who do not call in their special electronic waste and still set out said
electronic waste may be charged an extra handling fee by the City and may not receive
electronic waste collection services.
3.16 Separate Christmas Tree Collection Service
The Contractor shall separately collect Christmas trees for the first two (2) weeks in each
year. The cost of this separate collection of one (1) Christmas tree per year per
residential dwelling unit shall be included in the proposer’s proposed base trash
collection fee as per the price worksheet (see Form E.)
Residents shall be instructed by the City to set out “clean” Christmas trees only.
Residents may not wrap Christmas trees in plastic bags and must remove all ornaments,
tinsel and other foreign debris. Clean Christmas trees may then be set out next to the
trash cart, but only during the designated period
The Contractor shall be responsible for the safe, legal, and environmentally sound
conveyance of all Christmas trees collected under this Contract. The Contractor shall
convey the Christmas trees to a lawfully approved (e.g., permitted and licensed) compost
or Christmas tree processing site and shall assume all liability and responsibility for
materials deposited. The Contractor shall not mix other types of trash or inorganic
materials with the Christmas trees or take any action so as to make the Christmas tree
material unacceptable to the operators of the compost/processing site.
3.17 Holidays
Holidays refers to any of the following: New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence
Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and any other holidays mutually
agreed to by the City and Contractor and so specified in the proposed Contract. In no
instance will there be more than one holiday during a Collection week. When the
scheduled Collection day falls on a holiday, Collection for that day will be collected one
day later. The Contractor shall publish the yearly calendar including alternate Collection
days, with assistance from the City.
3.18 Severe Weather
The Contractor may postpone trash Collection due to severe weather at the sole discretion
of the Contractor. “Severe Weather” shall include, but shall not be limited to, those cases
in which snow, sleet, ice or cold temperatures might jeopardize the safety of the
Packet Page Number 144 of 290
16 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
contractor’s staff or result in unsafe driving conditions. If Collections are so postponed,
the Contractor shall notify the City’s Designated Contact Person via telephone or email.
Upon postponement, Collection will be made on a day agreed upon between the
Contractor and the City.
3.19 Missed Collections
The Contractor shall have a duty to pick up missed trash Collections. The Contractor
agrees to pick up all missed Collections on the same day the Contractor receives notice of
a missed Collection, provided notice is received by the Contractor before 11:00 a.m. on a
business day. With respect to all notices of a missed Collection received after 11:00 a.m.
on a business day, the Contractor agrees to pick up that missed Collection before 4:00
p.m. on the following business day.
3.20 Direct Billing by Contractor to Residents
The Contractor shall directly bill their designated customers as per the terms of the
Contract. All residential trash rates billed by the Contractor shall be specified in the
Contract and approved in writing in advance by the City. The rates may be adjusted a
maximum of once per year as per the terms of the Contract. Any adjustments must be
pre-approved by the City in writing.
3.21 Credits for Extended Vacations
Residents shall be given credit on their next trash bill for extended vacations of three
weeks or more.
3.22 Customer Complaints
Contractor shall provide staffing of a telephone-equipped office to receive missed
Collection complaints between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, except
holidays. The Contractor shall have an answering machine or voice mail system
activated to receive phone calls after hours.
Contractor shall keep a log of all complaints, including the nature of the complaints; the
names, addresses, and contact numbers of the complainants; the date and time received;
the Contractor’s response; and the date and time of response. This information shall be
provided to the City in a monthly report.
Complaints on service will be taken and collected by the Contractor. The City will notify
the Contractor of all complaints it receives. The Contractor is responsible for corrective
actions and shall answer all complaints courteously and promptly.
3.23 City Retains Right to Specify Resident Instructions
The Contractor shall agree that it is the City’s sole right to clearly specify the resident
setout requirements.
Packet Page Number 145 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 17
July 2011
3.24 Publicity, Promotion and Education
The City shall plan, design, and implement a series of public education and awareness
tools related to this comprehensive trash collection system. These City-produced tools
may include, but are not limited to:
1. Web site, with detailed web pages on specific issues
2. City newsletter
3. News releases and other media relations efforts
4. Phone and email communications directly with individual residents
At its own cost as part of the base collection fee, the Contractor shall develop, publish
and distribute (via mail or hand deliver):
1. One (1) annual public education flyer per year.
2. Education tags to be left by Contractor’s collection crews at the time any material
is left behind without being collected to instruct residents why the material was
not collected (e.g., prohibited material, bulky items or other waste requiring
separate collection trucks) and a phone number to call to place an order for a
special collection.
The Contractor must be able to provide public education material in languages other than
English (e.g., Spanish, Hmong, Somali, etc.). The City will work with the Contractor
regarding the quantities needed and the locations for distribution.
The Contractor shall submit a draft of any public education literature for approval by the
City, at least one (1) month before printing and distribution of any such literature. No
public education materials or other communications to City residents shall be produced or
distributed without prior City written approval.
As part of this proposal, proposers shall describe their experience in providing Collection
services at community events and what, if any, Collection opportunities could be
provided at Maplewood community events or City-sponsored events, and whether there
would be a cost separate from the base collection fee associated with the service.
In addition, proposers are encouraged to specify other public education tools that they are
willing to provide.
As part of this proposal, proposers shall provide examples of public education materials
they have developed for other municipalities.
3.25 Weighing of Loads
Contractor will keep accurate records consisting of an approved weight slip with the date,
time, Collection route, driver’s name, vehicle number, tare weight, gross weight and net
weight for each loaded vehicle that has collected trash from SFD’s in Maplewood. A
copy of each weight ticket shall be kept on file and made available for inspection upon
request by the City.
Packet Page Number 146 of 290
18 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
3.26 Monthly and Annual Reports
The Contractor will submit to the City monthly reports and annual reports. At a
minimum, the Contractor shall include the following information in their monthly
reports:
1. Total quantities of trash collected / disposed (in tons).
2. Number of loads of residential trash from the City.
3. List of all facilities used for trash disposal.
4. Tipping fee
5. Log of all complaints, including the nature of the complaints; the names,
addresses, and contact numbers of the complainants; the date and time received;
the Contractor’s response; and the date and time of response.
6. Log of all resident addresses where “education tags” were left because of
Prohibited Materials set out for trash collection.
At a minimum, the Contractor shall include the following information in their annual
reports:
1. Total quantities of trash collected in the City (in tons).
2. Quantities of trash collected / disposed (in tons).
3. List of all trash disposal facilities utilized.
4. Actual number of total yard waste subscription accounts.
5. Estimated average amount of yard waste collected by month.
6. Actual number of total bulky item collection occurrences by sub-type (e.g., bulky
items requiring special processing, bulky items not requiring special processing,
electronic waste)
Monthly reports shall be due to the City by the 15th day of each month. Annual reports
shall be due by January 31 of each year. The Contractor shall include in its annual report
recommendations for continuous improvement in the City’s trash program (e.g., public
education, etc.).
Actual truck scale weight ticket receipts must be maintained on file for at least seven
years from the actual date and made available to the City or its agent immediately upon
request.
3.27 Annual Performance Review Meeting
Upon receipt of the Contractors annual report, the City shall schedule an annual meeting
with the Contractor and the City’s Environmental & Natural Resources (ENR)
Commission. Once concluded, the report from the ENR Commission shall be presented
to the City Council, and a meeting will be held between the Council and Contractor to
review the performance of the contract. The objectives of this annual meeting will
include, but not be limited to, the following:
Packet Page Number 147 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 19
July 2011
1. Review Contractor’s annual report, including trends in trash quantities.
2. Review Contractor’s performance based on feedback from residents to the
Environmental & Natural Resources Commission members and/or City staff.
3. Review Contractor’s recommendations for improvement to the City’s trash
program, including enhanced public education and other opportunities.
4. Review City staff recommendations for Contractor’s service improvements.
5. Discuss other opportunities for improvement during the remainder of the
Contract.
3.28 Scavenging Prohibited
It is unlawful for any person other than the City’s trash Contractor to collect, remove, or
dispose of designated trash from SFD’s after the materials have been placed or deposited
for Collection in the trash containers. The City’s trash Contractor’s employees may not
collect or “scavenge” through trash in any manner that interferes with the contracted trash
services.
3.29 Cleanup of Spillage or Blowing Litter
The Contractor shall clean up any material spilled or blown during the course of
Collection and/or hauling operations. All Collection vehicles shall be equipped with at
least one broom and one shovel for use in cleaning up material spillage.
3.30 Payment of Disposal Facility Tipping Fees
The Contractor shall pay the disposal facility tipping fees. The Contractor shall give
written notice to the City immediately upon getting notice of a change in tipping fees.
3.31 Compliance with City, County and State Road Weight Limit
Restrictions
The Contractor shall comply with all City, County and State road weight limit
restrictions.
4 Separate Yard Waste Collection Service
4.1 Residents May Subscribe to Yard Waste Service as an Option
City residents may subscribe to separate yard waste collection service as an option. The
residents’ request to subscribe for separate yard waste collection service must be to the
City in writing (e.g., via post card, email or web based form) by the end of February each
year.
4.2 Scheduled Months for Yard Waste Collection Service
Separate yard waste collection shall be provided from April through November.
Packet Page Number 148 of 290
20 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
4.3 Contractor Education Tag Required if Yard Waste Collection
Service is Refused
The Contractor may refuse to collect yard waste at the time of collection:
1. If the material is not acceptable;
2. If the resident did not set-out or prepare the yard waste properly; or
3. If the resident’s yard waste subscription payment has not been received by the
hauler properly
If the Contractor does not collect the yard waste for such legitimate reasons, the
Contractor shall leave and attach a visible education tag that clearly explains why the
material was not collected.
4.4 Delivery to Permitted Yard Waste Facilities
The Contractor shall be responsible for the safe, legal, and environmentally sound
conveyance of all yard waste collected under this Contract. The Contractor shall convey
the yard waste to a lawfully approved (e.g., permitted and licensed) site and shall assume
all liability and responsibility for materials deposited. The Contractor shall not mix other
types of refuse or inorganic materials with the yard waste or take any action so as to
make the yard waste material unacceptable to the operators of the yard waste facility.
4.5 Education
It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist in the education of residents on
how to properly prepare yard waste. Contractor will work with City staff on an annual
basis to plan, design and prepare written materials for residents. The Contractor shall
include recommendations for such yard waste education plans in their annual report (see
Section 3.26.)
5 Food Waste and Other Organic Waste
The City is considering future plans for separate collection and recovery of food waste
and other organic waste. Such plans will be dependent on the outcome of State and
County efforts to further develop the organic waste recovery infrastructure.
Proposers shall state their willingness to pilot test and then implement City-wide separate
collection of organic waste services. No proposed Contract specifications or
requirements are included in this RFP at this time. Prices for any such additional separate
collection services can be negotiated at a later date.
6 Municipal Facilities Collection Requirements
Packet Page Number 149 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 21
July 2011
In the last two years of this contract, 2014 and 2015, the Contractor shall provide trash
Collection service at City buildings. Attachment E provides the details of current trash
collection service from City buildings (e.g., dumpster size, collection frequency). These
same service levels should be assumed by the Proposer for the years 2014 and 2015.
Trash collection service shall be at least weekly. The Contractor shall provide dumpsters
or other suitable trash containers with adequate capacity for collections as specified in
Attachment E.
7 Designated Disposal Facilities
The Contractor shall be responsible for the safe, legal, and environmentally sound
disposal of all trash, bulky items, and any other items and materials collected under this
Contract. The Contractor shall deliver and unload trash and other materials only at
facilities that are properly licensed and permitted for those materials.
The Contractor shall dispose of all trash collected in the City at a resource recovery
facility consistent with the current Minnesota Waste Management Act (M.S. 115A),
Ramsey County Solid Waste Master Plan, Ramsey County facility operating contracts
and other Ramsey County policies.
8 Collection Equipment
8.1 Trucks
Proposers must list on Form F the number of vehicles and a full description of each
vehicle proposed to be used in providing service for both trash and bulky waste items. In
addition, proposers must indicate if the equipment is currently available and, if not, when
it will be available. The City may inspect truck conditions such as: state of repair, miles
of service/hours, appearance, leaks, sound levels during operation, or other regulatory
requirements, etc. The City or consulting specialists may inspect the equipment at the
beginning of the Contract approval process and develop recommendations to the
Contractor for equipment improvements.
The Contractor shall provide an adequate number of vehicles for regular collection
services and sufficient spares to provide uninterrupted service.
8.2 Automatic Lifters Preferred but Not Required
Automatic lifters (automated or robotic collection arms) are preferred in response to this
RFP, but are not required. Each proposer must specify the total number of trucks in its
fleet serving the area of the City that is equipped with automatic collection arms. The
proposer shall itemize the specific trucks proposed for use for residential collection
services in the City and whether or not these trucks are equipped with automated
collection arms.
Any automated collection system must be compatible with the City’s plans and
specifications for purchase of trash carts. The lifters must be maintained so as to not
Packet Page Number 150 of 290
22 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
cause damage to collection carts. Automated collection vehicles must be outfitted with
windscreens or shields to minimize wind-blown litter when tipping the carts.
8.3 State and County Licenses
All equipment and vehicles used by the selected contractor shall be titled, registered and
licensed in the State of Minnesota and Ramsey County. The Contractor shall provide
copies of each Minnesota and County equipment or vehicle registration document for
each vehicle proposed for use in fulfilling the specifications prior to use of that vehicle on
any trash route under these specifications.
8.4 Clean and Well Maintained Trucks
The Contractor shall keep all equipment in proper repair and in a clean, sanitary and
presentable condition. In the event of complaints, the City will have the final
determination of whether the standards are being adhered to and what is acceptable.
Contractor shall be solely responsible for all costs of operating and maintaining collection
equipment.
8.5 All Loads Shall be Secure and Leak Proof
All vehicles shall be secure, preventing any leakage of fluids or littering of materials.
Any fluid leak (except for oil, fuel, anti-freeze, or other substance deemed a hazardous
material) must be cleaned up within one (1) business day. Should a hydraulic hose or
other vehicle related item break or leak fluid while on a collection route, the Contractor
shall respond to and make efforts to contain and clean the oil leak or other hazardous
substance within a 2-hour time period. Cleaning shall include complete removal of any
oil tracked on the street or resident’s driveway as well as any oil or other hazardous
material leaked into a storm water system. It will be the sole determination of the City as
to whether the cleaning is adequate in the event of a dispute. Clean up and disposal of all
material deemed to be toxic, hazardous, or otherwise not approved for disposal at a
regular municipal solid waste landfill must be disposed of properly under all local, state,
and federal regulations. The City may request written documentation substantiating how
and where the material was disposed. All cleaning activities must adhere to applicable
local, state, and federal regulation and applicable storm water permits. All vehicles shall
be manufactured and maintained to conform to applicable American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) standards. Each vehicle shall be permanently identified, at a minimum,
with the Contractor’s name and phone number plainly visible on each side of the vehicle.
8.6 Registration with the City
Contractor shall register all equipment to be used in the performance of this contract with
the City on an annual basis. Contractor shall provide the City with the year, make, and
model of chassis and body, registration, company vehicle number, and license number of
each vehicle.
Packet Page Number 151 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 23
July 2011
9 Payment Terms
9.1 Proposed Residential Trash Rate Schedule for Direct Billing by
the Contractor
All proposers shall submit a complete Price Worksheet (Form E). If the Proposer is
awarded the Contract, this Price Worksheet will be the basis for final terms of the City-
approved residential trash rate schedule.
The Price Worksheet requires proposers to split the individual elements of its collection
and disposal costs. The base collection fee (BCF) is the proposed price of regular trash
collection service per household per month. The BCF should be a flat schedule and
should not vary by cart size.
Proposers are also required to propose the percent of base collection fee (BCF) that is
related to “non-fuel” and “fuel” costs so that a comparable fuel adjustment price can be
estimated by the City on fuel related collection costs.
9.2 Tipping Fee Disposal Costs Shall be Itemized Separately
The Contractor shall directly pay the trash disposal tipping fees as per the terms of the
Contract. Disposal cost elements of the residential trash rates will be based on the trash
disposal fees proposed by the Proposer in Form E – Price Worksheet.
The trash disposal costs in the Contract will be adjusted annually to reflect changes in
actual tipping fees. The actual 2012 tipping fee at the trash disposal facility will be
defined as the benchmark year disposal price. The Contractor’s trash disposal costs will
be adjusted proportionally each year based on the change in actual tipping fees compared
to the 2012 benchmark year tipping fees.
All proposers shall use an assumed tipping fee of $58 per ton as the basis for calculating
their proposed trash disposal costs in the Price Worksheet (Form E).
9.3 CPI Price Adjustment on the Non-Fuel Portion of the BCF
The collection fees for 2012 will be set in accordance with the base collection fees (BCF)
proposed on the Price Worksheet (Form E). The non-fuel portion of the BCF payable for
each successive Contract year shall equal the BCF fee payable for the previous year
adjusted proportionately by the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI). June will be defined
as the benchmark CPI index month. The non-fuel portion of the BCF will be adjusted by
the relative change each year compared to the benchmark CPI index, or 3%, whichever is
lower. The published index for determining the annual percent change of the CPI will be
the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
Each annual adjustment of the non-fuel portion of the BCF will be based on the
benchmark CPI index of the previous year. For example, the non-fuel portion of the BCF
Packet Page Number 152 of 290
24 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
for all of 2013 will be based on the proportional change in the CPI index from June 2012
compared to June 2011.
9.4 Fuel Adjustment on the Fuel Portion of the BCF
The fuel portion of the BCF will be adjusted per the final terms in the Contract and based
on the successful proposers Price Worksheet (Form E). The fuel portion of the BCF will
be adjusted annually to reflect the percent change in indexed diesel prices. The index
shall be the “Retail, On-Highway Diesel Prices – Average All Types, Midwest Region”
as determined and published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). The
benchmark date shall be defined as this fuel index on June 1 of each year.
The fuel portion of the BCF payable for each successive Contract year shall equal the
BCF fee payable for the previous year adjusted proportionately by the annual fuel index.
The fuel portion of the BCF will be adjusted by the relative change each year compared
to the benchmark date. For example, the fuel portion of the BCF for all of 2013 will be
based on the proportional change in the fuel index from June 1, 2012 compared to June 1,
2011.
9.5 Trash Cart Exchange/Replacement Delivery Fee
Residents shall be allowed to change their cart size a maximum of once per year without
incurring an exchange fee. The Contractor may charge residents for exchanges over that
free allotment of once per year. Also, the Contractor may charge residents for cart
replacement if it is damaged prematurely (i.e., not normal wear and tear). The Proposers
shall specify the proposed trash cart exchange/replacement fee in the Form E – Price
Worksheet.
9.6 Proposed Fees for Other Services
Proposers shall specify their proposed fees in Form E – Price Worksheet for the
following other services:
1. Separate yard waste collection
2. Separate collection of bulky items (requiring special processing)
3. Separate collection of bulky items (not requiring special processing)
4. Separate collection of electronic waste
5. Trash collection from City buildings
6. Clean-up events
10 Term of Contract
The term of the new trash Contract will be a period from October 1, 2012 through
December 31, 2017 for a total of seven (7) years and three months. The City may
consider up to two one-year extensions for years 2020 and 2021, at the City’s sole
discretion.
Packet Page Number 153 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 25
July 2011
Such one-year extensions will be subject to the City’s sole determination of the service
and of its residents’ best interests. Such extensions shall be negotiated based on mutually
agreeable terms. The successful proposer shall not consider the right of City to extend
the initial seven (7) year term with up to two, one-year extensions to constitute or imply
any obligation by City to renew the contract.
11 City Intent to Use Competitive Procurement Process for
Next Contract Round
The City intends to initiate a new competitive procurement process towards the end of the
term of the proposed contract. The City intends to use a competitive procurement
process for the next contract round such as a request for proposals (RFP) or request for
bids (RFB). Nothing in this RFP shall be construed to imply that the City intends to
negotiate extensions beyond the limit of the contract term specified in Section 10 above.
12 Submitting Proposals
To the best of its ability, the City will use the following process and schedule for its
decision-making:
12.1 Proposed Schedule
(All dates in 2011 unless specified otherwise)
Competitive Proposal Development (AKA “Continued Planning”) Period:
July 12, 2011 Release of RFP
July 21, 2011 Pre Proposal Conference
July 25, 2011 Questions from Potential Proposers Due
August 2, 2011 City Response Deadline
August 19, 2011 Proposals Due
Negotiating Period:
September 26 City Council receives report from Trash Hauling Working
Group and, if approved, authorizes contract negotiations with
one or more trash haulers
November 28 City Council authorizes contract execution and/or
improvements to existing system
December 23 City and contractor execute contract
July 1, 2012 Contract Start Date
12.2 Pre-Proposal Conference
A Pre-Proposal Conference will be held July 21, 2011. Attendance by at least one
representative from each proposer is strongly encouraged. The Conference will begin at
Packet Page Number 154 of 290
26 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
1:00 p.m. in the Maplewood City Council Chambers, 1830 County Road B East,
Maplewood, MN. Those attending the Pre-Proposal Conference will automatically
receive any addenda issued by the City.
12.3 City’s Project Contact Person
Prospective Contractors interested in responding to this RFP may contact the City with
questions to the City’s designated contact person:
Ms. Shann Finwall
Environmental Planner
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
Phone: (651) 249-2304
Fax: (651) 249-2319
E-mail: Shann.Finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us
Any other contact with other City staff, City Council Members, members of the City’s
Environmental & Natural Resources Commission, or the City’s consultant during the
competitive proposal development period (currently scheduled from July 12 through
August 19, 2012) about this RFP or the City’s overall trash collection system analysis
will be considered unauthorized contact and may subject the company to disqualification
from further consideration.
12.4 Addenda to the RFP/Notification of Interest in Receiving Addenda
The City reserves the right to amend or clarify this RFP by addenda. Addenda may only
be issued automatically to those proposers attending the Pre-Proposal Conference or who
have specifically requested to receive the addenda by a written request (e.g., via email).
Addenda may be issued at any time prior to the date for receipt of proposals. If such
revisions or clarifications are of such a magnitude as to warrant, in the opinion of City,
the postponement of the date for the receipt of proposals, written notification will be
issued to the proposers, announcing the revised date. Addenda will be faxed, emailed, or
express-mailed. All addenda issued to this RFP shall become part of the RFP document.
Proposers shall acknowledge receipt of any such addenda in their proposal.
12.5 Questions
Questions, requests for clarification or requests for information about this RFP or process
must be submitted in writing (via mail, email or fax) to the Designated Contact Person by
4 p.m., on Monday, July 25, 2011. All questions and requests for more information and
the City’s responses will be summarized in writing and forwarded to all prospective
proposers by end-of-business Tuesday, August 2, 2011.
Packet Page Number 155 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 27
July 2011
12.6 Proposals Held Confidential
Only the company names of vendors submitting proposals will be made public consistent
with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (M.S. 13.591). All proposal
documents shall be held as confidential until the City Council awards a Contract and
authorizes staff to execute the Contract.
12.7 Review Committee
The City will use its Trash Hauling Working Group as the review committee, to review
and analyze the details of the qualified submitted proposals. (See Section 18,
“Evaluation Criteria” of this RFP.)
12.8 Negotiations
City staff may negotiate with the top ranked vendor as authorized by City Council. If
negotiations with top-ranked vendor are not successful, the City staff may then initiate
negotiations with second ranked vendor, and so on.
The City reserves the right to negotiate specific work elements with a respondent into a
Contract of lesser or greater cost than described in this RFP or the respondent's reply.
12.9 Cost of Proposal Preparation and Negotiation
Proposers shall participate in this RFP procurement process and any negotiations and
shall prepare the required materials and submittals and any subsequent materials and
submittals at their own expense, and with the express understanding that there may be no
claims whatsoever for reimbursement from City for the cost, expenses, or damages that
may be associated with this process. The City accepts no liability for costs and expenses
incurred by the proposer in connection with this RFP, subsequent interviews,
negotiations, and contract execution. The City reserves the right to terminate the
proceedings at any time and return all proposal guarantees.
12.10 Inspections
All proposed services, trucks and facilities are subject to inspection, approval, and
acceptance by the City, both during the procurement process and after the execution of a
contract with the successful proposer. The City will give reasonable notice of such
inspections. Proposers will not be responsible for normal City inspection costs.
12.11 Availability of Information
Throughout this RFP, the City and its advisors have exerted their best efforts to present
information and data that are current and applicable to this project. The City is providing
the information contained herein as a courtesy to the proposers. It is the proposer’s
responsibility to use this information and verify same during the proposal, negotiation,
and project-information periods.
Packet Page Number 156 of 290
28 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
Best efforts have been made to provide accurate information; however, the City and its
advisors make no guarantees or warranties that the information contained in this RFP or
referenced documents are accurate and complete.
All summaries of laws and documents do not purport to be complete, and proposers are
referred to each such law and document for a full and complete statement of relevant
provisions. In the event any of the summaries in the text are inaccurate, the provisions of
the actual laws are documents shall be controlling. The City and advisors are not and
shall not be liable for omissions or errors contained in the RFP, and submittal of a
proposal by a proposer shall serve as the proposer’s verification and acknowledgement of
the City’s lack of liability.
12.12 New Contract
The trash Contract will commence.
13 Proposals May be Rejected in Whole or Part
The City reserves the right to:
Reject any or all proposals;
Reject parts of proposals;
Negotiate modifications of proposals submitted; and
Accept part or all of the proposals on the basis of consideration(s) other than cost or
proposed rates.
14 How to Submit Proposals
Proposal shall be submitted to the Community Development Office at City Hall no later
than 4 p.m. (CDT) on Friday, August 19, 2011, in a sealed envelope with the name of
the proposing company on the outside and addressed as follows:
Enclosed: “Residential Trash Collection Services Proposal”
City of Maplewood, City Hall
Community Development Office
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
c/o Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
Proposals will be date-stamped and treated in accordance with MN Statutes 13.591,
Subdivision 3 (b), Data Practices Act.
Twelve (12) written, hard copies of the proposal and all attachments shall be submitted.
One electronic copy of the proposal must also be submitted on a CD disk (or suitable
alternative disk format) inside of the sealed envelope. The proposal file must be
formatted in Adobe PDF or another suitable alternative.
Packet Page Number 157 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 29
July 2011
15 Proposal Content
15.1 Proposal Content Checklist
Qualified proposals must include all of the elements referenced in this RFP. A Proposal
Content Checklist can be found in Attachment D.
15.2 References
Proposers must include a list of references including other municipal clients in the Twin
Cities metro region receiving similar services.
15.3 Safety Plan Required
The Proposer shall outline the elements of their safety plan for trash and related
collection systems within their proposal.
15.4 Litigation
Statement as to any litigation in the past five (5) years within the State of Minnesota and
the current status of that litigation.
15.5 Price Worksheet Form
Vendors must complete a Price Worksheet as part of each proposal they submit (see
Form E – Price Worksheet). In addition, vendors may also complete an “Alternate”
proposal scenario price worksheet if their proposed system does not fit into the first
scenario.
The proposal must describe the Collection, Processing and public education services.
16 Vendors May Team with a Maximum of One (1) Other
Company as a Subcontractor
Respondents may subcontract with no more than one (1) other company for residential
trash Collection services. This is allowed as needed, but all such contractor /
subcontractor relationships must be explicitly described in each proposal. The City will
contract with only one primary Contractor for residential trash services.
For purposes of this RFP, the City will accept proposals that are submitted by two haulers
that respond to the proposal jointly. Furthermore, if a hauler chooses to submit a joint
proposal with one (1) other hauler they may not respond to this proposal individually. If
one or more subcontractors are to be used, the subcontractor must be included in the
proposal when it is submitted to City. Any change in subcontractors after the proposal
submission date must be approved by the City.
17 RFP and Proposal to Become Part of Final Contract
The contents of this RFP, the successful proposal, and any written clarifications or
modifications to the contents thereof submitted by the successful proposer shall become
Packet Page Number 158 of 290
30 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
part of the contractual obligations and be incorporated by reference into the ensuing
Contract. If any provision of the Contract is in conflict with the referenced RFP or
proposal, the Contract shall take precedent.
18 Evaluation Criteria and Methodology
The City will objectively evaluate the proposals submitted to determine the best value for
the City and its residents. A comprehensive set of criteria will be used to quantify the
merits of each proposal package. The evaluation criteria and relative point values for
each are shown below.
The major evaluation criteria are:
Criteria Weight
1. Proposed prices
2. Qualifications
3. Service
4. Environmental benefits and street impacts
5. Safety
6. Aesthetics
7. Proposal content and overall responsiveness
TOTAL 100
Some, but not necessarily all, sub-criteria used in evaluating each proposal are listed
below. The sub-criteria may be revised after the receipt of proposals to improve the
Review Committee’s ability to compare and evaluate the proposals relative to each other.
18.1 Proposed Prices (___ Points)
The price criteria to be used to evaluate each proposal include, but are not necessarily
limited to the following:
Competitiveness of the proposed collection service fees relative to other proposals
over the life of the contract.
Competitiveness of the proposed trash disposal fees relative to other proposals
over the life of the contract.
Amount of the fee to deliver a replacement or additional cart to an existing
household.
Competitiveness of the proposed fees for other services (e.g., yard waste, bulky
items, clean-up events, etc.) relative to other proposals over the life of the
contract.
(See Form E – Price Worksheet for more details on price components for each type of
collection service.)
Packet Page Number 159 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 31
July 2011
18.2 Qualifications (___ Points)
The qualification criteria used to evaluate each proposal include, but are not necessarily
limited to the following:
Demonstrated, successful experience (including that of key staff) establishing
working relationships with public agencies
Demonstrated successful operations of similar materials collection system(s)
Techniques and controls for project management, such as: reporting samples
provided, payment, and monitoring responsibilities
Demonstrated capability to provide a performance bond
Demonstrated good credit references and the ability to finance all the capital
investments required
Proven reliability of collection vehicles
Aggregate age of equipment proposed
18.3 Service (___ Points)
Proposed customer service plans (e.g., office administration, phone response
system, etc.)
Proposed plans to implement a fully automated collection system
Proposed plans to implement yard waste collection services
Proposed plans to implement other on-route collection services (e.g., bulky items,
trash collection from City buildings, etc.)
18.4 Environmental Benefits and Street Impacts (___ Points)
Proposed plans to implement alternative fuel vehicles (e.g., CNG, biodiesel, etc.)
Other proposed pollution abatement plans
Proposed equipment (e.g., type of tires, number of axles) to reduce road impacts
Proposed plans to control and manage litter
Stated plans and commitment to help the City implement a future organic waste
(e.g., food waste) recovery program
Other proposed environmental policies, programs and proposals specific to the
City of Maplewood
18.5 Safety (___ Points)
Safety record on Minnesota operations
Proposed safety plan concept for City of Maplewood operations
Other safety policies, programs and proposed operations
18.6 Aesthetics (___ Points)
Stated plans to help the City implement a standardized trash cart system
Stated plans to collect overflow trash, bulky items, and yard waste in a timely
manner
Appearance of current truck fleet
Packet Page Number 160 of 290
32 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
18.7 Proposal Content and Overall Responsiveness (___ Points)
Degree of exceptions and/or comments on draft Trash Collection Service
Agreement
Thoroughness of written proposal (e.g., lack of omissions)
19 Liquidated Damages
The Contractor shall agree, in addition to any other remedies available to the City, the
City may withhold payment from the Contractor in the amounts specified below as
liquidated damages for failure of the Contractor to fulfill its obligations:
1. Failure to respond to legitimate service complaints within 24 hours in a reasonable
and professional manner - $50 per incident.
2. Failure to collect properly notified missed Collections - $250 per incident.
3. Failure to provide monthly and annual reports - $100 per incident.
4. Failure to complete the Collections within the specified timeframes without proper
notice to the City - $100 per incident.
5. Failure to clean up from spills during Collection operations - $250 per incident.
These designated amounts for non-performance do not represent penalties.
20 Insurance and Other Legal Requirements
20.1 Insurance
Insurance secured by the Contractor shall be issued by insurance companies acceptable to
the City and admitted in Minnesota. The insurance specified may be in a policy or
policies of insurance, primary or excess. Such insurance shall be in force on the date of
execution of the Contract and shall remain continuously in force for the duration of the
Contract. The Contractor and its sub-contractors shall secure and maintain the following
insurance:
20.1.1 Workers Compensation Insurance
Workers Compensation insurance shall meet the statutory obligations with
Coverage B - Employers Liability limits of at least $100,000 each accident,
$500,000 disease - policy limit and $100,000 disease each employee.
20.1.2 Commercial General Liability Insurance
Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at the limits of at least
$1,000,000 general aggregate, $1,000,000 personal and advertising injury,
$1,000,000 each occurrence, $50,000 fire damage and $1,000 medical expense
any one person. The policy shall be on an "occurrence" basis, shall include
contractual liability coverage and the City shall be named an additional insured.
This insurance shall include up to $10,000 expenses to extract pollutants from
land or water at the “premises” if the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration,
Packet Page Number 161 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 33
July 2011
release, escape or emission of the pollutants is caused by or results from a covered
cause of loss.
20.1.3 Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance
Commercial Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned and
hired automobiles with limits of at least $1,000,000 per accident. This insurance
shall include a cause of loss where there is a spill of fuels and lubricants used in
the vehicle for its operation.
20.1.4 Professional Liability Insurance or Errors & Omissions Insurance
Professional Liability Insurance or Errors & Omissions insurance providing
coverage for 1) the claims that arise from the errors or omissions of the Contractor
or its sub-contractors and 2) the negligence or failure to render a professional
service by the Contractor or its sub-contractors. The insurance policy should
provide coverage in the amount of $1,000,000 each occurrence and $1,000,000
annual aggregate. The insurance policy must provide the protection stated for two
years after completion of the work.
Acceptance of the insurance by the City shall not relieve, limit or decrease the
liability of the Contractor. Any policy deductibles or retention shall be the
responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor shall control any special or
unusual hazards and be responsible for any damages that result from those
hazards. The City does not represent that the insurance requirements are
sufficient to protect the Contractor's interest or provide adequate coverage.
Evidence of coverage is to be provided on a City-approved Insurance Certificate.
A thirty (30)-day written notice is required if the policy is canceled, not renewed
or materially changed. The Contractor shall require any of its sub-contractors, if
sub-contracting is allowable under this contact, to comply with these provisions.
20.1.5 Environmental Liability Insurance
The Contractor agrees that they shall obtain and maintain environmental liability
insurance in compliance with local, state and federal regulations for all matters
related to in this trash services agreement. Contractor shall add the City as an
additional insured under said insurance policy (ies). The policy coverage shall
include Environmental Impairment Liability. Contractor shall provide the City
with appropriate documentation of said environmental liability insurance for
verification upon written request from the City. The Contractor further
indemnifies the City, its employees, agents and licensees from all liability related
to hazardous contamination/pollution resulting from the acts of the Contractor, its
employees or agents.
20.2 Transfer of Interest
The Contractor shall not assign any interest in the Contract, and shall not transfer any
interest in the Contract, either by assignment or novation, without the prior written
approval of the City. The Contractor shall not sub-contract any services under this
Contract without prior written approval of the City. Failure to obtain such written
Packet Page Number 162 of 290
34 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
approval by the City prior to any such assignment or sub-contract shall be grounds for
immediate Contract termination.
20.3 Performance Bond
The Contract shall specify requirements for a performance bond in the case of the
Contractor’s failure to perform contracted services. The performance bond shall be for a
minimum of $300,000.
20.4 Independent Contractor
Nothing contained in this agreement is intended to, or shall be construed in any manner,
as creating or establishing the relationship of employer/employee between the parties.
The Contractor shall at all times remain an independent Contractor with respect to the
services to be performed under this Contract. Any and all employees of Contractor or
other persons engaged in the performance of any work or services required by Contractor
under this Contract shall be considered employees or sub-contractors of the Contractor
only and not of the City; and any and all claims that might arise, including Worker's
Compensation claims under the Worker's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota or
any other state, on behalf of said employees or other persons while so engaged in any of
the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and
responsibility of Contractor.
20.5 Hold Harmless
The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers and
employees, from any liabilities, claims, damages, costs, judgments, and expenses,
including attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission of the
Contractor, its employees, its agents, or employees of sub-contractors, in the performance
of the services provided by this Contract or by reason of the failure of the Contractor to
fully perform, in any respect, any of its obligations under this Contract. If a Contractor is
a self-insured agency of the State of Minnesota, the terms and conditions of Minnesota
Statute 3.732 et seq. shall apply with respect to liability bonding, insurance and liability
limits. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 shall apply to other political
subdivisions of the State of Minnesota.
20.6 Accounting Standards
The Contractor agrees to maintain the necessary source documentation and enforce
sufficient internal controls as dictated by generally accepted accounting practices to
properly account for expenses incurred under this Contract.
20.7 Retention of Records
The Contractor shall retain all records pertinent to expenditures incurred under this
Contract for a period of three (3) years after the resolution of all audit findings. Records
for non-expendable property acquired with funds under this Contract shall be retained for
three (3) years after final disposition of such property.
Packet Page Number 163 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 35
July 2011
20.8 Data Practices
Vendors submitting proposals shall agree to comply with the Minnesota Government
Data Practices Act in Minnesota Statutes (Chapter 13) and all other applicable state and
federal laws relating to data privacy or confidentiality.
All Proposals shall be treated as confidential, non-public information until the City and a
vendor fully execute a final contract or the City elects to not contract for residential trash
collection. At that time the proposals and their contents may become public data under
the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
Packet Page Number 164 of 290
36 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
Proposed Attachments
Itemized List
[DRAFT ATTACHMENTS IN PROGRESS.
NOT YET AVAILABLE.]
Attachment A:
Map of Weekly Trash Collection Zones
Attachment B:
Current Residential Household Counts
Attachment C:
Other Service Level Assumptions
[E.G., ASSUMED CART DISTRIBUTION/FREQUENCY (I.E., NUMBER OF CARTS BY
CART SIZE); SPECIAL WALK-IN STOP COUNTS, ]
Attachment D:
Current Trash Collection from City Buildings:
Specifications of Service Levels
Packet Page Number 165 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 37
July 2011
Proposed Forms
Itemized List
Form A:
Proposal Content Checklist
[DRAFT FORM IN PROGRESS. NOT YET AVAILABLE.]
Form B:
Proposer Information Questionnaire
[DRAFT FORM IN PROGRESS. NOT YET AVAILABLE.]
Form C:
Certification of Binding Signature
[DRAFT FORM IN PROGRESS. NOT YET AVAILABLE.]
Form D:
Certification of Independent Proposal Pricing
[DRAFT FORM IN PROGRESS. NOT YET AVAILABLE.]
Packet Page Number 166 of 290
38 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
Form E:
Price Worksheet
Instructions: This form shall be executed by the authorized official to bind the company.
PROPOSED TRASH COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL FEES:
TRASH COLLECTION SERVICE FEES:
Base Collection Fee (BCF):
Collection price for first cart. (See Section 9.1 for more details.)
Units: Proposed $ price per household (HH) per month (MO): = $_______ /HH/MO
Additional collection price for each additional cart
Units: Proposed $ price per extra cart per HH per MO: = $_______ /cart/HH/MO
Additional collection price for each overflow bag of trash
Units: Proposed $ price per each overflow bag = $_______ /bag
Portion of BCF related to fuel vs. non-fuel costs:
Percentage of BCF allocated to non-fuel related items
Units: Percent of BCF allocated to non-fuel costs: = ______ %
Percentage of BCF allocated to fuel-related items
Units: Percent of BCF allocated to fuel costs: = ______ %
TRASH DISPOSAL FEES
Note: All respondents should assume a $58 per ton tipping fee for all five years of the
proposed contract as a placeholder disposal cost price. Service levels by cart size are
approximate cart capacities and not exact. (See Section 9.2 for more details.)
Units: Proposed $ price per HH per MO:
20-gallon service = $_______ /HH/MO
30-gallon service = $_______ /HH/MO
60-gallon service = $_______ /HH/MO
90-gallon service = $_______ /HH/MO
TRASH CART EXCHANGE/REPLACEMENT DELIVERY FEE
The price to deliver a cart or carts as an exchange or addition to an existing household, as a
one-time price per occurrence. (See Section 9.4 for more details.)
Units: Proposed $ price per delivery occurrence: = $_______ /occurrence
Packet Page Number 167 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 39
July 2011
(Form E – “Price Worksheet” continued on next page)
Packet Page Number 168 of 290
40 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
FORM E (continued)
PROPOSED FEES FOR OTHER SERVICES:
(See Section 9.5 for more details.)
YARD WASTE FEE
Annual price per household for separate yard waste collection service for eight months of the
year (April through November).
Units: Proposed $ price per HH per year: = $_________ /HH/year
SPECIAL BULKY ITEMS FEE
(FOR ITEMS REQUIRING SPECIAL PROCESSING)
Price per collection occurrence for bulky items that require special processing. For example,
refrigerators, air conditioners, other large appliances, thermostats, etc. that may contain
substances such Freon or mercury that must be removed before disposal or recycling.
Units: Proposed $ price per collection occurrence: = $_________ /occurrence
OTHER BULKY ITEMS FEE
(FOR OTHER ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SPECIAL PROCESSING)
Price per collection occurrence for other bulky items that do not require special processing.
For example, carpets, large furniture, etc.
Units: Proposed $ price per collection occurrence: = $_________ /occurrence
ELECTRONIC WASTE FEE
Price per collection occurrence for electronic waste that require special processing. For
example, TV/computer monitors, computers, and other electronics with a cord.
Units: Proposed $ price per collection occurrence: = $_________ /occurrence
(Form E – “Price Worksheet” continued on next page)
Packet Page Number 169 of 290
MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC 41
July 2011
FORM E (continued)
PROPOSED FEES FOR OTHER SERVICES:
CITY BUILDINGS TRASH SERVICE FEE
Fixed annual price for weekly trash collections from specified City buildings beginning
January 1, 2014.
Units: Proposed $ price per cubic yard of service: = $_________ /cubic yard
CLEAN-UP EVENT FEE
Fixed annual price for two clean-up events (spring and fall), four hours each.
Units: Proposed $ price per year: = $_________ /year
Signature of person duly authorized to sign submittal on behalf of the proposer:
____________________________________________
Authorized Signature
____________________________________________
Date
Packet Page Number 170 of 290
42 Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC MW draft Trash Collection RFP 6-23-11
July 2011
Form F:
Itemized Listing of Trucks and Other Collection Equipment
[DRAFT FORM IN PROGRESS. NOT YET AVAILABLE.]
Form G:
Acknowledgement of Receipt of Addenda
[DRAFT FORM IN PROGRESS. NOT YET AVAILABLE]
Packet Page Number 171 of 290
Agenda Item I2
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: James W. Antonen City Manager;
SUBJECT: Consideration of Solar Array Systems Budget Summary and ARRA
Renewal Energy Grant Contract
DATE: June 22, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The City Council was provided information at a previous meeting introducing this issue and
detailing some of the parameters to consider before giving staff the authority to move this item
forward. Since the original memo, the program has undergone various changes. These
changes resulted from a recent filing by Xcel Energy before the Public Utilities Commission.
This filing resulted in a complication for our grant having to do with eligible costs and tax
credits. The initial grant was for one (1) 39kW solar array that was to be placed on the roof of
the MCC. This spring we were invited to construct 2 solar array systems, one as before and
another behind City Hall, between the Hall and the Public Works Building. We proposed to
have a major solar demonstration project on the City Hall Campus Complex in conjunction with
the ground array. Since Parsons Electric (the original project contractor) bowed out, we have
been in discussions with Energy Alternatives and have reached a tentative agreement with them
to act as the contractor for the new project. We have done the City’s due-diligence in collecting
the various documents that would be a part of this project. Attached is a Solar Budget
Summary provided by Energy Alternatives as Attachment A.
DISCUSSION
This project would quite simply call for the construction of a ‘solar array’ on the roof of the City’s
Community Center and a ground mount “solar array” on the grassy knoll by the City Hall parking
lot. The project would be constructed by Energy Alternatives, a local electrical contractor
familiar with this type of build-out. The basic structure would provide for a 39kW generation
system on the Community Center roof and a 39kW generation system by the City Hall parking
lot. The energy would be derived from solar collection panels constructed by a local company,
TenkSolar, using technology developed by 3M. The power generated would be inverted to a
current-supply that would be fed directly into the power panel at the MCC and City Hall and
utilized there. A meter would be installed at the input points to measure how much electricity is
actually generated.
The builder has indicated an initial project cost of $625,600.00. The actual cost to the City of
Maplewood depends upon the actual cost of energy. Energy Alternatives uses a cost of $0.08
per kWh produced for an estimated annual cost of $9,192 for both sites. The energy revenue
produced is estimated at $4,500 per site for a total of $9,000 per year. The term of the lease is
for 7 years with a potential buy out of $18,374. This would mean a pay back of two years for
ownership or we could continue to lease the system(s) from Energy Alternatives. See
Packet Page Number 172 of 290
Attachment B for the Roof Mounted Proforma and Attachment C for the Ground Mounted
Proforma.
The proposed budget makes a number of assumptions that need additional analysis and
evaluation. The state grant award totaling $100,000 remains a question, as a state panel must
approve the award, but that will not occur until after this agenda report is prepared. A report on
the grant will be made as part of this agenda presentation. The grant award expires on June
30, 2011, and requires a state obligation of the money prior to that date, so approval by the
Council of this proposal at this time is required to continue to attempt to make this project a
reality. We anticipate approval of that grant. Without the grant, we are unable to support the
project. In addition, in the previous installation discussions with Parsons Electric, there are
upgrades and replacement equipment that are necessary after 8 – 10 years of operation.
These expenses, every 8 – 10 years, could be as high as $23,000 that should be considered an
operating expense. A final concern is that the budget is prepared assuming an energy rate of
$0.08 per kWh, although with energy interrupt incentives on our buildings, our current rate is
$0.045 kWh at MCC and $0.06 kWh at City Hall. These assumptions will need to be adjusted
as we move forwarded; however, with the replacement costs issues unknown, along with the
final rate of power consumption calculation, the specifics of this proposal are still in question.
The relative nature of the project is that it is not a money-making proposition for City Hall or
MCC; but is likely, when all is put together, a demonstration project involving clean energy at a
very minimal cost. Therefore, the staff analysis is that proceeding with a demonstration of clean
energy minimal cost is reasonable to proceed, even with the last minute approvals needed and
details remaining to be decided.
A State Grant will also be part of the new project, just as it was with the old one. The program
has not changed, only the dates, essentially, as we are still contracting with the State to produce
a solar energy “project.” While the new contract is not finished/filled out, it will not be materially
different than the one approved by the Council last fall. A copy of that Contract is provided as
Attachment D.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the material presented to us I would recommend that the City Council authorize the
Mayor and City Manager to sign the appropriate grant documents, initiate the project and
continue the process for an agreement with Energy Alternatives.
Attachments:
A. Solar Budget Summary
B. Rooftop Mounted Performa
C. Ground Mounted Performa
D. State of MN Contract
Packet Page Number 173 of 290
Attachment A
Packet Page Number 174 of 290
E_nergy Alternativ~s SoiaE ___ • City of Map!ewood with)50,OOO Gran!+-'....
40kW Sysyem Proforma i Roof Mount I - -..
Energy Alternatives Solar 'City of Maplewood with $50,000 Grant I
40kW sysye I11Jlroform,.a_. ___.' G-rOundMount ---=-~ __---=-.~-=-I----~_I ----_ _ _
~____... l___...__lcu~t~m~~~sh Flows ~_ -t ~___ _ _ '
-------=----' --. --~ --:-~-------toperating -=-~-=--~-i_-_Ele~tric ' ; -~~-- _ i-__I
Grant i .._~y~tem_ 'I Leaseback_I Lease]lt1aintenance 1 Utility J J.-ease _I _Annual CumulativeI
__Fu_nd~ __Purchace , Proceeds . Pay~ents L and _ Bill I_Buyout: Cash_~ Cash
Year Received from EA from EA I to EA Repairs Savings' Payment In (Out) In (Out)i
2011 1$ 50,000, $ (316,800) $. 266,800 , $ (1,190), 1$ 1,123 i!$ .. (66) $ (66)
?Q12 1_.. .. -i - ---11 (4,760)i----=-I $ 4,494] -1$_-j26~}; $__1332)
~~l! :--.---r--[ ~ -~::~~~~-----I~ ::~~6 ' '-~ -·-~~;~~I ~-~~~~~
2015 I. --.. -. I --------:-$--(4,760r ---I $---4,6991--. I $ .. ... ... (60) $ (721)
2016-------,-------_~---
I
~______ ----=-1 $ {4,76Q)I_ _ _~_1,770 r=-= 'f=---10 I $ _ (7101
2017 ... . -+-. .. . -=t1-(4,760)' I $ 4,841 $ 8~ $ (629)
-2018 -i ----, --- ----i $ (3,570), ... -T 4]14 $ (9,519), $-(8,175): $ (8,804)
-2019: --_-1_ _ ... ___ _----_:__ ..~$_ G50) I $=-4,988 1 1 $ _-_ 4,638 I $ -(4,166)____.. _
2020 I ' +. .. $.. (350UL .... 5,062.·. ... $ 4,712 $ . 546
2021, I ---: $ -(350)1 $ -5,138 ~ --$-4,78-8 $ ---5,335i
-2022 --! I -'1-$--(350)~$--5,215 i -r$--4,865 ! $-10,200
-~~~!.' -----t--.----.~-'--.-=------~-.r-... ---==--···-·-.:~ -~~~~;~}K-.;:~~~:----.. --. ~-=-1;~~1 ~ --~~:~t;
2025 -!-----, - - -----, ---$ --(3-56)1$-5,454:--'-$ 5,104 $ -22,771I
?026 1 =~---=---=~-_-----..-----.------__ $ -(350):-$-n-5,535-1_---=~$_=_5,1851~ __ 27,9~6
2027 I __ _____J (2,850)1 $ 5,619 .• ____ $ _?,769 1$ 30,725 ~2_~ __~~-=-r-~--= ._ ~ (350)' $ __5,703_i _ +-.1-5,35m_~6,0771 __ __ _
12029_ .. _! .......'. 1$ _ (350):$ 5,788; -IL-5,438 $ _41,516
~~~;~ i----~ r =--=-~-=-=-~ .--~:_~2(~;~~1 : -~ .!~ --~~~~ :~:~~:
__2032 ... I ._ '_ .__ ' $ (350)i $ _ 6,053 i ___ ! $ 5,703 . $ _55,857
-~~;! . ...-i----... -.. --t--~ _.. __ I
!
*_i;;~~! ~ -_~:~~~I _-_ 1 ...~.;:~~: It ~i:~;~}_
2035 -. ---- ---:--- - --+ --I $ (350~ $ 6,329 I $ 5,9791 $ 73,515
! I! I . ,I
-
Totals $-50,000 $ (316,800)~ 266]OOT$ --(33,317)'$ (13,450) $ -129,8Q2' $ (9,519)1 $ 73,515I
_----'---,_ __ I __________ ----L _______. _ __
Assume single inverter replacements in years 14,17, and 20 at $2,500 each. Attachment CPacket Page Number 176 of 290
Attachment D
Packet Page Number 177 of 290
Attachment D
Packet Page Number 178 of 290
Attachment D
Packet Page Number 179 of 290
Attachment D
Packet Page Number 180 of 290
Attachment D
Packet Page Number 181 of 290
Attachment D
Packet Page Number 182 of 290
Attachment D
Packet Page Number 183 of 290
Attachment D
Packet Page Number 184 of 290
Agenda Item I 3
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Steve Lukin, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Submission of a Request for State Bonding Funds for the Design and Construction of a Regional Fire Training Facility
DATE: June 21, 2011
INTRODUCTION
One of our funding sources for the regional fire training facility that we are pursuing is the state’s
bonding fund. One of the requirements needed for our application is a resolution authorizing the
request for state bonding funds. We will also be pursuing other grants and private partnerships as
we move forward with this project. Our meetings with both the Washington County and Ramsey
County Fire Chiefs have been positive with commitments from many. Because this is a regional
program, I am hopeful that we will be included in the 2012 bonding funds for design and
construction of the fire training facility in the amount of 50% of the construction costs, or
$3,000,000. As we move forward with this project, we will be asking for assistance from our
legislatives for their support in obtaining the state bonding funds.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the city council approve Resolution #1 “Authorizing Submission of Request for
State Bonding Funds for the Design and Construction of a Regional Fire Training Facility”.
Att.
Packet Page Number 185 of 290
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
RESOLUTION # 1
AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF REQUEST FOR
STATE BONDING FUNDS FOR THE DESGIN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A REGIONAL
FIREFIGHTER TRAINING FACILITY
WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Legislature is accepting allocations for Capital Bonding Requests, for the
2012 Legislative Session; and
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has deemed the design and construction of a regional Firefighter
Training Facility a high priority project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is in need of Capital Bond funding to provide gap financing to
supplement local and other funding for the design and construction of a regional Firefighter Training
Facility; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Maplewood City Council authorizes the submission of
a request to the Minnesota State Legislature for 2012 bonding funds for the design and construction of a
regional Firefighter Training Facility in the amount of 50% of the construction costs, or $3,000,000.
Date Adopted: June 27, 2011
Maplewood City Council
Will Rossbach, Mayor
ATTEST:
Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
Packet Page Number 186 of 290
AGENDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAPLEWOOD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
June 27, 2011
Council Chambers, City Hall
The Economic Development Authority, (EDA), is a statutorily-authorized body organized
under State Statute §469.090 and is charged with carrying out economic and industrial
development and re-development within the City and surrounding area. The Mayor and
City Council make up the EDA and the City Manager serves as its Director.
The EDA will conduct a meeting during the Regular City Council Meeting that is
scheduled to convene at 7:00 p.m. on June 27, 2011.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Meeting of the Economic Development Authority
a. Call to Order by EDA President
b. Approval of EDA Agenda
c. Consider Approval of Loan to St. John’s Hospital for its Participation in
the Trillion BTU Program
d. Adjourn
E. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Item J1
Packet Page Number 187 of 290
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Consider Approval of Loan to St. John’s Hospital for Participation in the
Trillion BTU Program
DATE: June 21, 2011
INTRODUCTION
HealthEast is moving forward with an energy efficiency project at St. John’s Hospital utilizing a
loan program that has been established by the St. Paul Port Authority. The St. Paul Port
Authority's Trillion BTU Program aims to save one trillion BTUs of energy by providing loans to
large businesses for energy efficiency improvements to their facilities. The St. Paul Port
Authority is also working to maximize the impact of this program by partnering with other local
economic development authorities (EDA) who would also issue loans to local businesses.
BACKGROUND
The Minnesota Department of Commerce's Office of Energy Security (OES) awarded $5 million
in seed money to the St. Paul Port Authority to create a revolving loan fund for energy efficiency
improvements in commercial and industrial buildings. The $5 million grant from OES, coupled
with other sources of funding, helps fund the St. Paul Port Authority's Trillion BTU Program.
Once fully implemented, the revolving loan fund is projected to generate the equivalent of
300,000 MMBTU in electric and natural gas energy savings annually. The St. Paul Port
Authority forecasts that the annual cost savings resulting from the fully-funded revolving loan
fund could approach $3 million.
DISCUSSION
The project at St. John’s Hospital will upgrade and improve the energy efficiency of the facility’s
lighting and chiller systems. The cost of these improvements will be $875,000. Xcel Energy will
be providing a rebate of $75,000 for these efficiencies, making the final loan amount $800,000.
As discussed earlier, the St. Paul Port Authority is partnering with local EDAs in order to ensure
its project has the most impact. This proposal would call for the Maplewood EDA to loan St.
John’s Hospital $400,000 for its improvements. If approved, the loan would be issued in July
and payments to the city would begin in August.
The $400,000 would be borrowed from the city’s general fund to the Maplewood EDA who would
then issue the loan. The city currently has funds that are invested with revolving maturities,
which the $400,000 would be diverted from to be used for this investment. The city would lend
the $400,000 to St. John’s and be repaid over a five-year period at a four percent interest rate.
Any interest earned from the loan would be split between the city’s general fund and the
Maplewood EDA. The city’s finance department estimates the city would earn just more than
$40,000 of interest over five years. These dollars would begin to help the EDA in its broader
Agenda Item J1c
Packet Page Number 188 of 290
efforts. It needs to be noted that this is an unsecure loan, meaning if HealthEast defaulted the
city would not be able to recoup any funds.
SUMMARY
Alan Kantrud, the city’s attorney, has reviewed this proposal and associated legal documents
and is comfortable with the city’s participation. Attached to this report is the draft participation
agreement between the city and the St. Paul Port Authority. Also attached is an informational
flyer produced by the St. Paul Port Authority on its Trillion BTU Project. Staff believes this
proposal is a great opportunity for the city to show its support of a significant energy efficiency
program and a key local business in Maplewood.
COMMISSION ACTION
The business and economic development commission reviewed this proposal at its meeting on
June 23, 2011. This report was sent out to the EDA before the commission meeting. Staff will
report the commission’s recommendation at the June 27, 2011 EDA’s meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT
If this loan proposal is approved, $400,000 would be transferred from the city’s general fund to
the Maplewood EDA. The EDA would then loan the money to St. John’s.
PROCESS
The City Council will be acting as the EDA to process this loan request. In order to conduct
business as the EDA, the Mayor should temporarily suspend the regular City Council meeting for
the purpose of conducting an EDA meeting. Once that action is taken, the EDA President, Mr.
Nephew, should call to order the EDA Meeting, which has been posted as a separate meeting.
The Council, acting in their authority as the EDA, should consider this item based upon the
agenda report as written. The staff recommendation is to approve the loan arrangement with St.
John’s Hospital. The EDA should make that contingent upon the City Council approving the
loan agreement to the EDA. Once the business of the EDA is concluded, the President of the
EDA should adjourn the EDA and return presiding authority to the Mayor who should then bring
the regular meeting back to order for consideration of the loan agreement with the EDA.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a loan of up to $400,000 from the city of Maplewood’s Economic Development
Authority, in partnership with the St. Paul Port Authority, to HealthEast’s St. John’s Hospital for
energy efficiency improvements.
1. Trillion BTU Program Participation Agreement
Attachments
2. Trillion BTU Program Promotional Materials
Packet Page Number 189 of 290
Attachment 1
TRILLION BTU PROGRAM
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
THIS PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT is entered into this 1st day of July, 2011 by and
between the Port Authority of the Participant of Saint Paul (the “Port Authority”) and City of
Maplewood (the “Participant”).
WHEREAS, the Trillion BTU Program (the “Trillion BTU Program”) has been established
by the Port Authority to make revolving loans to industrial and commercial businesses for energy
conservation and retrofit purposes; and
WHEREAS, the objective of the Trillion BTU Program is that loan monies advanced from
the Trillion BTU Program be matched by an equal amount from a local lender; and
WHEREAS, the Participant has established a loan fund for the purpose of making loans to
Maplewood businesses, and wishes to make funds available from that program for the purposes
described herein.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises, and for other good and
valuable consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows:
Section 1. Description of the Loan.
1.1. The Port Authority has agreed to make a loan to St. John’s Hospital (the
“Borrower”) in the amount of $875,000.00 (the “Loan”) for the purposes of paying eligible costs of
the project described on Exhibit A hereto (the “Project”).
1.2. For this Loan, $475,000.00 will be contributed by the Port Authority from the funds
available in the Trillion BTU Program and $400,000.00 will be contributed by the Participant.
Amounts to be contributed by the Participant will be deposited with the Port Authority on the
Closing Date, as described in Section 3 hereof.
1.3. Interest on the Loan will be computed and charged to the Borrower at the annual rate
of four percent (4%).
1.4. The term of the Loan shall not exceed ten (10) years. The Port Authority shall have
sole discretion to determine the appropriate loan terms.
1.5. In making the Loan, and in determining the appropriate loan terms, the Port
Authority will take into account the carbon credits or other environmental benefits accruing to the
Port Authority as a result of the Project. The Participant’s interest in the Loan, as described herein,
will not include any direct benefit from those carbon credits or environmental matters, but rather is
limited to a share of the principal and interest payments made by the Borrower.
Section 2. Loan Documentation.
2.1. The Borrower shall be required to execute a loan agreement in substantially the form
attached hereto as Exhibit B, together with such other collateral documentation as is reasonably
required by the Port Authority, in its sole discretion. The Participant’s interest in the promissory
note(s) and any such other collateral documentation is subordinate to that of the Port Authority.
Packet Page Number 190 of 290
2.2. The schedule for loan payments to be made by the Borrower shall be determined by
the Port Authority as provided in Section 1.4, above, and said payments shall be made to the Port
Authority on a monthly basis in accordance with the loan agreement.
2.3. The books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of the Port
Authority relevant to this Agreement shall be subject to examination by the Participant or its
designees, at reasonable times and upon reasonable notice. In addition, so long as this Agreement is
in force and effect, the Port Authority shall, upon the written request of the Participant, but no more
than annually, furnish the Participant with a written report summarizing the monthly payments or
other payments with respect to the Loan received by the Port Authority, the amounts paid as interest
on the Loan, the payments and prepayments of the principal amount of the Loan, any foreclosure
actions or enforcement proceedings with respect to any security for the repayment of the Loan and
any amounts derived therefrom, together with an accounting of the applications of such amounts.
Section 3.
Loan Closing.
3.1. [describe expected date and place of closing (the “Closing Date”).]
3.2. The Participant’s contribution to the Loan shall be deposited with the Port Authority,
by the Participant, on or before the Closing Date.
Section 4. Loan Repayment and Participation
.
4.1. The Port Authority shall have a fifty percent (50 %) interest in the Loan and the
Participant shall have a fifty percent (50%) interest in the Loan, provided that the Participant’s
interest in the Loan shall be subordinate to Port Authority’s interest in the Loan as provided in
Section 5, below.
4.2. Except as otherwise provided in Section 5.3, below, on the fifteenth day of each
month, beginning August 15, 2011, the Port Authority shall pay to the Participant that portion of the
payments received from the Borrower on or before the 15th
day of the prior month which represents
the Participant’s share of principal and interest paid on the Loan, as described in Section 4.1, above.
4.3. In receipt and disbursement of any sums covered by this Section, the Port Authority
will exercise the same care as would be exercised in the handling of loans for its own account.
Section 5. Subordination
.
5.1. The right of the Participant to any and all security for the repayment of the Loan
shall be subordinate to the right of the Port Authority to receive any amounts due to it from any
security for the repayment of the Loan, to the extent of the Port Authority’s interest in the Loan.
5.2. The right of the Participant to receive any repayments from the monthly payments
made by the Borrower shall be subordinate to the right of the Port Authority to receive all such
monthly payments made by the Borrower.
5.3. So long as the Borrower shall not be in default of its obligation to repay the Loan, or
of any of its obligations under any documents or instruments incidental thereto (any such default
referred to herein as an “Event of Default”), the Port Authority, upon receipt of any monthly
payment or any prepayment by the Borrower, shall remit to the Participant that portion of said
monthly payment or prepayment which represents the Participant’s pro rata share of the principal
amount of the Loan, as described in Section 4.1, above. In no event shall the Port Authority
withhold from the Participant any of the Participant’s pro rata share of monthly payments or
prepayments received by the Port Authority, except during the continuance of an Event of Default.
Packet Page Number 191 of 290
After an Event of Default shall have occurred, and during the continuance of such Event of Default,
then, upon receipt of any monthly payments from the Borrower, or upon receipt of any other
payment from any source by or on behalf of the Borrower, the Port Authority shall apply the entire
amount of such payment: first, to pay all costs and expenses incurred by the Port Authority in
connection with the foreclosure or other enforcement of any note, mortgage or other document
evidencing or securing the repayment of the Loan; second, to pay interest then due on the Port
Authority’s interest in the Loan; and third, to pay or prepay of the outstanding principal amount of
the Port Authority’s interest in the Loan, until all interest due to the Port Authority and the entire
principal amount of the Port Authority’s interest in the Loan have been paid in full. Thereafter the
Port Authority shall apply the remainder of the amounts remaining pay or prepay the principal
amount of and interest on the Participant’s interest in the Loan.
5.4. The Participant shall promptly remit to the Port Authority any Loan repayment
received directly from the Borrower.
Section 6. Miscellaneous
.
6.1. The Port Authority shall promptly advise the Participant, in writing, of any default
by the Borrower in repaying any amounts due under the terms of the Loan or under any mortgage,
agreement, instrument or document evidencing or securing repayment of the Loan.
6.2. Any mortgage, agreement, instrument or other document securing repayment of the
Loan shall be foreclosed or enforced only upon the written consent of both the Participant and the
Port Authority, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. In the event that consent from the
Participant has not been received within 90 days after notice of default, and information regarding
the Port Authority’s proposed actions, has been given to the Participant by the Port Authority, the
Participant shall be deemed to have consented to the Port Authority’s proposed actions. As provided
in Section 5.3, in foreclosing any mortgage or enforcing any remedy under any other agreement,
instrument or document evidencing or securing repayment of the Loan, the Port Authority shall be
entitled to receive all amounts derived from such foreclosure or enforcement until the Port Authority
has recovered all amounts due to it with respect to its interest in the Loan and its costs incurred in
such foreclosure or enforcement. Thereafter, the Port Authority shall remit to the Participant all
remaining amounts derived from such foreclosure or enforcement, up to the amounts needed to pay
or prepay the principal amount of and interest on the Participant’s interest in the Loan.
6.3. This Agreement incorporates the terms of all mortgages, agreements, instruments or
documents securing the repayment of the Loan, if any, which are attached hereto as Exhibits, and are
incorporated by reference herein.
6.4. This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until all amounts payable
under the Loan have been paid in full.
6.5. The Port Authority shall not execute a satisfaction of any mortgage, agreement, or
document securing the repayment of the Loan without the prior written consent of the Participant.
6.6. The Port Authority is hereby granted, subject to paragraphs 6.1, 6.2, and 6.5, the
power and authority to administer, manage and service the Loan; to waive the performance of
obligations of the Borrower; to excuse the nonoccurrence of conditions; to exercise collection rights
with respect to any collateral; to foreclose against any collateral or to accept a transfer in lieu of
foreclosure; to collect and receive any and all payments, collections and proceeds of collateral made
or delivered by or for the account of the Borrower and at its sole discretion to release such payments,
collections and proceeds to the Borrower or apply the same to the payment of indebtedness; to
enforce rights against third parties; to manage and control proceedings in the Borrower’s bankruptcy;
and otherwise to do and refrain from doing any and all acts and things which the Port Authority
Packet Page Number 192 of 290
would be required or permitted to do or refrain from doing in connection with the Loan if it had
retained its entire interest as lender in the Loan, but acting on behalf of the Participant and all other
participants, if any.
6.7. Neither the Port Authority nor any of its directors, officers, employees or agents
shall be liable for any action taken or omitted by the Port Authority or any of them except in the case
of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
6.8. Neither the Port Authority nor the Participant (i) shall be liable or responsible for
any representations or warranties made by, or for obligations binding upon or assumed by, the
Borrower or anyone else; or (ii) makes any representation or warranty as to the genuineness, legality,
validity, perfection, priority, enforceability or sufficiency of the Loan; or of any security interests,
mortgage liens, guaranties, or other collateral rights and remedies securing the Loan; or of any of the
documents evidencing the Loan or any other agreement made or instrument, document or writing
issued thereunder, in connection therewith, or as a result thereof; or (iii) makes any representation or
warranty as to the Borrower, as to any financial statements or collateral reports submitted by or for
the Borrower, as to any risk of loss with respect to the Loan, or as to any matter whatsoever; or (iv)
shall have any right or recourse against the other party hereto.
6.9. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts.
6.10. The rights and obligations of the parties to this Agreement shall inure to their
respective successors and assigns.
6.11. This Agreement is a continuing agreement and shall remain in full force and effect
until payment in full of the Loan and all interest due thereon. Upon such payment in full, this
Agreement shall automatically terminate.
6.12. Unless otherwise expressly provided, all notices shall be in writing and shall be
deemed sufficiently given if sent by telecopy, registered or certified mail (postage prepaid),
nationally recognized overnight courier (fee prepaid) or delivered during a business day to the
address of the receiving party set forth on the signature hereof.
Packet Page Number 193 of 290
IN FURTHERANCE WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year first
above written.
PORT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY
OF SAINT PAUL
By
Its President
________________________________
Port Authority of the City of Saint Paul
1900 Landmark Towers
345 St. Peter Street
St. Paul, MN 55102-1661
Telecopy: 651-223-5198
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
By
Its _______________________________
City of Maplewood
1830 E County Road B
Maplewood , MN 55109
Telecopy: 651.249.2909
Packet Page Number 194 of 290
A-1
EXHIBIT A
Description of Project
Packet Page Number 195 of 290
55282.v1 B-1
EXHIBIT B
Draft Loan Agreement
Packet Page Number 196 of 290
Attachment 10
Packet Page Number 197 of 290
SUMMARY
The
Trillion BT u En E rgy Effici E ncy
improvEmEnT program
will save Minnesota businesses money by reducing
energy consumption by up to one trillion Btus a year
and be one of the first in the nation to use energy
conservation as an economic development tool.
HOW IT
WORKS
• The Saint Paul Port Authority is using Federal stimulus
monies through the Minnesota Department of Commerce
to create a business loan program.
• Businesses voluntarily agree to energy audits paid
for by Xcel Energy Co.
• Engineering studies then are performed on facilities
with conservation opportunities, 25% of the cost paid
by the participating business and 75% paid by Xcel Energy.
• Installation of necessary physical improvements covered
by a Port Authority Loan and an Xcel Energy Rebate.
• Loan repayment is less than estimated energy savings.
For more information and a loan application, contact Pete Klein,
Vice President for Finance, Saint Paul Port Authority
(651) 204-6211 • TOLL FREE (800) 328-8417 • info@sppa.comPacket Page Number 198 of 290
PROGRAM
OUTCOMES
• Businesses will achieve reduced energy costs.
• Innovative “postive-cash-flow” project financing
following stringent technical and financial due
diligence.
• Job retention - Participating businesses will be
more competitive and able to maintain emploment
levels.
• Job creation - Minnesota will become a national
resource for the energy conservation industry.
• More of Minnesota’s capital will remain in the State
and less will go to purchase foreign fossil fuels.
• Fewer energy production facilities will be needed
in the future.
• Annual reduction in energy consumption of one
trillion Btus - equivalent to yearly energy usage of
half of Downtown of Saint Paul.
For more information and a loan application, contact Pete Klein,
Vice President for Finance, Saint Paul Port Authority
(651) 204-6211 • TOLL FREE (800) 328-8417 • info@sppa.comPacket Page Number 199 of 290
PUBLIC POLICY
GOALS
PARTNERS
• To improve the economic competitiveness of
Minnesota businesses and enhance their ability to
retain and create jobs.
• To expand the existing energy conservation industry,
creating new “green jobs” and a national center of
expertise.
• To reduce the use of fossil fuels along with the
associated pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
• To enhance the ability of utilities to meet their
energy savings goals in the Next Generation Energy
Act of 2007.
• U.S. Department of Energy
• Minnesota Legislature
• Minnesota Department of Commerce
- Jeremy deFiebre - (651) 297-1221
• Xcel Energy Co.
- Greg Palmer - (651) 229-2207
• Center for Energy and the Environment
- Carl Nelson - (612) 335-5871
For more information and a loan application,
contact Pete Klein, Vice President for Finance,
Saint Paul Port Authority
(651) 204-6211 • TOLL FREE (800) 328-8417 •
info@sppa.comPacket Page Number 200 of 290
1900 LANDMARK TOWERS • 345 SAINT PETER STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 • PHONE (651) 224-5686
FAX (651) 223-5198 • TOLL FREE (800) 328-8417 • SPPA.COM
Printed on 100 percent recycled paper
using agri-based pigments
Packet Page Number 201 of 290
P:\COUNCIL FILES\AGENDAS\2011\062-EDA loan St Johns.doc
AGENDA NO. J-2
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance Manager
RE: Approval of Internal Loan from City General Fund to Economic
Development Authority and Direction to Prepare Loan Agreement
DATE: June 21, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The Saint Paul Port Authority is using Federal stimulus monies through the Minnesota
Department of Commerce to create a business loan program aimed at reducing energy
consumption by up to one trillion BTU’s a year. The Port Authority is partnering with local
EDA’s to help fund the program. It is recommended that the Maplewood EDA participate in
the loan program by contributing $400,000 which will be paid back over 5 years at a 4%
interest rate. It is proposed that the EDA borrow the money from the General Fund which
will be paid back over 5 years at a 2% interest rate.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Monthly payments are required to be made by St. John’s with a charged interest rate of
4%. Staff is recommending that 2% go to the General Fund for repayment of the loan to
the EDA and 2% go to the EDA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of an internal loan from the City General Fund to the
Maplewood Economic Development Authority at a 2% interest rate and direction to prepare
the required loan agreement.
Packet Page Number 202 of 290
Agenda Item J3
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Jim Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Karen Guilfoile, Citizen Services Manager
DATE: June 17, 2009
SUBJECT: Approve New Manager for Intoxicating Liquor License Holder AMF
Maplewood Lanes, Marietta Marie Jacobs
Introduction
Marietta Marie Jacobs has submitted an application to assume the on-sale intoxicating
liquor license manager responsibilities for AMF Maplewood Lanes, 1955 English Street.
Background
A background check was conducted on Ms. Jocobs and nothing has been identified in
the background check that would prohibit her from assuming the manager
responsibilities for AMF Maplewood Lanes.
Chief Thomalla met with Ms. Jacobs 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 Ms. Jacobs as the on-sale intoxicating
liquor license manager for AMF Maplewood Lanes.
Packet Page Number 203 of 290
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manater
SUBJECT: Eldridge Fields Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Unused Eldridge Avenue Right-of-Way, West of Prosperity Avenue, East of John
Glenn Junior High School
DATE: June 22, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Keith Frank of Frank Construction, Inc. is proposing to develop a 1.4 acre site into five single-
family lots. The lots will be accessed by a new public cul-de-sac road constructed in the existing
Eldridge Avenue unused right-of-way off of Prosperity Avenue. Mr. Frank is proposing the same
lot layout as what was approved in 2006.
Request
To build this project, Mr. Frank is requesting that the city approve the preliminary plat.
Background
June 26, 2006: The city council approved a resolution vacating the west 136.75 of the 23-foot
Eldridge Avenue right-of-way. The council also approved a preliminary plat for Eldridge Fields.
The final plat was never applied for and thus preliminary plat approval has lapsed. The public
vacation approval does not lapse.
DISCUSSION
Neighborhood Comments
The site currently consists of two large lots on the south side of the Eldridge Avenue right-of-way
and four small lots on the north side. These lots are located behind two existing houses on
Prosperity Avenue (2095 and 2111 Prosperity Avenue). The new road will be constructed within
the existing 49.5-foot-wide Eldridge Avenue right-of-way which is located between these existing
houses.
There is an 80-foot-wide vacant lot located on the north side of Eldridge Avenue, east of the new
plat and west of 2111 Prosperity Avenue. As such, a condition of the Eldridge Avenue plat
approval should be the extension of the utilities in front of the vacant lot. This is discussed further
in the engineering department comments attached to this report. The owners of the vacant lot will
be assessed for the public improvements.
Zoning/Land Use
The two existing lots on the south side of Eldridge Avenue are zoned double dwelling residential
(R-2). The four existing lots on the north side of Eldridge Avenue are zoned single dwelling
residential (R-1). Single family houses are permitted uses in both zoning districts. All six existing
Agenda Item J4
Packet Page Number 204 of 290
2
parcels are guided by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as Low Density Residential.
Adjacent zoning to the north is R-1 with existing single family houses and mixed use (MU) to the
south with an existing light manufacturing business.
Preliminary Plat
Chapter 34 of the city code (subdivisions) regulates the platting or subdividing of property in
Maplewood. The purpose of this part of the code is “to protect and promote the public health,
safety and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic and safe development of land…”
As such, the city must balance many interests when reviewing and considering a subdivision in
Maplewood. These include the interests of the property owner, the developer, the neighbors and
the city as a whole. Section 34-6 of the code says that “the planning commission may
recommend and the city council may require such changes or revisions of a preliminary plat as
deemed necessary for the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the city.”
Lot Sizes and Dimensions
Within the single dwelling residential (R-1) zoning district the required lot size is 10,000 square
feet and the required lot width is at least 75 feet at the front setback line. Within the double
dwelling residential zoning (R-2) district the required lot size for single dwelling houses is 7,500
square feet and the required lot width is at least 60 feet at the front setback line. As proposed,
the lots in the plat will range from 10,171 square feet to 14,737 square feet with an average lot
size of about 11,655 square feet and will meet or exceed the required lot width requirements.
Public Vacation
The applicant previously requested the city vacate a section of the Eldridge Avenue right-of-way.
This section of right-of-way is 136.75 feet long by 30 feet wide. According to the county plat
maps, the north 30 feet of this section of right-of-way was vacated to John Glenn Junior High
School’s property. The existing 30-foot-wide portion of the right-of-way was not needed for any
road or other public improvements and as such was in the public interest to vacate. The city
council approved the vacation in 2006.
City Engineering Department Comments
The city engineering department has been working with the applicant in reviewing this proposal
and plans. Steve Kummer’s comments are attached to this report. As noted in the engineering
comments, the city is going to install the improvements on this site as part of a public
improvement project – including utilities, street and curbing.
Trail
There is an opportunity to install an 8-foot-wide pedestrian trail on top of the new sanitary sewer
line extending north from the end of the new cul-de-sac to Burke Avenue. This trail will be
located on the west side of the new house at Lot 1, Block 1 of the new plat and west of the
existing house at 1646 Burke Avenue. This trail will ensure pedestrian and bicycle access from
the new Eldridge Avenue cul-de-sac to John Glenn and Burke Avenue.
Packet Page Number 205 of 290
3
Tree Removal/Replacement
The city’s tree preservation ordinance has been amended and updated since the previous 2006
approval. The applicant will need to submit a tree preservation plan and an updated landscape
plan in order to meet the city’s ordinance.
The applicant’s landscape plan shows the planting of 24 trees (14 evergreen trees including
Norway pine and Black Hills spruce and 10 deciduous trees including maple and ash). The
evergreen trees are proposed along the west and south side of the two southern lots to create a
buffer and screening from the school and adjacent light manufacturing business. In order to
ensure an adequate screen and buffer from these uses, staff recommends that the applicants
plant additional evergreen trees along these property lines. The evergreen trees should be
staggered at least one tree every 15 feet along the west and south property lines of the southern
lots. This would require the applicant installing 12 more trees, for a total of 36.
Watershed District
The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District is reviewing the development proposal and
will have to issue Mr. Frank a permit before the contractor starts construction.
Other Comments
Building Department: David Fisher, building official, states that all of the new houses must meet
the building code.
Police Department: Lt. Dick Dobler states that there are no police concerns with the proposed
plat.
Fire Department: Butch Gervais, fire marshal, states that there are no fire safety concerns with
the proposed plat.
COMMISSION ACTION
BUDGET IMPACT
Planning Commission
The planning commission held a public hearing for this item at its meeting on June 7, 2011 and
recommended approval for the preliminary plat per staff’s recommendations.
None.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve Keith Frank’s preliminary plat date stamped May 9, 2011, for the Eldridge Fields
plat to be located along the existing Eldridge Avenue right-of-way, west of Prosperity
Avenue and east of John Glenn Junior High School. Approval is subject to the following
conditions:
a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These
Packet Page Number 206 of 290
4
plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering
department’s May 23, 2011, engineering plan review including the developer
entering into a development agreement with the city, extending the sanitary sewer
main to the east to allow for future service to the vacant lot on the north side of
Eldridge Avenue, and the construction of a swale on the John Glenn property to
direct the storm water flow west.
b. Revise the plat to show a drainage and utility easement for the storm sewer pipe
and the two rainwater gardens over Lots 2 and 3, Block 2.
c. Prior to final plat approval, the following must be submitted for city staff approval:
1) Homeowner’s association documents to ensure the maintenance of the
rainwater gardens, retaining walls, and trees.
2) A tree preservation plan showing the replacement of all significant trees
as required by ordinance. The tree plan must inventory all significant
trees located within the area to be developed and reflect which of those
are to be removed.
3) Revised landscape plan which includes 12 additional evergreen trees.
The additional evergreen trees should be 6 feet in height and should be
staggered every 15 feet along the west and south property lines of the
southern lots. The landscape plan needs to specify the species, size and
number of trees replaced in order to determine in the tree replacement
requirements are being met.
d. Have Xcel Energy install two street lights as follows: 1) at the intersection of
Prosperity Avenue and Eldridge Avenue; and 2) at the end of the Eldridge
Avenue cul-de-sac. The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the
city engineer’s approval.
e. Record all easements and owners association agreements with the final plat.
Packet Page Number 207 of 290
5
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the owners of the 37 properties within 500 feet of this site. Four property owners
responded as follows:
1. Mildred Grealish, 2111 Prosperity Avenue: I have nothing against this proposal except the
increase of traffic for Prosperity Road! Has anyone checked to see how much pedestrian
traffic is used to get to and from the Gateway Trail? Also, since the extension of Phalen all
the way to County Road B – there is a lot more motorized traffic. It seems that this bears
looking into before any new projects.
2. Keith and Sharon Miller, 1654 County Road B East: I have no comments.
3. Alfred and Jean Clemen, 1662 Burke Avenue: We have lived here for 48 years and feel
that the activity created by all that has to be done will undoubtedly be accompanied by our
two dogs that are penned in back yard barking. It would put undue strain on us to calm
them. Also is this does go through, we would request a privacy fence.
4. Dotti Ann Lehmann, 2053 Prosperity Road: Leave the woods alone. We don’t need any
more developments around here! You will change the structure and make up of Prosperity
Road forever. It is insane. Too many houses and a road! One house only!
Packet Page Number 208 of 290
6
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 1.4 Acres
Existing land use: Vacant Lot
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Single Family Houses (Zoned R-1)
South: Light Manufacturing Business (Zoned MU)
West: John Glenn Junior High School (Zoned R-1)
East: Single Family Houses (Zoned R-1)
PLANNING
Existing Land Use: Low Density Residential
Existing Zoning: R-1 and R-2
Application Date
The city received all the application materials for this request (including the proposed plans) on
May 9, 2011. State law requires the city to take action on this request within 60 days. As such, city
council action is required by July 8, 2011. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city is
allowed to take an additional 60 days, if necessary, in order to complete the review of this
application.
p:sec 15\Eldridge Fields_PC_060711
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Land Use Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Existing Conditions
5. Site Plan
6. Preliminary Plat
7. Grading Plan
8. Erosion Control Plan
9. Utility Plan
10. Landscape Plan
11. Engineering Plan Review
12. Draft planning commission minutes, June 7, 2011
13. Applicant’s Project Plans (Separate Attachment)
Packet Page Number 209 of 290
PROSPERITY RDBURKE AVEKENNARD STEldridge Fields
Location Map
Attachment 1
Existing Parcels
Packet Page Number 210 of 290
PROSPERITY RDBURKE AVEKENNARD STEldridge Fields
2030 Future Land Use
Attachment 2
Low Density Residential
Mixed Use
Government
Packet Page Number 211 of 290
PROSPERITY RDBURKE AVEKENNARD STEldridge Fields
Current Zoning
Attachment 3
Mixed Use
R2 - Double Dwelling Residential
R1 - Single Dwelling Residential
Packet Page Number 212 of 290
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 213 of 290
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 214 of 290
Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 215 of 290
Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 216 of 290
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 217 of 290
Attachment 9
Packet Page Number 218 of 290
Attachment 10
Packet Page Number 219 of 290
Maplewood Engineering Comments
Eldridge Fields
5-23-2011
Page 1 of 3
Engineering Plan Review
PROJECT: Eldridge Fields
PROJECT NO: 11-10 (Original 06-09)
COMMENTS BY: Steve Kummer, P.E. – Staff Engineer
DATE: 5-23-2011
PLAN SET: Original Set dated 5-1-2006
REPORTS: HydroCAD Computations dated 7-13-06
Summary
Keith Frank is proposing to subdivide a 1.4-acre property west of 2095 Prosperity Avenue into
five homesites.
Request
The applicant is requesting preliminary plat. This proposal was originally reviewed by
engineering staff in May 2006. This review accounts for any engineering comments that may
have been addressed at the time of the first application submittal in 2006.
The scope of this review includes aspects of site design including, but not limited to, geometrics,
paving, grading, drainage utilities, temporary sediment and erosion control and permanent
storm water management.
The following are Engineering review comments on the design review, and act as conditions
prior to issuing demolition, grading, sewer, and building permits:
Drainage and Treatment
1) The Lark-Prosperity improvements (project 07-15) takes ditch drainage from the west
side of Prosperity Avenue, intercepts the flow at Burke Avenue, and conveys the flow
to County Road B via a storm sewer in Burke Avenue. Design the storm sewer
system for the drainage area from Burke Avenue to the south along Prosperity
Avenue.
2) In lieu of discharging into the John Glenn Middle School ditch along the west side of
Kennard Street, analyze the feasibility of connecting into the new storm sewer along
Burke Avenue and Kennard Street, specifically at a catch basin on the south side of
Burke Avenue just east of Kennard Street. The City will verify the capacity of this
storm sewer to accept the additional flow from the development.
If the connection into the existing Burke/Kennard storm sewer is not feasible and the
applicant prefers discharging into the John Glenn swale, then the applicant is required
to ascertain a drainage and utility easement and provide the necessary grading within
the swale to ensure positive drainage.
Attachment 11
Packet Page Number 220 of 290
Maplewood Engineering Comments
Eldridge Fields
5-23-2011
Page 2 of 3
3) Provide more survey and grading information along Kennard Street. Provide grading
information on the swale down to County Road B.
4) CBMH #6 is the low point catch basin that picks up drainage from Prosperity. The
applicant may want to consider a swale along the north side of Eldridge Avenue in
lieu of installing CB #7 and piping the flows.
5) Provide updated HydroCAD computations with a drainage area map and labeling on
the HydroCAD computations consistent with the map.
6) Provide storm sewer design calculations.
7) Analyze the feasibility using the back yard rain water gardens to treat all or a portion
of the storm water runoff from the new street now that the amount of flow that the
Eldridge storm sewer system will capture is significantly decreased.
8) Provide storm sewer to facilitate drainage between the two rain gardens on Lots 2,3
Block 2.
9) Drainage and utility easements are required for any rain garden that will accept street
runoff.
10) Provide soil boring information to the City. Provide a minimum 2 cores from the
roadway and one core for each rain garden.
11) Provide rain garden construction details including profile view of rain garden cross
section and rock sump construction.
12) Phase the construction of the rain gardens appropriately to minimize siltation and
compaction of the basin bottoms. It may be good practice to rough-grade the gardens
for use as temporary sedimentation basins and then prepare the gardens for planting
after all grading on the homesites are completed. It’s been problematic in
subdivisions where builders construct the homes, silt in the gardens, and then the
gardens have to be reconstructed in order to function as intended. Note the
appropriate construction phasing on the plans. Native seeding and/or planting of the
gardens must occur immediately after final grading and preparation is completed.
13) Provide planting plans for rain gardens. Planting plan review shall be coordinated
through Virginia Gaynor, the City’s Open Space Coordinator.
14) Show the rim and invert elevations for both of the catch basins at the end of the cul-
de-sac.
Packet Page Number 221 of 290
Maplewood Engineering Comments
Eldridge Fields
5-23-2011
Page 3 of 3
Grading and Erosion Control
15) Provide a storm water pollution prevention plan detailing all NPDES and MPCA
guidelines and practices to manage storm water pollution prevention for a
construction site. For example provide street sweeping and watering information and
how concrete truck washout effluent will be handled.
16) Provide sediment and erosion control plan phasing information for the construction of
the individual homes. Plans for the construction of each home should work with the
overall erosion control plan for the site.
17) Retaining wall construction shall not encroach on neighboring private property.
18) Retaining wall greater than 4 feet in height require a building permit and shall also
have a fence installed at the top of wall. Retaining wall shop drawings shall be
provided to the City at the time of filing for permit.
Utilities
19) Show 8-inch sewer main as Schedule 35 PVC.
20) Connect all sewer services into the main via wyes. No direct connections are allowed
into manholes. Provide Schedule 40 PVC for sewer services.
21) Provide a sewer and water service for the undeveloped lot east of Lot 2 Block 1.
22) Verify the existence of an easement or right-of-way for the proposed sanitary sewer
and storm sewer extensions to the north.
Miscellaneous
23) Provide a copy of all necessary permits prior to start of construction including MDH
watermain extension, MPCA sanitary sewer extension, NPDES Construction Permit,
SPRWS approvals.
24) The developer shall provide maintenance agreements recorded each property or one
homeowners association agreement for the maintenance of the rain gardens.
25) The developer shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement with the City. The
agreement will stipulate the maintenance of the rain gardens and details the
requirements for the public improvements. The street and utility installations shall be
considered part of the public improvements and shall follow through the statute 429
process.
-END COMMENTS-
Packet Page Number 222 of 290
Attachment 12
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2011
5. PUBLIC HEARING
a. 7:00 p.m. or later Preliminary Plat for Eldridge Fields Single Dwelling
Development on Eldridge Street
i. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the
commission.
ii. City Engineer, Steve Kummer gave further information to the commission.
The applicant Keith Frank, Frank Construction addressed the commission.
Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing.
No one came forward to address the commission.
Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Boeser
moved to approve Keith Frank’s preliminary plat date-stamped
May 9, 2011, for the Eldridge Fields plat to be located along the existing Eldridge
Avenue right-of-way, west of Prosperity Avenue and east of John Glenn Junior High
School. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These
plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering
department’s May 23, 2011, engineering plan review including the developer
entering into a development agreement with the city, extending the sanitary sewer
main to the east to allow for future service to the vacant lot on the north side of
Eldridge Avenue, and the construction of a swale on the John Glenn property to
direct the storm water flow west.
b. Revise the plat to show a drainage and utility easement for the storm sewer pipe and
the two rainwater gardens over Lots 2 and 3, Block 2.
c. Prior to final plat approval, the following must be submitted for city staff approval:
1) Homeowner’s association documents to ensure the maintenance of the rainwater
gardens, retaining walls, and trees.
2) A tree preservation plan showing the replacement of all significant trees as
required by ordinance. The tree plan must inventory all significant trees located
within the area to be developed and reflect which of those are to be removed.
3) Revised landscape plan which includes 12 additional evergreen trees. The
additional evergreen trees should be 6 feet in height and should be staggered
every 15 feet along the west and south property lines of the southern lots. The
Packet Page Number 223 of 290
Attachment 12
landscape plan needs to specify the species, size and number of trees replaced
in order to determine in the tree replacement requirements are being met.
d. Have Xcel Energy install two street lights as follows: 1) at the intersection of
Prosperity Avenue and Eldridge Avenue; and 2) at the end of the Eldridge Avenue
cul-de-sac. The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer’s
approval.
e. Record all easements and owners association agreements with the final plat.
Seconded by Commissioner Yarwood. Ayes – Chairperson Fischer,
Commissioner’s Bierbaum
Boeser, Desai, Martin, Pearson
Trippler, & Yarwood.
Abstention
– Commissioner Nuss
The motion passed.
Commissioner Nuss abstained because she didn’t agree with requirement in condition c.
1) Homeowner’s association documents to ensure the maintenance of the rainwater
gardens, retaining walls, and trees.
Packet Page Number 224 of 290
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Identifying the Need for Livable Communities Demonstration
Account Funding and Authorizing an Application for Grant Funds
LOCATION: Gladstone Neighborhood - Frost Avenue and English Street
DATE: June 20, 2011
INTRODUCTION
City staff is requesting that the city council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1). This
resolution is required by the Metropolitan Council as part of the city’s application for a pre-
development demonstration grant through the Livable Communities Demonstration Account
(LCDA) Program. This program was established by the Livable Communities Act (MN Statutes
Chapter 473.25(b)) and provides funds for development or redevelopment projects that connect
development with transit, intensify land uses, connect housing and employment, provide a mix of
housing affordability, and provide infrastructure to connect communities and attract investment.
The city is requesting a grant in the amount of $100,000 in order to help fund proposed updates to
the alternative urban areawide review (AUAR) and master plan for the Gladstone Redevelopment
project area. These two documents were initially prepared and adopted more than four years ago
and are in need of updating. State statute requires AUARs be updated five years after adoption.
The grant would provide the city an opportunity to update the AUAR before it expires and to ensure
it reflects the council’s priorities and goals established by the Gladstone Neighborhood
Redevelopment Master Plan.
BACKGROUND
November 2003 the City of Maplewood received an $8,000 LCDA grant from the Metropolitan
Council in order to hire a planning consultant to develop a redevelopment concept plan for the
Gladstone Neighborhood.
December 4, 2006, the Metropolitan Council awarded a $1.8 million LCDA grant to the City of
Maplewood for public improvements associated with Phase I redevelopment of the Gladstone
Neighborhood. Phase I included the redevelopment of the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site (940 Frost
Avenue) with a 180-unit senior housing development.
March 2007 the city council approved the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan, which is
a guide to redevelopment in the Gladstone Neighborhood. The Plan includes a conceptual
redevelopment plan, housing densities, and commercial components which are based on market
forces and other redevelopment variables existing at the time of adoption.
December 31, 2009, the City of Maplewood was forced to rescind the $1.8 million LCDA grant due
to the original redevelopment proposal for the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site falling through.
January 25, 2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which reguides the land
use designation in the Gladstone Neighborhood to meet the use and density as proposed in the
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan.
September 27, 2010, the city council approved several rezonings within the Gladstone
Agenda Item J5
Packet Page Number 225 of 290
2
neighborhood. The zoning changes were reflective of the future land use designations established
in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
DISCUSSION
LCDA Grant Funds
The Metropolitan Council has available LCDA grant funds of $9 million for 2011 for communities
seeking funding for development or redevelopment projects that meet the goals of the 2030
Regional Development Framework as follows:
• Develop land uses in centers linked to the local and regional transportation systems;
• Efficiently connect housing, jobs, retail centers and civic uses;
• Develop a range of housing densities, types and costs; and
• Conserve, protect and enhance natural resources by means of development that is sensitive
to the environment.
Of the $9 million available for LCDA grant funds, $1 million has been set aside for pre-development
grants. Pre-development grants are intended to assist cities with redevelopment plans or other
studies in anticipation of future redevelopment in line with the Metropolitan Council’s Regional
Development Framework. Staff is proposing applying for a pre-development grant to assist the city
in updating the AUAR and master plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood. Another potential use of
the grant funds would be the development of a mixed-use zoning code specific to the Gladstone
Neighborhood. This would depend on the amount of grant awarded and the scope required to
update the AUAR and master plan.
Local Resolution
As part of the LCDA grant process, the Metropolitan Council requires that a resolution be adopted
by the city council in support of the grant application. This resolution must be submitted to the
Metropolitan Council no later than August 15, 2011. This resolution must authorize the grant
application and identify the need for LCDA funding, such that the project could not occur in the
foreseeable future “but-for” LCDA funds. The Metroplitan Council supplied the city with an example
resolution for use in this regard (Attachment 1).
BUDGET IMPACT
Adopting the attached resolution will have no impact on the city’s budget. The grant application has
the potential of providing the city with funds to use to update the Gladstone Neighborhood plans.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) showing the city’s intent to comply with the Livable
Communities Demonstration Account Program contract requirements for the requested $100,000
development grant for updates to the alternative urban areawide review and master plan for the
Gladstone Neighborhood.
p:com_dvpt\Gladstone\2011 Livable Communities\Resolution Memorandum
Attachments:
1. Livable Communities Demonstration Resolution
Packet Page Number 226 of 290
RESOLUTION NO. __________
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING AND
AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS the City of Maplewood is a participant in the Livable Communities Act’s Housing
Incentives Program for 2011 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible
to apply for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds; and
WHEREAS the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the
Demonstration Account’s purposes and criteria and is consistent with and promotes the purposes
of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan Council’s
adopted metropolitan development guide; and
WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate
project administration; and
WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as
stated in the grant agreement; and
WHEREAS the City agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the grant
application submitted no later than July 15, 2011; and
WHEREAS the City acknowledges Livable Communities Demonstration Account grants are
intended to fund projects or project components that can serve as models, examples or prototypes
for development or redevelopment projects elsewhere in the region, and therefore represents that
the proposed project or key components of the proposed project can be replicated in other
metropolitan-area communities; and
WHEREAS only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the Metropolitan
Council’s Livable Communities Demonstration Account during each funding cycle and the
Metropolitan Council has determined it is appropriate to allocate those scarce grant funds only to
eligible projects that would not occur without the availability of Demonstration Account grant
funding; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due
consideration, the governing body of the City:
1. Finds that it is in the best interests of the City’s development goals and priorities for the
proposed project to occur at this particular site and at this particular time.
2. Finds that the project component(s) for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account
funding is sought:
Packet Page Number 227 of 290
Attachment 1
2
(a) will not occur solely through private or other public investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future; and
(b) will not occur within two years after a grant award unless Livable Communities
Demonstration Account funding is made available for this project at this time.
3. Represents that the City has undertaken reasonable and good faith efforts to procure funding
for the project component for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding
is sought but was not able to find or secure from other sources funding that is necessary for
project component completion within two years and states that this representation is based
on the following reasons and supporting facts:
A fundamental assumption from the outset of the Gladstone Neighborhood
Redevelopment process has been that redevelopment must be self-sufficient and
that revenues needed to pay for redevelopment activities should not impact the city’s
general fund , which is funded by city-wide property taxes. In order for the city to
continue its planning efforts within the Gladstone Neighborhood other revenue streams
must be sought after.
4. Authorizes its city staff to submit on behalf of the City an application for Metropolitan
Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds for the project
component(s) identified in the application, and to execute such agreements as may be
necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City.
_________ this 27th day of June, 2011.
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Mayor Clerk
Packet Page Number 228 of 290
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Jim Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Steven Love, Assistant City Engineer
Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer I
SUBJECT: Bartelmy-Meyer Area Street Improvements, City Project 11-14, Resolution
Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Study
DATE: June 17, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The Bartelmy-Meyer Area streets are generally located southeast of Stillwater Road, west of Sterling
Street, and north of Minnehaha Avenue (see attached drawing). These streets are listed in the approved
2012 – 2016 Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as a proposed project for the 2012 construction
season. The city council will consider initiating the project by approving the attached resolution ordering
the preparation of a feasibility study.
Background
The Bartelmy-Meyer Area streets have continued to deteriorate over the years with the streets having a
current weighted average PCI rating of 36 (on a scale from 1 to 100) as indicated on the approved 2012 –
2016 CIP. Overall there is little in the way of storm sewer in the project area with the majority of the street
runoff flowing adjacent to bituminous curbs or residential yards. There are no concrete curb and gutters
along the project area streets. The Public Works department continues to spend a considerable amount of
time maintaining these streets by patching potholes in severe areas to maintain a minimum level of service.
The minimal amount of storm sewer, little to no concrete curb and gutter, and areas that lack a defined
crown in the road have contributed to the deterioration of the streets by allowing water to pond in the street
section. The Public Works department has stated that improvements to the existing sanitary sewer system
are likely to be required within the project area. The majority of the street runoff flows untreated off of
neighborhood streets and is discharged directly to local water bodies. To address the issues within this
neighborhood a full reconstruction of the roads is needed.
This project would consist of approximately 1.3 miles of full street reconstruction. It is necessary to fully
reconstruct these neighborhood streets to improve the serviceability and drainage, meet city standards,
upgrade aging underground infrastructure as required, and relieve the maintenance department of
continual repairs. Full street reconstruction would include reconstructing the road beds and the installation
of concrete curb and gutter. The neighborhood reconstruction project would also include the installation of
additional storm sewer, constructing storm water quality features to reduce the amount of pollutants and
excess nutrients that currently flow untreated off the neighborhood streets, replacing water main as
necessary, and improving the sanitary sewer system as required.
Schedule
The following is a tentative schedule of the feasibility study portion of the project once initiated:
Late June / Early July 2011 – staff initiates the project process and feasibility study by sending an
informational letter to the neighborhood residents.
July thru October 2011 – engineering department conducts topographic surveys, preliminary
engineering studies, research of the project area, and drafts the feasibility study. Staff holds
Agenda Item J6
Packet Page Number 229 of 290
informational neighborhood meetings about the proposed project as the feasibility study is being
conducted.
October 2011 – Staff submits the feasibility study to Council to consider acceptance and scheduling
of a public hearing.
During the public outreach and neighborhood meetings staff plans to discuss the assessments in extensive
detail. Currently the full reconstruction rate and storm drainage rate amount to $7,690 per unit, however
benefit appraisal services will be completed prior to finalizing the feasibility study.
Budget
Given that the project area consists of approximately 1.3 miles of roads and needs more extensive soil
boring investigation than a typical street project due to the 1981 Magellan petroleum pipeline failure, a
budget of $80,000 would be established for the project development. This amount will cover topographic
surveying, soil borings, benefit appraisal services, preparation of a feasibility report, preliminary
engineering, and wetland delineations (as needed).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the city council approve the attached resolution ordering the preparation of the
feasibility study for the Bartelmy-Meyer Area Street Improvements, City Project 11-14 and establish a
project budget of $80,000.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Preparation of Feasibility Study
2. Capital Improvement Plan - Project Details
3. Location Map
Agenda Item J6
Packet Page Number 230 of 290
RESOLUTION
ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY
WHEREAS, it is proposed to make improvements to the Bartelmy-Meyer Area Streets, City
Project 11-14 and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the
improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA:
That the proposed improvement be referred to the city engineer for study and that he is
instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary
way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible, and as to
whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and
the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended.
FURTHERMORE, funds in the amount of $80,000 are appropriated to prepare this
feasibility report.
Approved this 27th day of June 2011
Agenda Item J6
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 231 of 290
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
Agenda Item J6
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 232 of 290
Agenda Item J6
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 233 of 290
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Jim Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Steven Love, Assistant City Engineer
Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer I
SUBJECT: 2012 Mill and Overlays, City Project 11-15, Resolution Ordering Preparation
of Feasibility Study
DATE: June 17, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The 2012 Mill and Overlays project focuses on the following streets: 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) (see attached drawing). These streets are listed in the approved 2012 – 2016
Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as a proposed project for the 2012 and 2013 construction
seasons. The city council will consider initiating the project by approving the attached resolution
ordering the preparation of a feasibility study.
Background
The streets associated with the 2012 Mill and Overlay project have continued to deteriorate over the
years with the streets having a current weighted average PCI rating of 63 (on a scale from 1 to 100) as
indicated on the approved 2012 – 2016 CIP. The public works department routinely fields calls from
residents on the current condition of these roads. The maintenance staff spends a considerable
amount of time maintaining these streets by patching minimum depth surface failures, which are
visually apparent especially along Highwood and Linwood Avenues. The majority of the streets
associated with this project are classified as major collectors. Major collectors see a higher level of
daily traffic then a local road, which adds to the time and cost spent each year to perform the necessary
patching maintenance.
According the approved 2012 – 2016 CIP the proposed mill and overlay project was to be split over the
2012 and 2013 construction seasons. However, due to the volume of complaints on the subject
roadways and in the interest of creating efficiencies and cost savings by minimizing administration
costs it is proposed to design and then construct all of the improvements in 2012 as one bid package.
The project would consist of approximately 5.7 miles of mill and overlays. The mill and overlays would
rehabilitate the deteriorating pavement surface and extend the life of the existing pavement section. It
is necessary to rehabilitate these streets to improvement serviceability, meet city standards, extend the
life of the pavement section, and relieve the maintenance department of continual repairs. Mill and
overlay rehabilitation would include the removal and replacement of 2 inches of the existing pavement
surface and the adjustment of existing utility castings.
Agenda Item J7
Packet Page Number 234 of 290
Schedule
The following is a tentative schedule of the feasibility study portion of the project once initiated:
July 2011 – staff initiates the project process and feasibility study by sending an informational
letter to the neighborhood residents.
July thru October 2011 – engineering department conducts topographic surveys, preliminary
engineering studies, research of the project area, and drafts the feasibility study. Staff holds
informational neighborhood meetings about the proposed project as the feasibility study is being
conducted.
October 2011 – Staff submits the feasibility study to Council to consider acceptance and
scheduling of a public hearing.
During the public outreach and neighborhood meetings staff plans to discuss the assessments in
extensive detail. Currently the mill and overlay rate is $2,450 per unit, however benefit appraisal
services will be conducted prior to finalizing the feasibility study.
Budget
Given that the project area consists of approximately 5.7 miles of roads and the need to meet current
ADA accessibility requirements at all pedestrian ramps, a project budget of $60,000 would be
established for the project development. This amount will cover topographic surveying, preparation of
the feasibility report, benefit appraisal services, and preliminary engineering.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the city council approve the attached resolution ordering the preparation of the
feasibility study for the 2012 Mill and Overlays, City Project 11-15.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Preparation of Feasibility Study
2. Capital Improvement Plan - Project Details
3. Location Map
Agenda Item J7
Packet Page Number 235 of 290
RESOLUTION
ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY
WHEREAS, it is proposed to make improvements to the 2012 Mill and Overlays, City
Project 11-15 and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the
improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA:
That the proposed improvement be referred to the city engineer for study and that he is
instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a
preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective and
feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some
other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended.
FURTHERMORE, funds in the amount of $60,000 are appropriated to prepare this
feasibility report.
Approved this 27th day of June 2011
Agenda Item J7
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 236 of 290
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
Agenda Item J7
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 237 of 290
Agenda Item J7
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 238 of 290
Agenda Item J7
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 239 of 290
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page Number 240 of 290
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director/ Assistant City Manager
Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Gladstone Area Redevelopment Improvements - Phase 1, Project 04-21
a. Approve City of St. Paul Permanent and Temporary Easement
Agreements
b. Approve Ramsey County Easement Agreement
c. Approve Ramsey County Quit Claim Deed
d. Resolution Approving Mn/DOT Local Bridge Replacement Program
Grant Agreement
e. Resolution Awarding Construction Contract
DATE: June 22, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The council will consider approving easement agreements with the City of St. Paul and Ramsey County
and adopt the resolution awarding a construction contract for the project. In addition the council will
consider approving the Mn/DOT bridge replacement resolution.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Final plans and specifications for the above referenced project were approved and advertisement for
bids was authorized at the April 25, 2011 council meeting. The bid opening was held at 10:00 am on
June 3, 2011.
The council also accepted the assessment roll and ordered the assessment hearing for the project at
the April 25, 2011 meeting. The assessment hearing was originally scheduled for May 23, 2011;
however, it was continued at the May 23rd meeting until June 27, 2011. There is one additional
continuance to a date of July 11, 2011.
The project requires easement agreements with the City of St. Paul and Ramsey County for the
construction of the improvements and agreement with Mn/DOT for the bridge. These include the
following:
City of St. Paul permanent easement for trail, drainage and utility purposes
City of St. Paul temporary construction easement
Ramsey County easement agreement for the construction of trails and roundabout, restoration
of disturbed areas, and long term maintenance of the trails
Ramsey County Quit Claim Deed for Flicek Park
Mn/DOT Local Bridge Replacement Program Grant Agreement
Agreements
City of St. Paul
The project improvements require a permanent easement for trail, drainage, and utility purposes from
property owned by the City of St. Paul. The City of St. Paul requires the execution of an agreement to
Agenda Item L1
Packet Page Number 241 of 290
identify the terms of the easement. A separate temporary construction easement agreement is
required to allow for temporary construction impacts to an additional area within the City of St. Paul
property. These agreements are attached.
Ramsey County
The project improvements require a permanent easement for trail and roadway construction from
property owned by Ramsey County. The county requires the execution of an agreement to identify the
terms of the easement. This agreement has been attached. The Quit Claim Deed, attached, will be
filed to document the conveyance of Ramsey County’s interests in a portion of the Flicek Park property
to the city for the construction of the roundabout at the East Shore Drive and Frost Avenue intersection.
Flicek Park was originally conveyed by Ramsey County to the City of Maplewood with a covenant on
the deed stating that the property shall forever be used for public parks, recreation, and open space
purposes. The Quit Claim Deed releases these interests in the subject roundabout location.
Mn/DOT
The replacement of the Frost Avenue Bridge over Phalen Creek is being partially funded through State
Bridge Bond funds. The execution of a Local Bridge Replacement Program (LBRP) Grant Agreement
with Mn/DOT is required for the city to obtain these funds. This agreement is attached. The agreement
also includes a resolution that needs to be approved by the council accepting the terms and conditions
of the grant agreement.
Awarding Construction Contract
Two valid bids were received and opened on June 3, 2011. Table 1 below summarizes the bids that
were received. All bids have been checked and tabulated for accuracy. The engineer’s estimate of
probable construction cost has been provided for comparison.
TABLE 1 - BID SUMMARY
Bidder Bid Amount
Lunda Construction Company $3,529,950.25
Edward Kraemer and Sons, Inc.$3,915,347.03
Engineer's Estimate $3,056,000.00
The low bid amount is approximately $475,000 (or 15%) greater than the engineer’s estimate. A review
of the bids determined that the higher cost was primarily due to higher than expected bid prices for
structural concrete and temporary sheet piling for the bridge construction. In addition, the nature of the
project, including both roadway and bridge construction, limited the number of bidders and reduced
some of the benefits of the competitive bidding process. While the low bid is higher than the engineer’s
estimate, the bid is reflective of a competitive bidding environment for a project of this nature.
State Shutdown Risks
The city will take on some risk by awarding a construction contract with a state shutdown looming at the
beginning of July; however the city also would be impacted with delaying the award into July. This
information is meant to explain the risk involved.
Agenda Item L1
Packet Page Number 242 of 290
The state provided a strict directive that no project work could occur within Mn/DOT right-of-way or if
Trunk Highway funding was part of the financing package for a project. This project does not include
either of these conditions. Also, there are no federal dollars involved with this project and would not
require DBE approval from the state. Therefore, for the Gladstone project, the city can choose whether
or not it wishes to proceed with the award and improvements.
In a section of a memo from the State Aid Division Director to City Engineers it includes the following
language:
“….Regular State aid, turnback, town bridge, and bridge bonding funded construction
projects that are already approved can continue operations however it is likely no
Mn/DOT lab or bridge staff will be available for consultation or services. It is also likely
that no additional projects will be processed nor will any payments be made.”
The Gladstone project has already been approved by the State Aid Office. The city understands that
Mn/DOT lab and bridge staff will not be available for consultation or services during a shutdown, and in
this absence Braun Intertec would be conducting the testing services for the bridge related work, while
the city’s consultant would be taking on additional tasks such as shop drawing approvals for the bridge
work.
The financial risk in awarding on Jun 27, 2011, is that the testing and consulting firm’s costs are higher
than what is typically provided by the Mn/DOT bridge staff and testing lab. There is also a risk,
however unlikely, that if a major design change is needed for the bridge that the project could be
delayed until Mn/DOT can provide the necessary approvals. This could be a case where the contractor
can make claims for delays. Also, if Mn/DOT is shutdown for an extended period of time, the approvals
to allow pouring of a monolithic concrete bridge deck could be delayed thus causing additional expense
of about $20,000 for temporary bituminous. Staff is attempting to get this approval prior to July 1. In
addition the city would need to cash flow the bridge bonding portion of the project until the shutdown
ends. There is also a minor risk in awarding the construction contract prior to holding the assessment
hearing; however a letter of credit has been posted by the developer to minimize the city’s risk. Overall,
staff estimates there is approximately financial risk of $60,000 in awarding on June 27; however that
risk is minimized if there is a state budget passed by July 1 or soon thereafter.
What is the risk in not awarding on June 27? In coordination with the lowest bidder it is unlikely enough
work would be completed to even get to the point of completing the bridge and pouring the bridge deck
without significant acceleration costs. The award of bid would be a full month behind the schedule
outlined in the project specifications. The bridge deck must be poured no later than October 1st
according to state standards. If the bid were delayed it is likely the project would need to be rebid later
this fall for construction beginning in 2012. This could mean bridge pricing competiveness may
increase with the backlog in work as a result of a shutdown in addition to the continued investment by
the state in accelerating bridge repair and replacement under the Chapter 152 Bridge Program. Staff
got the impression that pricing would likely not be any more competitive if it were rebid. In addition to
uncertainty of a higher bid proposal, there are additional administrative costs to rewrite specifications,
schedules, and then rebid the entire project. Also, with a rebid, the sanitary sewer and water utility
extensions to The Shores Developer would not be built until 2012 whereby impacting the coordination
during public and private site grading activities. Staff anticipates the financial risk could exceed
$60,000 if the project award is delayed.
It is therefore recommended to award the construction contract on June 27, 2011.
Agenda Item L1
Packet Page Number 243 of 290
BUDGET
The current approved budget for the project is $7,274,600 as detailed in the feasibility report. This
includes construction costs plus 31.5% for indirect costs. The improvements detailed in the feasibility
report are proposed to be implemented in two separate bid packages. This project is Bid Package #1.
Bid Package #2 will include overhead utility burial, trail and sidewalk improvements, landscape/urban
design enhancements, street lighting, and improvements to the Gladstone Savanna.
The estimated Bid Package #1 construction cost included within the approved budget is approximately
$3,480,000 or within approximately $50,000 of the low bid cost. The budget for the future Bid Package
#2 improvements will be adjusted to accommodate the actual Bid Package #1 costs. Bid Package #2 is
proposed for construction next year.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the council approve the attached Resolution Receiving Bids and Awarding a
Construction Contract for the Gladstone Area Redevelopment Improvements, City Project 04-21, to
Lunda Construction Company.
It is also recommended that the council approve the attached easement agreements with the City of St.
Paul and Ramsey County, and concur with the quit claim deed from the County. In addition approval of
the Mn/DOT resolution and agreement is recommended. Minor changes are authorized by the City
Attorney if needed.
Attachments:
1. Resolution: For Agreement to State Transportation Fund (Bridge Bonds) Grant Terms and Conditions
2. Resolution: Award of Bids
3. Location Map
4. City of St. Paul Permanent Easement Agreement
5. City of St. Paul Temporary Easement Agreement
6. Ramsey County Easement Agreement
7. Ramsey County Quit Claim Deed
8. Local Bridge Replacement Program Agreement
Agenda Item L1
Packet Page Number 244 of 290
RESOLUTION
FOR AGREEMENT TO STATE TRANSPORTATION FUND (BRIDGE BONDS)
GRANT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
SAP 138-151-003
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has applied to the Commissioner of Transportation for a grant from
the Minnesota State Transportation Fund for construction of Bridge No.62643; and
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation has given notice that funding for this bridge is
available; and
WHEREAS, the amount of the grant has been determined to be $1,371,300.00 by agreement with
Mn/DOT on the replacement cost of a basic bridge;
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City of Maplewood does hereby agree to the terms and
conditions of the grant consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 174.50, subdivision 5, clause (3), and
will pay any additional amount by which the cost exceeds the estimate, and will return to the Minnesota
State Transportation Fund any amount appropriated for the bridge but not required. The proper city
officers are authorized to execute a grant agreement with the Commissioner of Transportation
concerning the above-referenced grant.
Adopted by the council on this 27th day of June 2011.
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 245 of 290
RESOLUTION
AWARD OF BIDS
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that the bid of Lunda Construction Company in the amount of $3,529,950.25 is the
lowest responsible bid for the construction of Gladstone Area Redevelopment Improvements – Phase
1, City Project 04-21, 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.
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 27th day of June 2011.
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 246 of 290
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 247 of 290
DEDICATION OF EASEMENT
FOR TRAIL, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PURPOSES
The City of Saint Paul (“Grantor”), a municipal corporation under the laws of the State
of Minnesota, for good and valuable consideration, to them in hand paid and the receipt of which
is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey to The City of Maplewood
(“Grantee”), a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, its successors and
assigns, a Permanent Easement for Trail, Drainage and Utility purposes over, under and
across the following described parcel:
Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 16, Township 29 North, Range 22
West, Ramsey County, Minnesota
Said permanent easement for pedestrian trail purposes being that part of the above described
parcel which lies within the following described areas:
Commencing at the northeast corner of Government Lot 2, said Section 16; thence South 89
degrees 32 minutes 38 seconds West, assigned bearing, along the north line of said
Government Lot 2, a distance of 1130.00 feet; thence South 38 degrees 08 minutes 29
seconds West 723.33 feet; thence South 38 degrees 35 minutes 47 seconds East 65.56 feet to
northeasterly corner of a 250.00 foot wide canal right-of-way; thence South 46 degrees 21
minutes 12 seconds West 96.68 feet to the point of beginning of the easement to be herein
described; thence South 28 degrees 08 minutes 30 seconds West 34.00 feet; thence South 61
degrees 51 minutes 30 seconds East 20.00 feet; thence North 28 degrees 08 minutes 30
seconds East 34.00 feet; thence North 61 degrees 51 minutes 30 seconds West 20.00 feet to
the point of beginning.
Commencing at the northeast corner of Government Lot 2, said Section 16; thence South 89
degrees 32 minutes 38 seconds West, assigned bearing, along the north line of said
Government Lot 2, a distance of 1130.00 feet; thence South 38 degrees 08 minutes 29
seconds West 723.33 feet; thence South 38 degrees 35 minutes 47 seconds East 142.31 feet
to a point on the easterly line of a 250.00 foot wide canal right of way and the point of
beginning of the easement to be herein described; thence South 41 degrees 50 minutes 45
seconds West 83.87 feet; thence South 48 degrees 09 minutes 15 seconds East 20.00 feet;
thence North 41 degrees 50 minutes 45 seconds East 80.50 feet to said easterly line of canal
right of way; thence North 38 degrees 35 minutes 47 seconds West, along said easterly line
of canal right of way, 20.28 feet to the point of beginning.
To have and to hold the same forever. Grantor does covenant that it is well seized in fee
of the land and premises aforesaid, and has good right to sell and convey the same free of all
encumbrances.
Grantor also covenants that the above granted easement is in the quiet and peaceable
possession of the Grantee. Grantor will warrant and defend against all persons lawfully claiming
the whole or any part thereof, subject to encumbrances, if any, hereinbefore mentioned. It is
intended and agreed that this agreement shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be
binding to the fullest extent of the law and equity for the benefit of the public. It is further
intended and agreed that this agreement and covenant shall remain in effect without limitation as
to time.
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 248 of 290
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this deed to be executed in its corporate name by
its duly authorized officers, and attested to this day of ________________, 2011.
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
By: _____________________________
Its Mayor or Deputy Mayor
By: _____________________________
Its Director of Financial Services
By: _____________________________
Its City Clerk
Approved as to form:
____________________________
Assistant City Attorney
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ______________,
2011, by ________________________, Mayor or Deputy Mayor, _____________________, Director,
Office of Financial Services and ______________________, City Clerk of the City of Saint Paul, a
Minnesota municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
_____________________________________
Notary Public
This Instrument was drafted by:
Office of Financial Services
Real Estate Section
Room 1000, City Hall Annex
25 W. 4th St.
St. Paul, MN 55102
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 249 of 290
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
THIS INDENTURE, made this _______ day of _____________________, 2011, by and between
The City of Saint Paul, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, its successors and
assigns (“Grantor”), and the City of Maplewood, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of
Minnesota, its successors and assigns, (“Grantee”), for good and valuable consideration, to it in hand paid
and the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant unto Grantee a Temporary Construction
Easement over, under and across the real property depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A.
It is further understood and agreed that Grantor does hereby convey to Grantee the above described
easement for certain purposes including but not limited to entry, operation, sloping, grading and the clearing
and storage of materials in conjunction with and during the construction of the Gladstone Area
Redevelopment Phase 1 Project as it affects Grantor’s property located South of Frost Avenue in Maplewood,
Minnesota.
This easement shall begin on the 1st day of June, 2011 and expire on the 31st day of December, 2012.
State of Minnesota
County of
_____________
} ss
By____________________________________
Its: Mayor or Deputy Mayor
By ____________________________________
Its: Director of Financial Services
By ____________________________________
Its: City Clerk
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2011,
By _____________________________________________________________
, Grantor.
NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK)
SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (NAME & ADDRESS)
Office of Financial Services
Real Estate Section
Room 1000, City Hall Annex
25 W. 4th St.
St. Paul, MN 55102
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 250 of 290
GLADSTONE AREA REDEVELOPMENTPHASE 1CITY PROJECT 04-21CITY OF ST. PAUL OPEN SPACEEASEMENT ACQUISITIONEXHIBIT AAgenda Item L1 Attachment 5Packet Page Number 251 of 290
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 252 of 290
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 253 of 290
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 254 of 290
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 255 of 290
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 256 of 290
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 257 of 290
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 258 of 290
Agenda Item L1 Attachment 6Packet Page Number 259 of 290
Agenda Item L1 Attachment 6Packet Page Number 260 of 290
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 261 of 290
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 262 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
LOCAL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (LBRP)
GRANT AGREEMENT
This Agreement between the Minnesota Department of Transportation (“MnDOT”) and
the Grantee named below is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 174.50. The provisions
in that section and the Exhibits attached hereto and incorporated by reference constitute this
Agreement and the persons signing below agree to fully comply with all of the requirements of
this Agreement.
1. Effective date of this Agreement: _____________________, 2011
2. Public Entity (Grantee) name, address and contact person:
City of Maplewood
1902 County Rd B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
Contact: Michael Thompson, P.E.
3. Project(s):
Name of Project
(See Exhibit C for
location)
Amount of
LBRP Funds
Amount of Required
Matching Funds
Completion Date
Frost Avenue Bridge
Existing Bridge No.
4984
S.A.P. 138-151-003
$1,371,300 $2,158,650.25
(Includes funds for
associated roadway
project)
November 11, 2011
4. Total Amount of LBRP Grant for all projects under this Agreement: $1,371,300.00
5. The following Exhibits for each project are attached and incorporated by reference as part
of this Agreement:
Exhibit A Completed Sources and Uses of Funds Schedule
Exhibit B Project Completion Schedule
Exhibit C Bond Financed Property Certification
Exhibit D Grant Application
Exhibit E Grantee Resolution Approving Grant Agreement
Exhibit F General Terms and Conditions
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 263 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
2
6. Additional requirements, if any: NONE
7. Any modification of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties.
(The remaining portion of this page was intentionally left blank.)
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 264 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
PUBLIC ENTITY (GRANTEE)
By:
Title:
Date:______________________________
By:
Title:
Date:______________________________
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By:
Title:
Date:
OFFICE OF CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
By: _________________________________
Contract Administrator
Date:_________________________________
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 265 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
3
EXHIBIT A
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS SCHEDULE
SOURCES OF FUNDS USES OF FUNDS
Entity Supplying Funds Amount Expenses Amount
State Funds: Items Paid for with LBRP
LBRP Grant $1,371,300.00 Grant Funds:
Bridge No. 62643 $1,371,300.00
Other: ________________ $___________
________________ $___________ ________________ $___________
________________ $___________ ________________ $___________
________________ $___________ ________________ $___________
Subtotal $1,371,300.00 Subtotal $1,371,300.00
Public Entity Funds: Items paid for with Non-
Matching Funds $___________ LBRP Grant Funds:
Bridge No. 62643 $840,843.83
Other: Roadway/Approach
Improvements
$1,317,806.42
State Aid Funds $925,000.00 ________________ $___________
Local Funds $1,233,650.25 ________________ $___________
________________ $___________
Subtotal $2,158,650.25
Subtotal $2,158,650.25
TOTAL FUNDS $3,529,950.25 =TOTAL PROJECT
COSTS
$3,529,950.25
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 266 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
4
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT COMPLETION SCHEDULE
The project has a substantial completion date of October 28, 2011 and a final completion date of
November 11, 2011.
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 267 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
5
EXHIBIT C
BOND FINANCED PROPERTY CERTIFICATION
(Complete only one Certification for all projects)
State of Minnesota
General Obligation Bond Financed Property
The undersigned states that it has a fee simple, leasehold and/or easement interest in the
real property located in the County) of Ramsey, State of Minnesota that is generally described or
illustrated graphically in Attachment 1 attached hereto and all improvements thereon (the
“Restricted Property”) and acknowledges that the Restricted Property is or may become State
bond-financed property. To the extent that the Restricted Property is or becomes State bond-
financed property, the undersigned acknowledges that:
A. The Restricted Property is State bond-financed property under Minn. Stat.
Sec. 16A.695, is subject to the requirements imposed by that statute, and
cannot be sold, mortgaged, encumbered or otherwise disposed of without the
approval of the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget; and
B. The Restricted Property is subject to the provisions of the Local Bridge
Replacement Program Grant Agreement between the Minnesota Department
of Transportation and the undersigned dated ________________, 2011; and
C. The Restricted Property shall continue to be deemed State bond-financed
property for 37.5 years or until the Restricted Property is sold with the written
approval of the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget.
Date: June 27, 2011
_____________________________________
City of Maplewood, a political subdivision of
the State of Minnesota
By: ________________________________
Name: _______________________________
Title: _______________________________
By: ________________________________
Name: _______________________________
Title: _______________________________
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 268 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
Attachment 1 to Exhibit C
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF RESTRICTED PROPERTY
Bridge No. 62643
The entire project is along Frost Avenue in the City of Maplewood between TH 61 on the west
and Phalen Place on the east. Existing Bridge No. 4984 and the replacement bridge, Bridge No.
62643, is located within this segment of Frost Avenue.
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 269 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
3
EXHIBIT D
GRANT APPLICATION
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 270 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
4
EXHIBIT E
GRANTEE RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AGREEMENT
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 271 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
5
EXHIBIT F
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR
LOCAL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (LBRP) GRANTS
(Applicable to each project)
Article I
DEFINITIONS
Section 1.01 Defined Terms. The following terms shall have the meanings set out respectively
after each such term (the meanings to be equally applicable to both the singular and plural forms of the
terms defined) unless the context specifically indicates otherwise:
“Advance(s)” - means an advance made or to be made by MnDOT to the Public Entity and
disbursed in accordance with the provisions contained in Article VI hereof.
“Agreement” - means the Local Bridge Replacement Program Grant Agreement between the
Public Entity and the Minnesota Department of Transportation to which this Exhibit is attached.
“Certification” - means the certification, in the form attached as Exhibit C, in which the Public
Entity acknowledges that its interest in the Real Property is bond financed property within the meaning of
Minn. Stat. Sec. 16A.695 and is subject to certain restrictions imposed thereby.
“Code” - means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and all treasury regulations,
revenue procedures and revenue rulings issued pursuant thereto.
“Commissioner” - means the Commissioner of Minnesota Management & Budget.
“Commissioner’s Order” - means the “Third Order Amending Order of the Commissioner of
Minnesota Management & Budget Relating to Use and Sale of State Bond Financed Property” dated
August 26, 2010, as it may be amended or supplemented.
“Completion Date” - means the projected date for completion of the Project as indicated in the
Agreement.
“Construction Contract Documents” - means the document or documents, in form and substance
acceptable to MnDOT, including but not limited to any construction plans and specifications and any
exhibits, amendments, change orders, modifications thereof or supplements thereto, which collectively
form the contract between the Public Entity and the Contractor(s) for the completion of the Construction
Items on or before the Completion Date for either a fixed price or a guaranteed maximum price.
“Construction Items” - means the work to be performed under the Construction Contract
Documents.
“Contractor” - means any person engaged to work on or to furnish materials and supplies for the
Construction Items including, if applicable, a general contractor.
“Draw Requisition” - means a draw requisition that the Public Entity, or its designee, submits to
MnDOT when an Advance is requested, as referred to in Section 4.02.
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 272 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
6
“G.O. Bonds” - means the state general obligation bonds issued under the authority granted in
Article XI, Sec. 5(a) of the Minnesota Constitution, the proceeds of which are used to fund the LBRP
Grant, and any bonds issued to refund or replace such bonds.
“Grant Application” - means the grant application that the Public Entity submitted to MnDOT
which is attached as Exhibit D.
“LBRP Grant” - means a grant from MnDOT to the Public Entity under the LBRP in the amount
specified in the Agreement, as such amount may be modified under the provisions hereof.
“LBRP” - means the Local Bridges Replacement Program pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 174.50 and
rules relating thereto.
“MnDOT” - means the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
“Outstanding Balance of the LBRP Grant” - means the portion of the LBRP Grant that has been
disbursed to the Public Entity minus any amounts returned to the Commissioner.
“Project” - means the Project identified in the Agreement to be totally or partially funded with a
LBRP grant.
“Public Entity” - means the grantee of the LBRP Grant and identified as the Public Entity in the
Agreement.
“Real Property” - means the real property identified in the Agreement on which the Project is
located.
Article II
GRANT
Section 2.01 Grant of Monies. MnDOT shall make the LBRP Grant to the Public Entity, and
disburse the proceeds in accordance with the terms and conditions herein.
Section 2.02 Public Ownership. The Public Entity acknowledges and agrees that the LBRP Grant
is being funded with the proceeds of G.O. Bonds, and as a result all of the Real Property must be owned
by one or more public entities. The Public Entity represents and warrants to MnDOT that it has one or
more of the following ownership interests in the Real Property: (i) fee simple ownership, (ii) an easement
that is for a term that extends beyond the date that is 37.5 years from the Agreement effective date, or
such shorter term as authorized by statute, and which cannot be modified or terminated early without the
prior written consent of MnDOT and the Commissioner; and/or (iii) a prescriptive easement for a term
that extends beyond the date that is 37.5 years from the Agreement effective date.
Section 2.03 Use of Grant Proceeds. The Public Entity shall use the LBRP Grant solely to
reimburse itself for expenditures it has already made, or will make, to pay the costs of one or more of the
following activities: (i) constructing or reconstructing a bridge, (ii) preliminary engineering and
environmental studies authorized under Minn. Stat. Sec. 174.50, subdiv. 6a, (iii) abandoning an existing
bridge that is deficient and in need of replacement, but where no replacement will be made, or (iv)
constructing a road to facilitate the abandonment or removal of an existing bridge determined to be
deficient. The Public Entity shall not use the LBRP Grant for any other purpose, including but not
limited to, any work to be done on a state trunk highway or within a trunk highway easement.
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 273 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
7
Section 2.04 Operation of the Real Property. The Real Property must be used by the Public
Entity in conjunction with or for the operation of a county highway, county state-aid highway, town road,
or city street and for other uses customarily associated therewith, such as trails and utility corridors, and
for no other purposes or uses. The Public Entity may have no intention on the effective date of the
Agreement to use the Real Property as a trunk highway or any part of a trunk highway. The Public Entity
must annually determine that the Real Property is being used for the purposes specified in this Section
and, upon written request by either MnDOT or the Commissioner, shall supply a notarized statement to
that effect.
Section 2.05 Sale or Lease of Real Property. The Public Entity shall not (i) sell or transfer any
part of its ownership interest in the Real Property, or (ii) lease out or enter into any contract that would
allow another entity to use or operate the Real Property without the written consent of both MnDOT and
the Commissioner. The sale or transfer of any part of the Public Entity’s ownership interest in the Real
Property, or any lease or contract that would allow another entity to use or operate the Real Property,
must comply with the requirements imposed by Minn. Stat. Sec. 16A.695 and the Commissioner’s Order
regarding such sale or lease.
Section 2.06 Public Entity’s Representations and Warranties. The Public Entity represents and
warrants to MnDOT that:
A. It has legal authority to execute, deliver and perform the Agreement and all documents
referred to therein, and it has taken all actions necessary to its execution and delivery of such
documents.
B. It has the ability and a plan to fund the operation of the Real Property for the purposes
specified in Section 2.04, and will include in its annual budget all funds necessary for the
operation of the Real Property for such purposes.
C. The Agreement and all other documents referred to therein are the legal, valid and binding
obligations of the Public Entity enforceable against the Public Entity in accordance with their
respective terms.
D. It will comply with all of the provisions of Minn. Stat. Sec. 16A.695, the Commissioner’s
Order and the LBRP.
E. All of the information it has submitted or will submit to MnDOT or the Commissioner
relating to the LBRP Grant or the disbursement of the LBRP Grant is and will be true and
correct.
F. It is not in violation of any provisions of its charter or of the laws of the State of Minnesota,
and there are no actions or proceedings pending, or to its knowledge threatened, before any
judicial body or governmental authority against or affecting it relating to the Real Property, or
its ownership interest therein, and it is not in default with respect to any order, writ,
injunction, decree, or demand of any court or any governmental authority which would
impair its ability to enter into the Agreement or any document referred to herein, or to
perform any of the acts required of it in such documents.
G. Neither the execution and delivery of the Agreement or any document referred to herein nor
compliance with any of the provisions or requirements of any of such documents is prevented
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 274 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
8
by, is a breach of, or will result in a breach of, any provision of any agreement or document
to which it is now a party or by which it is bound.
H. The contemplated use of the Real Property will not violate any applicable zoning or use
statute, ordinance, building code, rule or regulation, or any covenant or agreement of record
relating thereto.
I. The Project will be completed and the Real Property will be operated in full compliance with
all applicable laws, rules, ordinances, and regulations of any federal, state, or local political
subdivision having jurisdiction over the Project and the Real Property.
J. All applicable licenses, permits and bonds required for the performance and completion of
the Project and for the operation of the Real Property as specified in Section 2.04 have been,
or will be, obtained.
K. It reasonably expects to possess its ownership interest in the Real Property described in
Section 2.02 for at least 37.5 years, and it does not expect to sell such ownership interest.
L. It does not expect to lease out or enter into any contract that would allow another entity to use
or operate the Real Property.
M. It will supply whatever funds are needed in addition to the LBRP Grant to complete and fully
pay for the Project.
N. The Construction Items will be completed substantially in accordance with the Construction
Contract Documents by the Completion Date and all such items will be situated entirely on
the Real Property.
O. It will require the Contractor or Contractors to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances,
and laws bearing on its performance under the Construction Contract Documents.
P. It shall furnish such satisfactory evidence regarding the representations and warranties
described herein as may be required and requested by either MnDOT or the Commissioner.
Section 2.07 Event(s) of Default. The following events shall, unless waived in writing by
MnDOT and the Commissioner, constitute an Event of Default under the Agreement upon either MnDOT
or the Commissioner giving the Public Entity 30 days’ written notice of such event and the Public
Entity’s failure to cure such event during such 30-day time period for those Events of Default that can be
cured within 30 days or within whatever time period is needed to cure those Events of Default that cannot
be cured within 30 days as long as the Public Entity is using its best efforts to cure and is making
reasonable progress in curing such Events of Default; however, in no event shall the time period to cure
any Event of Default exceed six (6) months unless otherwise consented to, in writing, by MnDOT and the
Commissioner.
A. If any representation, covenant, or warranty made by the Public Entity herein or in any other
document furnished pursuant to the Agreement, or to induce MnDOT to disburse the LBRP
Grant, shall prove to have been untrue or incorrect in any material respect or materially
misleading as of the time such representation, covenant, or warranty was made.
B. If the Public Entity fails to fully comply with any provision, covenant, or warranty contained
herein.
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 275 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
9
C. If the Public Entity fails to fully comply with any provision, covenant or warranty contained
in Minn. Stat. Sec. 16A.695, the Commissioner’s Order, or Minn. Stat. Sec. 174.50 and all
rules related thereto.
D. If the Public Entity fails to use the proceeds of the LBRP Grant for the purposes set forth in
Section 2.03, the Grant Application, and in accordance with the LBRP.
E. If the Public Entity fails to operate the Real Property for the purposes specified in Section
2.04.
F. If the Public Entity fails to complete the Project by the Completion Date.
G. If the Public Entity sells or transfers any portion of its ownership interest in the Real Property
without first obtaining the written consent of both MnDOT and the Commissioner.
H. If the Public Entity fails to provide any additional funds needed to fully pay for the Project.
I. If the Public Entity fails to supply the funds needed to operate the Real Property in the
manner specified in Section 2.04.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, any of the above events that cannot be cured shall, unless waived in
writing by MnDOT and the Commissioner, constitute an Event of Default under the Agreement
immediately upon either MnDOT or the Commissioner giving the Public Entity written notice of such
event.
Section 2.08 Remedies. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default and at any time thereafter
until such Event of Default is cured to the satisfaction of MnDOT, MnDOT or the Commissioner may
enforce any or all of the following remedies.
A. MnDOT may refrain from disbursing the LBRP Grant; provided, however, MnDOT may
make such disbursements after the occurrence of an Event of Default without waiving its
rights and remedies hereunder.
B. If the Event of Default involves a sale of the Public Entity’s interest in the Real Property in
violation of Minn. Stat. Sec. 16A.695 or the Commissioner’s Order, the Commissioner, as a
third party beneficiary of the Agreement, may require that the Public Entity pay the amounts
that would have been paid if there had been compliance with such provisions. For other
Events of Default, the Commissioner may require that the Outstanding Balance of the LBRP
Grant be returned to it.
C. Either MnDOT or the Commissioner, as a third party beneficiary of the Agreement, may
enforce any additional remedies it may have in law or equity.
The rights and remedies specified herein are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights or remedies that
MnDOT or the Commissioner would otherwise possess.
If the Public Entity does not repay the amounts required to be paid under this Section or under any other
provision contained herein within 30 days of demand by the Commissioner, or any amount ordered by a
court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days of entry of judgment against the Public Entity and in favor
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 276 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
10
of MnDOT and/or the Commissioner, then such amount may, unless precluded by law, be offset against
any aids or other monies that the Public Entity is entitled to receive from the State of Minnesota.
Section 2.09 Notification of Event of Default. The Public Entity shall furnish to MnDOT and the
Commissioner, as soon as possible and in any event within seven (7) days after it has obtained knowledge
of the occurrence of each Event of Default, a statement setting forth details of each Event of Default and
the action which the Public Entity proposes to take with respect thereto.
Section 2.10 Effect of Event of Default. The Agreement shall survive Events of Default and
remain in full force and effect, even upon full disbursement of the LBRP Grant, and shall only be
terminated under the circumstances set forth in Section 2.11.
Section 2.11 Termination of Agreement and Modification of LBRP Grant.
A. If the Project is not started within five (5) years after the effective date of the Agreement or
the LBRP Grant has not been disbursed within four (4) years after the date the Project was started,
MnDOT’s obligation to fund the LBRP Grant shall terminate. In such event, (i) if none of the LBRP
Grant has been disbursed by such date, MnDOT shall have no obligation to fund the LBRP Grant and the
Agreement will terminate, and (ii) if some but not all of the LBRP Grant has been disbursed by such date,
MnDOT shall have no further obligation to provide any additional funding for the LBRP Grant and the
Agreement shall remain in force but shall be modified to reflect the amount of the LBRP Grant that was
actually disbursed and the Public Entity is still obligated to complete the Project by the Completion Date.
B. The Agreement shall terminate upon the Public Entity’s sale of its interest in the Real
Property and transmittal of the required portion of the proceeds of the sale to the Commissioner in
compliance with Minn. Stat. Sec. 16A.695 and the Commissioner’s Order, or upon the termination of the
Public Entity’s ownership interest in the Real Property if such ownership interest is an easement.
Article III
COMPLIANCE WITH MINN. STAT. SEC. 16A.695
AND THE COMMISSIONER’S ORDER
Section 3.01 State Bond Financed Property. The Public Entity acknowledges that its interest in
the Real Property is, or when acquired by it will be, “state bond financed property”, as such term is used
in Minn. Stat. Sec. 16A.695 and the Commissioner’s Order and, therefore, the provisions contained in
such statute and order apply, or will apply, to its interest in the Real Property, even if the LBRP Grant
will only pay for a portion of the Project.
Section 3.02 Preservation of Tax Exempt Status. In order to preserve the tax-exempt status of
the G.O. Bonds, the Public Entity agrees as follows:
A. It will not use the Real Property or use or invest the LBRP Grant or any other sums treated as
“bond proceeds” under Section 148 of the Code (including “investment proceeds,” “invested
sinking funds” and “replacement proceeds”) in such a manner as to cause the G.O. Bonds to
be classified as “arbitrage bonds” under Code Section 148.
B. It will deposit and hold the LBRP Grant in a segregated non-interest-bearing account until
such funds are used for payments for the Project.
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 277 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
11
C. It will, upon written request, provide the Commissioner all information required to satisfy the
informational requirements set forth in the Code, including Sections 103 and 148, with
respect to the G.O. Bonds.
D. It will, upon the occurrence of any act or omission by the Public Entity that could cause the
interest on the G.O. Bonds to no longer be tax exempt and upon direction from the
Commissioner, take such actions and furnish such documents as the Commissioner
determines to be necessary to ensure that the interest to be paid on the G.O. Bonds is exempt
from federal taxation, which such action may include: (i) compliance with proceedings
intended to classify the G.O. Bonds as a “qualified bond” within the meaning of Code Section
141(e), or (ii) changing the nature of the use of the Real Property so that none of the net
proceeds of the G.O. Bonds will be deemed to be used, directly or indirectly, in an “unrelated
trade or business” or for any “private business use” within the meaning of Code Sections
141(b) and 145(a).
E. It will not otherwise use any of the LBRP Grant or take, permit or cause to be taken, or omit
to take, any action that would adversely affect the exemption from federal income taxation of
the interest on the G.O. Bonds, and if it should take, permit or cause to be taken, or omit to
take, as appropriate, any such action, it shall take all lawful actions necessary to correct such
actions or omissions promptly upon obtaining knowledge thereof.
Section 3.03 Changes to G.O. Compliance Legislation or the Commissioner’s Order. If Minn.
Stat. Sec. 16A.695 or the Commissioner’s Order is amended in a manner that reduces any requirement
imposed against the Public Entity, or if the Public Entity’s interest in the Real Property becomes
exempted from Minn. Stat. Sec. 16A.695 and the Commissioner’s Order, then upon written request by the
Public Entity, MnDOT shall execute an amendment to the Agreement to implement such amendment or
exempt the Public Entity’s interest in the Real Property from Minn. Stat. Sec. 16A.695 and the
Commissioner’s Order.
Article IV
DISBURSEMENT OF GRANT PROCEEDS
Section 4.01 The Advances. MnDOT agrees, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth
herein, to make Advances of the LBRP Grant to the Public Entity from time to time in an aggregate total
amount not to exceed the amount of the LBRP Grant. If the amount of LBRP Grant that MnDOT
cumulatively disburses hereunder to the Public Entity is less than the amount of the LBRP Grant
delineated in Section 1.01, then MnDOT and the Public Entity shall enter into and execute whatever
documents MnDOT may request in order to amend or modify this Agreement to reduce the amount of the
LBRP Grant to the amount actually disbursed. Provided, however, in accordance with the provisions
contained in Section 2.11, MnDOT’s obligation to make Advances shall terminate as of the dates
specified in Section 2.11 even if the entire LBRP Grant has not been disbursed by such dates.
Advances shall only be for expenses that (i) are for those items of a capital nature delineated in
Source and Use of Funds that is attached as Exhibit A, (ii) accrued no earlier than the effective date of
the legislation that appropriated the funds that are used to fund the LBRP Grant, or (iii) have otherwise
been consented to, in writing, by the Commissioner.
It is the intent of the parties hereto that the rate of disbursement of the Advances shall not exceed the rate
of completion of the Project or the rate of disbursement of the matching funds required, if any, under
Section 5.13. Therefore, the cumulative amount of all Advances disbursed by the State Entity at any
point in time shall not exceed the portion of the Project that has been completed and the percentage of the
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 278 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
12
matching funds required, if any, under Section 5.13 that have been disbursed as of such point in time.
This requirement is expressed by way of the following two formulas:
Formula #1:
Cumulative Advances < (Program Grant) × (percentage of matching funds, if any, required under
Section 5.13 that have been disbursed)
Formula #2:
Cumulative Advances < (Program Grant) × (percentage of Project completed)
Section 4.02 Draw Requisitions. Whenever the Public Entity desires a disbursement of a portion
of the LBRP Grant the Public Entity shall submit to MnDOT a Draw Requisition duly executed on behalf
of the Public Entity or its designee. Each Draw Requisition with respect to construction items shall be
limited to amounts equal to: (i) the total value of the classes of the work by percentage of completion as
approved by the Public Entity and MnDOT, plus (ii) the value of materials and equipment not
incorporated in the Project but delivered and suitably stored on or off the Real Property in a manner
acceptable to MnDOT, less (iii) any applicable retainage, and less (iv) all prior Advances.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no Advances for materials stored on or off the
Real Property will be made by MnDOT unless the Public Entity shall advise MnDOT, in writing, of its
intention to so store materials prior to their delivery and MnDOT has not objected thereto.
At the time of submission of each Draw Requisition, other than the final Draw Requisition, the
Public Entity shall submit to MnDOT such supporting evidence as may be requested by MnDOT to
substantiate all payments which are to be made out of the relevant Draw Requisition or to substantiate all
payments then made with respect to the Project.
The final Draw Requisition shall not be submitted before completion of the Project, including any
correction of material defects in workmanship or materials (other than the completion of punch list
items). At the time of submission of the final Draw Requisition the Public Entity shall submit to MnDOT:
(i) such supporting evidence as may be requested by MnDOT to substantiate all payments which are to be
made out of the final Draw Requisition or to substantiate all payments then made with respect to the
Project, and (ii) satisfactory evidence that all work requiring inspection by municipal or other
governmental authorities having jurisdiction has been duly inspected and approved by such authorities
and that all requisite certificates and other approvals have been issued.
If on the date an Advance is desired the Public Entity has complied with all requirements of this
Agreement and MnDOT approves the relevant Draw Requisition, then MnDOT shall disburse the amount
of the requested Advance to the Public Entity.
Section 4.03 Additional Funds. If MnDOT shall at any time in good faith determine that the sum
of the undisbursed amount of the LBRP Grant plus the amount of all other funds committed to the Project
is less than the amount required to pay all costs and expenses of any kind which reasonably may be
anticipated in connection with the Project, then MnDOT may send written notice thereof to the Public
Entity specifying the amount which must be supplied in order to provide sufficient funds to complete the
Project. The Public Entity agrees that it will, within 10 calendar days of receipt of any such notice,
supply or have some other entity supply the amount of funds specified in MnDOT's notice.
Section 4.04 Condition Precedent to Any Advance. The obligation of MnDOT to make any
Advance hereunder (including the initial Advance) shall be subject to the following conditions precedent:
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 279 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
13
A. MnDOT shall have received a Draw Requisition for such Advance specifying the amount of
funds being requested, which such amount when added to all prior requests for an Advance
shall not exceed the amount of the LBRP Grant set forth in Section 1.01.
B. No Event of Default under this Agreement or event which would constitute an Event of
Default but for the requirement that notice be given or that a period of grace or time elapse
shall have occurred and be continuing.
C. No determination shall have been made by MnDOT that the amount of funds committed to
the Project is less than the amount required to pay all costs and expenses of any kind that
may reasonably be anticipated in connection with the Project, or if such a determination has
been made and notice thereof sent to the Public Entity under Section 4.03, then the Public
Entity has supplied, or has caused some other entity to supply, the necessary funds in
accordance with such section or has provided evidence acceptable to MnDOT that sufficient
funds are available.
D. The Public Entity has supplied to MnDOT all other items that MnDOT may reasonably
require.
Section 4.05 Processing and Disbursement of Advances. The Public Entity acknowledges and
agrees as follows:
A. Advances are not made prior to completion of work performed on the Project.
B. All Advances are processed on a reimbursement basis.
C. The Public Entity must first document expenditures to obtain an Advance.
D. Reimbursement requests are made on a partial payment basis or when the Project is
completed.
E. All payments are made following the “Delegated Contract Process or State Aid Payment
Request” as requested and approved by the appropriate district state aid engineer.
Section 4.06 Construction Inspections. The Public Entity shall be responsible for making its
own inspections and observations regarding the completion of the Project, and shall determine to its own
satisfaction that all work done or materials supplied have been properly done or supplied in accordance
with all contracts that the Public Entity has entered into regarding the completion of the Project.
Article V
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 5.01 Insurance. If the Public Entity elects to maintain general comprehensive liability
insurance regarding the Real Property, then the Public Entity shall have MnDOT named as an additional
named insured therein.
Section 5.02 Condemnation. If, after the Public Entity has acquired the ownership interest set
forth in Section 2.02, all or any portion of the Real Property is condemned to an extent that the Public
Entity can no longer comply with Section 2.04, then the Public Entity shall, at its sole option, either: (i)
use the condemnation proceeds to acquire an interest in additional real property needed for the Public
Entity to continue to comply with Section 2.04 and to provide whatever additional funds that may be
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 280 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
14
needed for such purposes, or (ii) submit a request to MnDOT and the Commissioner to allow it to sell the
remaining portion of its interest in the Real Property. Any condemnation proceeds which are not used to
acquire an interest in additional real property shall be applied in accordance with Minn. Stat. Sec.
16A.695 and the Commissioner’s Order as if the Public Entity’s interest in the Real Property had been
sold. If the Public Entity elects to sell its interest in the portion of the Real Property that remains after the
condemnation, such sale must occur within a reasonable time period after the date the condemnation
occurred and the cumulative sum of the condemnation and sale proceeds applied in accordance with
Minn. Stat. Sec. 16A.695 and the Commissioner’s Order.
If MnDOT receives any condemnation proceeds referred to herein, MnDOT agrees to or pay over to the
Public Entity all of such condemnation proceeds so that the Public Entity can comply with the
requirements of this Section.
Section 5.03 Use, Maintenance, Repair and Alterations. The Public Entity shall not, without the
written consent of MnDOT and the Commissioner, (i) permit or allow the use of any of the Real Property
for any purpose other than the purposes specified in Section 2.04, (ii) substantially alter any of the Real
Property except such alterations as may be required by laws, ordinances or regulations, or such other
alterations as may improve the Real Property by increasing its value or which improve its ability to be
used for the purposes set forth in Section 2.04, (iii) take any action which would unduly impair or
depreciate the value of the Real Property, (iv) abandon the Real Property, or (v) commit or permit any act
to be done in or on the Real Property in violation of any law, ordinance or regulation.
If the Public Entity fails to maintain the Real Property in accordance with this Section, MnDOT may
perform whatever acts and expend whatever funds necessary to so maintain the Real Property, and the
Public Entity irrevocably authorizes MnDOT to enter upon the Real Property to perform such acts as may
be necessary to so maintain the Real Property. Any actions taken or funds expended by MnDOT shall be
at its sole discretion, and nothing contained herein shall require MnDOT to take any action or incur any
expense and MnDOT shall not be responsible, or liable to the Public Entity or any other entity, for any
such acts that are performed in good faith and not in a negligent manner. Any funds expended by
MnDOT pursuant to this Section shall be due and payable on demand by MnDOT and will bear interest
from the date of payment by MnDOT at a rate equal to the lesser of the maximum interest rate allowed by
law or 18% per year based upon a 365-day year.
Section 5.04 Recordkeeping and Reporting. The Public Entity shall maintain books and records
pertaining to Project costs and expenses needed to comply with the requirements contained herein, Minn.
Stat. Sec. 16A.695, the Commissioner’s Order, and Minn. Stat. Sec. 174.50 and all rules related thereto,
and upon request shall allow MnDOT, its auditors, the Legislative Auditor for the State of Minnesota, or
the State Auditor for the State of Minnesota, to inspect, audit, copy, or abstract all of such items. The
Public Entity shall use generally accepted accounting principles in the maintenance of such items, and
shall retain all of such books and records for a period of six years after the date that the Project is fully
completed and placed into operation.
Section 5.05 Inspections by MnDOT. The Public Entity shall allow MnDOT to inspect the Real
Property upon reasonable request by MnDOT and without interfering with the normal use of the Real
Property.
Section 5.06 Liability. The Public Entity and MnDOT agree that each will be responsible for its
own acts and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law, and neither shall be responsible for the
acts of the other party and the results thereof. The liability of MnDOT and the Commissioner is governed
by the provisions of Minn. Stat. Sec. 3.736. If the Public Entity is a “municipality” as that term is used in
Minn. Stat. Chapter 466, then the liability of the Public Entity is governed by the provisions of Chapter
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 281 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
15
466. The Public Entity’s liability hereunder shall not be limited to the extent of insurance carried by or
provided by the Public Entity, or subject to any exclusion from coverage in any insurance policy.
Section 5.07 Relationship of the Parties. Nothing contained in the Agreement is to be construed
as establishing a relationship of co-partners or joint venture among the Public Entity, MnDOT, or the
Commissioner, nor shall the Public Entity be considered to be an agent, representative, or employee of
MnDOT, the Commissioner, or the State of Minnesota in the performance of the Agreement or the
Project.
No employee of the Public Entity or other person engaging in the performance of the Agreement or the
Project shall be deemed have any contractual relationship with MnDOT, the Commissioner, or the State
of Minnesota and shall not be considered an employee of any of those entities. Any claims that may arise
on behalf of said employees or other persons out of employment or alleged employment, including claims
under the Workers’ Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota, claims of discrimination against the
Public Entity or its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of
MnDOT, the Commissioner, or the State of Minnesota. Such employees or other persons shall not
require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from MnDOT, the
Commissioner, or the State of Minnesota, including tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and
vacation leave, disability benefits, severance pay and retirement benefits.
Section 5.08 Notices. In addition to any notice required under applicable law to be given in
another manner, any notices required hereunder must be in writing and personally served or sent by
prepaid, registered, or certified mail (return receipt requested), to the address of the party specified below
or to such different address as may in the future be specified by a party by written notice to the others:
To the Public Entity: At the address indicated on the first page of the Agreement.
To MnDOT at: Minnesota Department of Transportation
Office of State Aid
395 John Ireland Blvd., MS 500
Saint Paul, MN 55155
Attention: Patti Loken, State Aid Programs Engineer
To the Commissioner at: Minnesota Management & Budget
400 Centennial Office Bldg.
658 Cedar St.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Attention: Commissioner
Section 5.09 Assignment or Modification. Neither the Public Entity nor MnDOT may assign any
of its rights or obligations under the Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party.
Section 5.10 Waiver. Neither the failure by the Public Entity, MnDOT, or the Commissioner, as a
third party beneficiary of the Agreement, in one or more instances to insist upon the complete observance
or performance of any provision hereof, nor the failure of the Public Entity, MnDOT, or the
Commissioner to exercise any right or remedy conferred hereunder or afforded by law shall be construed
as waiving any breach of such provision or the right to exercise such right or remedy thereafter. In
addition, no delay by any of the Public Entity, MnDOT, or the Commissioner in exercising any right or
remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any right or
remedy preclude other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right or remedy.
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 282 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
16
Section 5.11 Choice of Law and Venue. All matters relating to the validity, interpretation,
performance, or enforcement of the Agreement shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the
State of Minnesota. All legal actions arising from any provision of the Agreement shall be initiated and
venued in the State of Minnesota District Court located in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Section 5.12 Severability. If any provision of the Agreement is finally judged by any court to be
invalid, then the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect and they shall be interpreted,
performed, and enforced as if the invalid provision did not appear herein.
Section 5.13 Matching Funds. Any matching funds as shown on Page 1 of the Grant Agreement
that are required to be obtained and supplied by the Public Entity must either be in the form of (i) cash
monies, (ii) legally binding commitments for money, or (iii) equivalent funds or contributions, including
equity, which have been or will be used to pay for the Project. The Public Entity shall supply to MnDOT
whatever documentation MnDOT may request to substantiate the availability and source of any matching
funds.
Section 5.14 Sources and Uses of Funds. The Public Entity represents to MnDOT and the
Commissioner that the Sources and Uses of Funds Schedule attached as Exhibit A accurately shows the
total cost of the Project and all of the funds that are available for the completion of the Project. The
Public Entity will supply any other information and documentation that MnDOT or the Commissioner
may request to support or explain any of the information contained in the Sources and Uses of Funds
Schedule. If any of the funds shown in the Sources and Uses of Funds Schedule have conditions
precedent to the release of such funds, the Public Entity must provide to MnDOT a detailed description of
such conditions and what is being done to satisfy such conditions.
Section 5.15 Project Completion Schedule. The Public Entity represents to MnDOT and the
Commissioner that the Project Completion Schedule attached as Exhibit B correctly and accurately sets
forth the projected schedule for the completion of the Project.
Section 5.16 Public Entity Tasks. Any tasks that the Agreement imposes upon the Public Entity
may be performed by such other entity as the Public Entity may select or designate, provided that the
failure of such other entity to perform said tasks shall be deemed to be a failure to perform by the Public
Entity.
Section 5.17 Data Practices. The Public Entity agrees with respect to any data that it possesses
regarding the G.O. Grant or the Project to comply with all of the provisions and restrictions contained in
the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act contained in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as such may
subsequently be amended or replaced from time to time.
Section 5.18 Non-Discrimination. The Public Entity agrees to not engage in discriminatory
employment practices regarding the Project and it shall fully comply with all of the provisions contained
in Minnesota Statutes Chapters 363A and 181, as such may subsequently be amended or replaced from
time to time.
Section 5.19 Worker’s Compensation. The Public Entity agrees to comply with all of the
provisions relating to worker’s compensation contained in Minn. Stat. Secs. 176.181 subd. 2 and 176.182,
as they may be amended or replaced from time to time with respect to the Project.
Section 5.20 Antitrust Claims. The Public Entity hereby assigns to MnDOT and the
Commissioner of MMB all claims it may have for over charges as to goods or services provided with
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 283 of 290
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97336
17
respect to the Project that arise under the antitrust laws of the State of Minnesota or of the United States
of America.
Section 5.21 Prevailing Wages. The Public Entity agrees to comply with all of the applicable
provisions contained in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 177, and specifically those provisions contained in
Minn. Stat. Secs. 177.41 through 177.435 as they may be amended or replaced from time to time with
respect to the Project. By agreeing to this provision, the Public Entity is not acknowledging or agreeing
that the cited provisions apply to the Project.
Section 5.22 Entire Agreement. The Agreement and all of the exhibits attached thereto embody
the entire agreement between the Public Entity and MnDOT, and there are no other agreements, either
oral or written, between the Public Entity and MnDOT on the subject matter hereof.
Section 5.23 E-Verification. The Public Entity agrees and acknowledges that it is aware of
Governor’s Executive Order 08-01 regarding e-verification of employment of all newly hired employees
to confirm that such employees are legally entitled to work in the United States, and that it will, if and
when applicable, fully comply with such order.
(The remaining portion of this page was intentionally left blank.)
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 284 of 290
Agenda Item L1
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 285 of 290
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page Number 286 of 290
AGENDA NO. M-1
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager
FROM: Asst. City Manager
Finance Manager
RE: Discussion of Approval of Resolution to Adopt State Performance
Measures
DATE: June 22, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The Council on Local Results and Innovation was created by the 2010 Legislature to set
benchmarks for City and County operations. Through several meetings, the group
adopted standards which may aid residents, taxpayers, and state and local elected
officials in determining the efficiency of counties and cities in providing services, and
measure residents’ opinions of those services. Participation is voluntary and
participants are eligible for a reimbursement of $0.14 per capita in local government aid,
not to exceed $25,000, and are also exempt from levy limits for pay 2012, if they are in
effect.
DISCUSSION
Based on the 2010 census, adoption of these standards would allow Maplewood to
collect $5,322 in 2011. It does not appear that the levy limit exemption would have any
effect on Maplewood since we are able to levy beyond the current limits due to lost
MVHC. Staff has researched costs of performing a useful and thorough survey in the
past and it is estimated that the cost will exceed $50,000.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The incentives the state is offering for the collection of this data does not cover the
costs of gathering and submitting an annual report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff does not recommend approval of the resolution to adopt state performance
measures at this time. The program can be joined in a future year if it is determined
that the benefits of the program outweigh the costs.
Packet Page Number 287 of 290
Model Performance Measures for Cities
The following are the recommended model measures of performance outcomes for cities, with
alternatives provided in some cases. Key output measures are also suggested for consideration by
local city officials.
General:
1. Rating of the overall quality of services provided by your city (Citizen Survey: excellent,
good, fair, poor)
2. Percent change in the taxable property market value
3. Citizens’ rating of the overall appearance of the city (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair,
poor)
Police Services:
4. Part I and II crime rates (Submit data as reported by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal
Apprehension. Part I crimes include murder, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny,
motor vehicle theft, and arson. Part II crimes include other assaults, forgery/counterfeiting,
embezzlement, stolen property, vandalism, weapons, prostitution, other sex offenses,
narcotics, gambling, family/children crime, D.U.I., liquor laws, disorderly conduct, and
other offenses.)
OR
Citizens’ rating of safety in their community (Citizen Survey: very safe, somewhat safe,
neither safe nor unsafe, somewhat unsafe, very unsafe)
Output Measure:
Police response time (Time it takes on top priority calls from dispatch to the first officer
on scene.)
Fire Services:
5. Insurance industry rating of fire services (The Insurance Service Office (ISO) issues ratings
to Fire Departments throughout the country for the effectiveness of their fire protection
services and equipment to protect their community. The ISO rating is a numerical grading
system and is one of the primary elements used by the insurance industry to develop premium
rates for residential and commercial businesses. ISO analyzes data using a Fire Suppression
Rating Schedule (FSRS) and then assigns a Public Protection Classification from 1 to 10.
Class 1 generally represents superior property fire protection and Class 10 indicates that the
area's fire suppression program does not meet ISO's minimum criteria.)
OR
Citizens’ rating of the quality of fire protection services (Citizen Survey: excellent, good,
fair, poor)
Output Measure:
Fire response time (Time it takes from dispatch to apparatus on scene for calls that are
dispatched as a possible fire).
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response time (if applicable) (Time it takes from
dispatch to arrival of EMS)
Packet Page Number 288 of 290
Streets:
6. Average city street pavement condition rating (Provide average rating and the rating system
program/type. Example: 70 rating on the Pavement Condition Index (PCI))
OR
Citizens’ rating of the road condition in their city (Citizen Survey: good condition, mostly
good condition, many bad spots)
7. Citizens’ rating the quality of snowplowing on city streets (Citizen Survey: excellent, good,
fair, poor)
Water:
8. Citizens’ rating of the dependability and quality of city water supply (centrally-provided
system) (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor)
Output Measure:
Operating cost per 1,000,000 gallons of water pumped/produced (centrally-provided
system) (Actual operating expense for water utility / (total gallons pumped/1,000,000))
Sanitary Sewer:
9. Citizens’ rating of the dependability and quality of city sanitary sewer service (centrally
provided system) (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor)
Output Measure:
Number of sewer blockages on city system per 100 connections (centrally provided
system) (Number of sewer blockages on city system reported by sewer utility /
(population/100))
Parks and Recreation:
10. Citizens’ rating of the quality of city recreational programs and facilities (parks, trails, park
buildings) (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor)
Packet Page Number 289 of 290
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING PERFORMANCE MEASURES
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature created a Council on Local Results and Innovation; and
WHEREAS, there are financial incentives for cities to participate in the programs adopted by
the Council; and
WHEREAS, participation in the program may assist the City of Maplewood in improving
service delivery and enhancing communication with residents;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that the City of Maplewood, does hereby adopt the ten performance measures developed by the
Council on Local Results and Innovation.
It is further resolved that city staff is directed to perform all necessary tasks to participate in the
program for 2011.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD at a regular meeting
held June 27, 2011.
ATTEST:
_______________________________ ___________________________________
Karen E. Guilfoile, City Clerk William Rossbach, Mayor
Packet Page Number 290 of 290