The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011 10-10 City Council PacketAGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, October 10, 2011 City Hall, Council Chambers Meeting No. 20-11 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 September 26, 2011 City Council Workshop Minutes 2. Approval of September 26, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation by Roseville School District [Superintendant Thein] 2. Consider Reappointment of James Meehan to Police Civil Service Commission 3. Appointment to the Board of Water Commissioners G. CONSENT AGENDA – Items on the Consent Agenda are considered routine and non- controversial and are approved by one motion of the council. If a councilmember requests additional information or wants to make a comment regarding an item, the vote should be held until the questions or comments are made then the single vote should be taken. If a councilmember objects to an item it should be removed and acted upon as a separate item. 1. Approval Of Claims 2. Approval of Resolution for Temporary Gambling Permit – Church of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary 3. Approval of Authorization to Dispose of Old Financial Records 4. Approval of Annual Maplewood Historical Society Payment 5. Approval of Rates for Police and Fire Services Provided to the City of Landfall for 2012 6. Consider Approval of Contract with Charles Bethel for 2012 Human Resources Attorney Services 7. Approval of Resolution Accepting Donation from Home Depot for Public Works 8. Approval of Stop Sign Policy Revision 9. Project Update, July 16th Storm Clean-up and Investigation, City Project 11-19 10. Conditional Use Permit Review for Rolling Hills Manufactured Home Park, 1316 Pearson Drive 11. Acceptance of Grants to Attend the International Green Code Council Final Action Hearings 12. Consider Resolution Adopting 2012 Rates for Utilities H. PUBLIC HEARINGS I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Design Plan Revision for Dearborn Meadow Twin Home on Castle Drive, East of White Bear Avenue 2. Trash Collection System Analysis - Request for Authorization to Negotiate a Draft Trash Collection Contract with the Top Ranked Proposer 3. Renewable Energy Ordinance – Second Reading J. NEW BUSINESS 1. Conditional Use Permit for LaMettry Collision Auto Repair, North of 2923 Maplewood Drive 2. Consider 2012 Charitable Gambling Funds Request 3. Consider Formation of an Audit Committee to Select an Audit Firm 4. East Metro Public Safety Training Facility, City Project 09-09, Resolution Authorizing Consulting Services and Establishing Project Budget 5. Holloway Avenue and Stanich Highlands Area Improvements, City Project 09-13, Resolution Accepting Assessment Roll and Calling for Re-Assessment Public Hearing for November 14, 2011 K. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS L. AWARD OF BIDS M. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS N. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS O. ADJOURNMENT Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk’s Office at 651.249.2001 to make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability. RULES OF CIVILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings – elected officials, staff and citizens. It is hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone’s opinions can be heard and understood in a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when appearing at Council meetings, it is understood that everyone will follow these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep emotions in check and use respectful language. September 26, 2011 City Council Manager Workshop Minutes 1 Agenda Item E1 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL MANAGER WORKSHOP 5:15 p.m., Monday, September 26, 2011 Council Chambers, City Hall A. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by Mayor Rossbach. B. ROLL CALL Will Rossbach, Mayor Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present James Llanas, Councilmember Present John Nephew, Councilmember Present C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Board & Commission Interviews The council interviewed the following four candidates for the Environmental & Natural Resources Commission: 1. Nick Nelson 2. Judith Johannessen 3. Bill Schreiner 4. Lisa Hlavenka The council interviewed the following candidate for reappointment to the Housing Redevelopment Authority Commission: 1. Gary Pearson E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discussion on Stop Sign Policy Assistant City Engineer Steve Love updated the council on a recent stop sign petition from the Stanich Neighborhood. City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Michael Thompson presented the staff report and answered questions of the council. Packet Page Number 1 of 248 September 26, 2011 City Council Manager Workshop Minutes 2 2. Discussion on Renaming a Maplewood Park to Veterans Memorial Park Recreation Supervisor James Taylor presented the staff report and answered questions of the council. F. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Rossbach adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m. Packet Page Number 2 of 248 September 26, 2011 1 City Council Meeting Minutes Agenda Item E2 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m., Monday, September 26, 2011 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 19-11 A. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:06 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 Councilmember Juenemann added N1 Grand Reopening at the Maplewood Community Center. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All The motion passed. E. APP ROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of September 12, 2011 City Council Workshop Minutes Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the September 12, 2011 City Council Workshop Minutes as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Nephew Ayes – All The motion passed. 2. Approval of September 12, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes Councilmember Juenemann changed the minutes to reflect that items G2 Fall Clean-up Event and G9 Approval to Accept Donation of Toys to Police Department were pulled to highlight; and agenda item G3 Approval of Resolution of Appreciation for Lois Behm, Heritage Preservation Commission pulled for separate vote. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the September 12, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. Packet Page Number 3 of 248 September 26, 2011 2 City Council Meeting Minutes F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Appointments to Boards and Commissions Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Resolution for the Appointments to Boards and Commissions as filled in with Assistant City Manager Ahl’s report. RESOLUTION 11-9-625 BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: Hereby appoints the following individuals, who have interviewed with the Maplewood City Council, to serve on the following commissions: Business & Economic Development Commission - Warren Wessel, term expires September 30, 2014 Environmental & Natural Resources Commission - Judith Johannessen, term expires September 30, 2014 - Bill Schreiner, term expires September 30, 2014 Housing Redevelopment Authority - Gary Pearson, term expires September 30, 2015 - Beth Ulrich, term expires September 30, 2014 - Joy Tkachuck, term expires September 30, 2013 Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. G. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Juenemann moved to highlight agenda item G3 Approval of Resolution Accepting Donation from Friends of Maplewood Nature to Maplewood Nature Center Preserve. Recreation Supervisor Taylor gave the staff report. Councilmember Nephew moved to highlight agenda item G4 Stillwater Road/TH5 Improvements, City Project 09-04. Assistant City Manager Ahl gave the staff report. Councilmember Juenemann had a question about the election judges list, agenda item G2. The election judge listed as Scott, Jacobs should be listed as Jacobson, Scott. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve agenda items G1 – G4. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All The motion passed. Packet Page Number 4 of 248 September 26, 2011 3 City Council Meeting Minutes 1. Approval of Claims Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Approval of Claims. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 137,978.18 Checks # 85156 thru # 85191 dated 09/06/11 thru 09/13/11 $ 1,304,185.79 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 09/01/11 thru 9/09/11 $ 1,329,755.62 Checks # 85192 thru # 85257 dated 09/13/11 thru 09/20/11 $ 165,493.47 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 09/09/11 thru 09/16/11 $ 2,937,413.06 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 514,383.84 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 09/16/11 $ 2,375.01 Payroll Deduction check # 9984886 thru # 9984888 dated 09/16/11 $ 516,758.85 Total Payroll $ 3,454,171.91 GRAND TOTAL Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All The motion passed. 2. Approval of Resolution Certifying Election Judges for the November 8, 2011 General Election Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Resolution Certifying Election Judges for the November 8, 2011 General Election. RESOLUTION 11-9-626 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ELECTION JUDGES RESOLVED, that the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, accepts the following list of Election Judges for the 2011 General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2011. Ahrens, Fran Aikens, Meridith Albu, Josephine Anderson, Beverly Anderson, Elsie Anderson, Nancy Packet Page Number 5 of 248 September 26, 2011 4 City Council Meeting Minutes Anderson, Suzanne Anderson, Vivian Ansari, Ahsan Arnold, Ajla Arnold, Carole Bartelt, Joan Bedor, David Behr, Jeanette Belland, Jaime Berry, Robert Bjorklund, Diane Bolden, Donita Bortz, Albert Bortz, Jeanne Bunkowske, Bernice Carbone, Joyce Carle, Jeanette Carson, Fannie Cleland, Ann Combe, Edward Connelly, Thomas Connolly, Colleen D'Arcio, India Deeg, Edward Demko, Fred Desai, Kalpana DeZelar, Phil Dickson, Helen Jean Droeger, Diane Duellman, Audrey Eickhoff, Carolyn Erickson, Elizabeth Erickson, Eric Erickson, Sue Evans, Carol Fernholz, Jean Finch, Roberta Fischer, Mary Fischer, Lorraine Fischer, Peter Fitzgerald, Delores Fosburgh, Anne Fowler, Cynthia Franzen, James Freer, Mary Jo Friedlein, Charlene Friedlein, Richard Fuller, Mary Katherine Galligher, Patricia Gebauer, Victor Gierzak, Sister Clarice Gipple, Kristine Golaski, Diane Gudknecht, Jamie Guthrie, Rosie Haack, Donita Hafner, Michael Hahn Ohs, Sandra Hanson, Joan Hart, Barbara Herber, Darlene Hickey, Donna Hill, Jan Hilliard, Barb Hines, Constance Hinnenkamp, Gary Horgan, Gerald Horgan, Sharon Horwath, Ivori Hulet, Jeanette Hulet, Robert Iversen, Mildred Jaafaru, Timothy Jacobson, Scott Jagoe, Carole Jahn, David Jefferson, Gwendolyn Jensen, Robert Johannessen, Judith Johansen, Kathleen Johnson, Barbara Johnson, Warren Jones, Shirley Jurmu, Joyce Kaul, Shirley Kirchoff, Harold Kliethermes, Jami Knauss, Carol Knutson, Lois Koch, Rosemary Kramer, Dennis Kramer, Patricia Krekelberg, Mona Lou Kwapick, Clemence Kwapick, Jackie Lackner, Marvella Lampe, Charlotte Larson, Michelle Lauren, Lorraine LaValle, Faylene Lawrence, Donna Leiter, Barbara Leo, Pati Leonard, Claudette Letourneau, Sandra Lincowski, Steve Lincowski, Vi Liptak, Marianne Lockwood, Jackie Loipersbeck, Darlene Loipersbeck, Jules Lowe-Adams, Shari Lucas, Lydia Luttrell, Shirley Mahowald, Valerie Mahre, Jeri Manthey, John Marsh, Delores Maskrey, Thomas Mauston, Shelia McCann, John McCarthy, Peggy McCauley, Judy McCormack, Melissa Mealey, Georgia Mechelke, Geraldine Mechelke, Mary Lou Miller, Charlotte Moen, Bill Moenck, Mary Ann Moreno, Marlene Mudek, Dolores Mudek, Leo Muraski, Gerry Myster, Thomas Nephew, Shelly Nettleton, Janet Newcomb, Mary Nichols, Miranda Nieters, Louise Nissen, Helen Niven, Amy Norberg, Ann Noyes, Douglas O'Brien, D. William (Bill) Olson, Norman Olson, Lois Olson, Anita Olson, Stacy Oslund, Kathryn Paddock, Ken Parent, Dian Peitzman, Lloyd Peper, Marilyn Philbrook, Frances Pickett, William Priefer, Bill Renslow, Rita Packet Page Number 6 of 248 September 26, 2011 5 City Council Meeting Minutes Rieper, Allan Rodriguez, Vincent Rohrbach, Charles Rohrbach, Elaine Roller, Carolyn Rudeen, Elaine Saltz, Rosalie Sandberg, Janet Satriano, Pauline Sauer, Elmer Sauer, Kathleen Sauro, Janet Scheunemann, Marjorie Schiff, Marge Schluender, Cynthia Schneider, Mary Ann Schultz, Louise Shores, Teresa Skaar, Delaney Skaar, Susan Smart, Katherine Spangler, Bob Spies, Louis Stafki, Tim Steenberg, Judith Steenberg, Richard Stenson, Karen Stevens, Sandra Storm, Mary Strack, Joan Sweningeon, Rudolph Taylor, Lori Taylor, Rita Thomforde, Faith Tolbert, Franklin Trippler, Dale Tschida, Micki Urbanski, Carolyn Urbanski, Holly Urbanski, Michelle Urbanski, William VanBlaricom, Beulah Vanek, Mary Volkman, Phyllis Wasmundt, Gayle Webb, Paulette Weiland, Connie Wessell, Warren Whitcomb, Larry Witschen, Delores Wold, Hans Wood, Susan Yorkovich, Cindy Zacho, Karen Zager, Scott Zian, Helen Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All The motion passed. 3. Approval of Resolution Accepting Donation from Friends of Maplewood Nature to Maplewood Nature Center Preserve Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Resolution Accepting Donation from Friends of Maplewood Nature to Maplewood Nature Center Preserve. RESOLUTION 11-9-627 ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION WHEREAS the City of Maplewood and the Parks and Recreation Department has received donations including: $1,000 in support of alternative energy education programs; camera equipment; and plants; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maplewood City Council authorizes the City of Maplewood, Parks and Recreation Department to accept these donations. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All The motion passed. 4. Stillwater Road/TH 5 Improvements, City Project 09-04 a. Approval of Resolution Directing Modification of Existing Contract, Change Order Numbers 4 and 5 Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Resolution Directing Modification of Existing Contract, Change Order Number 4 and 5. Packet Page Number 7 of 248 September 26, 2011 6 City Council Meeting Minutes RESOLUTION 11-9-628 DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CITY PROJECT 09-04 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered Improvement Project 09-04, the Stillwater Road/TH 5 Improvements, and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvements Project 09-04, Change Orders No. 4 and 5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that 1. The mayor and city engineer are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing contract by executing said Change Orders No. 4 and 5 in the amounts of $60,564.10 and $8,364.66 respectively. The revised contract amount is $1,458,213.50. Approved this 26th day of September, 2011. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All The motion passed. b. Approval of Resolution Approving Final Payment and Acceptance of Project Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Resolution Approving Final Payment and Acceptance of Project. RESOLUTION 11-9-629 APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT CITY PROJECT 09-04 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered Improvement Project 09-04, the Stillwater Road/TH 5 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 Stillwater Road/TH 5 Improvements, City Project 09-04, is complete and recommends acceptance of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that 1. City Project 09-04 is complete and maintenance of these improvements is accepted by the city; and the final construction cost is $1,418,268.45. Final payment to T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Incorporated, and the release of any retainage or escrow is hereby authorized. Approved this 26th day of September, 2011. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All The motion passed. Packet Page Number 8 of 248 September 26, 2011 7 City Council Meeting Minutes H. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Renewable Energy Ordinance – First Reading Environmental Planner Shann Finwall presented the staff report and answered questions of the Council. Environmental Natural Resources Commissioner Ginny Yingling and Planning Commissioner Gary Pierson addressed the council to give further details about the ordinance as it related to their respective commissions. Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing. The following people addressed the council: 1. Mark Bradley, Maplewood 2. Bob Zick, North St. Paul Mayor Rossbach closed the public hearing. Councilmember Llanas moved to adopt the First Reading of the Renewable Energy Ordinance with additional information and corrections indicted by the council for the second reading. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Trash Collection System Analysis - Request for Authorization to Negotiate a Draft Trash Collection Contract with the Top Ranked Proposer Councilmember Llanas moved to table the Trash Collection System Analysis – Request for Authorization to Negotiate a Draft Trash Collection Contract with the Top Ranked Proposer to the October 10, 2011 City Council Meeting. Seconded by Mayor Rossbach Ayes – Councilmembers Llanas and Nephew, Mayor Rossbach Nays – Councilmembers Juenemann and Koppen The motion passed. Councilmember Nephew moved to schedule a Special City Council Workshop meeting on Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 5:15 p.m. to discuss the trash collection system analysis and review of the confidential proposals submitted in response to the RFP. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. Mayor Rossbach called for a 10 minute recess. The council resumed at 9:53 p.m. J. NEW BUSINESS 1. Reciprocal Easement Agreement, Design Review and Right-of-Way Vacation – Beam Avenue Medical Building, north side of Beam Avenue, east of White Bear Avenue Packet Page Number 9 of 248 September 26, 2011 8 City Council Meeting Minutes City Planner Mike Martin presented the planning report and answered questions of the council. Recreation Supervisor Jim Taylor presented the parks report and answered questions of the council. Housing Redevelopment Authority Chair Gary Pearson addressed the council and gave the commission report. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Site and Design Plans for the Medical Office Building subject to recommendations 1. a thru f in the staff report. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the Reciprocal Easement Agreement. Seconded by Mayor Rossbach Ayes – All The motion passed. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Vacation Resolution. Resolution 11-9-630 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Dan Regan, of Airlake Development, applied for the vacation of the following: The East 30 feet of the southerly 175 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 29, Range 22, lying North of Beam Avenue. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On September 6, 2011, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. 2. On September 26, 2011, the city council considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following property, which is indicated by its property identification number: PIN: 02-29-22-13-0035 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above- described vacation for the following reasons: a. It is in the public interest. b. The city is not using the right-of-way for a public street. c. The right-of-way is not needed for street access purposes as the adjacent properties have street access on Beam Avenue. This vacation is subject to: a. Ensure the continued dedication of any utility easements within the area of the unused right-of-way. Packet Page Number 10 of 248 September 26, 2011 9 City Council Meeting Minutes The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on September 26, 2011. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. K. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 1. Bob Zick, North St. Paul 2. Ralph E. Sletten, Maplewood 3. Mark Bradley, Sr., Maplewood 4. Elizabeth Sletten, Maplewood 5. Chris Greene, Maplewood 6. Diana Longrie, Maplewood 7. Willie Tennis, Tennis Sanitation 8. Rich Hirstein, Allied Waste Services 9. Pete Kubesh, Maplewood 10. Gene Wegleitner, Gene’s Disposal L. AWARD OF BIDS 1. Award Construction Contract – Maplewood Mall Sidewalk Improvements, City Project 11-09 Assistant City Manager Ahl gave the staff report and answered questions of the Council. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Resolution for Receiving Bids and Award a Construction Contract for the Maplewood Mall Sidewalk Improvements, City Project 11-09. Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All The motion passed. M. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. Recommendation to Cancel Council Workshop on Monday October 3, 2011 Assistant City Manager Ahl requested the City Council Workshop scheduled for Monday, October 3, 2011 be cancelled. N. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. Grand Reopening at the Maplewood Community Center Councilmember Juenemann announced the grand reopening at the Maplewood Community Center on Saturday, October 8, 2011. O. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Rossbach adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Packet Page Number 11 of 248 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Packet Page Number 12 of 248 Agenda Item F1 AGENDA REPORT TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Presentation by Roseville School District [Superintendant Thein] DATE: October 4, 2011 INTRODUCTION Roseville School District Superintendant Thein will give a presentation on the district and be available to answer any questions. No action on this item. Attachment: 1. Powerpoint Presentation Slides Packet Page Number 13 of 248 1 Demographic Report 1 Executive Summary October 2010 Office of the Assistant Superintendent Source: MARSS Data 10-1-10 American Indian: 51 1% Asian: 1,149 17% Hispanic: 590 District Enrollment 6,627 Roseville Area Schools: Ethnic Composition 2 p 9% Black: 864 13% White: 3,973 60% MARSS Data 10-1-10 Roseville Area Schools Five Year Trend: District Enrollment by Ethnicity # S t u 4459 4241 4172 4084 3973 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 White 3 Asian Black Hispanic American Indian u d e n t s 836 964 1,034 1047 1149 659 719 755 792 864 400 472 490 538 590 49 55 62 54 51 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 06‐07 07‐08 08‐09 09‐10 10‐11 MARSS Data 10-1-10 Agenda Item F1 Atttachment Packet Page Number 14 of 248 2 Roseville Area Schools: Students of Color 47% 62% 59% 50% 40% 50% 69% 62% 50% 42% 69% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2009‐10 2010‐11 4 37% 28% 31% 19% 38% 32% 26% 35% 20% 33% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% District BH CP EDG FH LC EDW PCS RAMS RAHS FAHS MARSS Data 10-1-10 Roseville Area Schools: Students of Color Elementary (K-8) vs. Secondary (9-12) Trend 36% 38% 40% 43% 35% 40% 50% 5 32% 27% 31% 32% 33% 35% 20% 30% 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 2010‐11 Elementary Secondary Roseville Area Schools: Languages All 6627 Students 51 Languages other than 6 English spoken at home: 1,539 students (23%) 949 ELL Students served (14%) Agenda Item F1 Atttachment Packet Page Number 15 of 248 3 Roseville Area Schools: Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Enrollment 10-11 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 7 7% 39% 14% 4% 16% 32% 27% 10% 18%16%14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% RAHS FAHS RAMS PCS BH CP EDG FH LC EDW District 84% 47% 70% 65% 58% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Roseville Area Schools: Free & Reduced Priced Meals 10-11 8 36% 13% 41% 27% 35% 41% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% RAHS FAHS RAMS PCS BH CP EDG FH LC EDW District Roseville Area Schools: Free & Reduced Priced Meals Trend 27% 29% 33% 35% 35% 41% 30% 35% 40% 45% 9 19% 21% 24% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 2010‐11 Agenda Item F1 Atttachment Packet Page Number 16 of 248 4 American Indian: 42 1% Asian: 1,060 18% Roseville Area Schools: Resident Ethnic Composition 10 Hispanic: 509 9% Black: 746 13% White: 3,361 59% American Indian: 9 1% Asian: 89 10% Hispanic: 81 9% Roseville Area Schools: Non-Resident Ethnic Composition 11 Black: 118 13% White: 612 67% Agenda Item F1 Atttachment Packet Page Number 17 of 248 Agenda Item F2 AGENDA REPORT TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Consider Reappointment of James Meehan to Police Civil Service Commission DATE: October 4, 2011 INTRODUCTION James Meehan was appointed to fill a vacancy on the Police Civil Service Commission on February 28, 2011. He was appointed to serve the remainder of an existing term that expires December 31st, 2011. Because James has only served a short time on the commission, and he has expressed an interest to continue serving on the commission, staff recommends that the City Council reappointment James Meehan to the Police Civil Service Commission. The term will expire to December 31, 2014. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council pass the attached resolution to reappoint James Meehan to the Police Civil Service Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2014. Attachment 1. Resolution for Appointment Packet Page Number 18 of 248 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. ______ BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: Hereby appoints the following individuals, who have interviewed with the Maplewood City Council, to serve on the following commissions: Police Civil Service Commission - James Meehan, term expires December 31, 2014 Packet Page Number 19 of 248 Agenda Item F3 AGENDA REPORT TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Appointment to the Board of Water Commissioners DATE: October 4, 2011 INTRODUCTION According to the 2002 Joint Powers Agreement with the St. Paul Regional Waters Services and several suburban communities, 2 seats are reserved on the Board of Water Commissioners for suburban representatives. Representatives serve 2 year terms and the suburban communities involved rotate representation on the board. It is now Maplewood’s turn to select a representative to serve on the board to serve a two year term. RECOMMENDATION The Council should select a member from the City Council to serve on the Board of Water Commissioners. Packet Page Number 20 of 248 Agenda Item F3 Attachment Packet Page Number 21 of 248 Agenda Item F3 Attachment Packet Page Number 22 of 248 Agenda Item F3 AttachmentPacket Page Number 23 of 248 Agenda Item F3 Attachment Packet Page Number 24 of 248 Agenda Item F3 AttachmentPacket Page Number 25 of 248 Agenda Item F3 Attachment Packet Page Number 26 of 248 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 9-23-11 and 9-30-11 AGENDA NO.G-1 TO:City Council FROM:Finance Manager RE:APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: 607,269.30$ Checks # 85258 thru # 85301 dated 9/27/11 321,660.42$ Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 9/19/11 thru 9/23/11 988,123.94$ Checks # 85302 thru # 85346 dated 9/27/11 thru 10/4/11 254,290.77$ Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 9/23/11 thru 9/29/11 2,171,344.43$ Total Accounts Payable 505,298.22$ Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 9/30/11 725.00$ Payroll Deduction check # 9984920 dated 9/30/11 506,023.22$ Total Payroll 2,677,367.65$ GRAND TOTAL sb 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 October 10, 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 27 of 248 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 9-23-11 and 9-30-11 Check Description Amount 85258 04206 PROSECUTION & LEGAL SRVS - OCT 16,100.00 85259 00687 REMOVAL STORM DAMAGE HANGERS 2,422.86 00687 TREE REMOVAL 2152 PROSPERITY 2,372.09 00687 TREE TRIMMING/STREET CLEARANCE 641.25 00687 TREE TRIMMING 2976 FREDERICK 534.38 00687 TOP TREES FOR CITY CREW REMOVAL 427.50 85260 00985 WASTEWATER - OCTOBER 216,688.14 85261 04316 AUTO PAWN SYSTEM - AUGUST 720.00 85262 01202 MAPLEWOOD MONTHLY/SEASONS SEPT 5,670.41 85263 01337 911 DISPATCH SERVICES - AUG 24,088.75 85264 01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 5,640.38 01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 3,812.46 01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 2,041.89 01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 256.44 01190 FIRE SIRENS 51.71 85265 01798 CONTRACT GASOLINE - SEPT 16,847.27 01798 CONTRACT DIESEL - SEPT 8,861.39 85266 00064 REIMB FOR MEALS 8/22 - 8/23 19.06 85267 02411 SCBA COMPRESSOR SRVS/MAINT 1,325.00 85268 02324 BEAVER CREEK -SPOT HERBICIDE 814.39 85269 03738 RETAINER FOR LEGAL SRVS & RENT-OCT 6,375.00 85270 04260 REFUND FOR TRANS MEDIC MW02607 2,003.44 85271 02401 REGISTRATION FEE 1,300.00 85272 00531 BLACK DIRT EASTSHORE DR 122.22 85273 04930 REGISTRATION FEES 75.00 85274 04846 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 21.80 85275 00644 MONTHLY PREMIUM - OCTOBER 11,255.45 85276 00827 CLAIM DEDUCTIBLE #11077285 709.70 85277 04927 CADD SYSTEM 26,600.00 85278 04310 MEMBERSHIP DUES 70.00 85279 03324 DESIGN & GRAPHICS FOR 3 TRAILS 900.00 85280 03818 MONTHLY PREMIUM - OCTOBER 144,017.24 85281 02617 REIMB FOR GAS & MEAL 9/14-9/15 68.48 85282 01085 MONTHLY PREMIUM - OCTOBER 3,746.30 85283 01060 REGISTRATION FEES 350.00 85284 01175 MONTHLY UTILITIES 3,673.59 85285 01216 AQUATICS AREA DIAMOND BRITE AND PLAY 11,068.00 85286 00001 REFUND J WIDHOLM BCBS BENEFIT 220.00 85287 00001 REIMB M BLOEMENDAL - TREE REBATE 200.00 85288 00001 REFUND M KPADEH PARTY CANCELLED 199.99 85289 00001 REFUND B HAAK EVENT CANCELLED 40.00 85290 00001 REFUND B BLOOD EVENT CANCELLED 35.00 85291 00001 REIMB J ARENDS - TREE REBATE 23.50 85292 00001 REFUND L AMON EVENT CANCELLED 15.00 85293 00001 REFUND C VOS EVENT CANCELLED 15.00 85294 00001 REFUND J WALCZAK EVENT CANCELLED 15.00 85295 01267 INSERT TASTE OF MAPLEWOOD 680.65 85296 01284 MAILING CITY NEWS/REC PROG - NOV 4,500.00 85297 02001 MONTHLY JOINT POWERS SRVS - SEPT 625.00 85298 03215 PROJ 02-07 D & HAZELWOOD FINAL PMT 77,320.63 85299 01836 STREET LIGHT REPAIR 119.81 01836 CRIME LAB SERVICES - AUGUST 95.00 85300 01669 FORFEITED VEHICLE TOWING FEE-AUG 1,048.13 Check Register City of Maplewood 09/23/2011 Date Vendor 09/27/2011 H.A. KANTRUD 09/27/2011 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC 09/27/2011 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC 09/27/2011 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 09/27/2011 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC 09/27/2011 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC 09/27/2011 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC 09/27/2011 XCEL ENERGY 09/27/2011 XCEL ENERGY 09/27/2011 XCEL ENERGY 09/27/2011 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS RECEIVABLES 09/27/2011 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC 09/27/2011 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 09/27/2011 YOCUM OIL CO. 09/27/2011 MARK ALDRIDGE 09/27/2011 ALEX AIR APPARATUS INC 09/27/2011 XCEL ENERGY 09/27/2011 XCEL ENERGY 09/27/2011 YOCUM OIL CO. 09/27/2011 CITY OF BURNSVILLE 09/27/2011 FRA-DOR INC. 09/27/2011 GPRS 09/27/2011 APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 09/27/2011 CHARLES E. BETHEL 09/27/2011 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MN 09/27/2011 MANAGED DESIGN, LLC 09/27/2011 MCFOA 09/27/2011 MCGREGOR DESIGN 09/27/2011 HEALTHEAST 09/27/2011 HEALTHPARTNERS 09/27/2011 L M C I T 09/27/2011 MN STATE FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC 09/27/2011 CITY OF NORTH ST PAUL 09/27/2011 OLYMPIC POOLS INC 09/27/2011 MEDICA 09/27/2011 ALESIA METRY 09/27/2011 MN LIFE INSURANCE 09/27/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 09/27/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 09/27/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 09/27/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 09/27/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 09/27/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 09/27/2011 PIONEER PRESS 09/27/2011 POSTMASTER 09/27/2011 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 09/27/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 09/27/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 09/27/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 09/27/2011 TWIN CITIES TRANSPORT & 09/27/2011 SHAFER CONTRACTING CO INC 09/27/2011 CITY OF ST PAUL 09/27/2011 CITY OF ST PAUL Packet Page Number 28 of 248 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 9-23-11 and 9-30-11 85301 03378 TOOL ALLOWANCE PER UNION CONTRACT 425.0009/27/2011 MATT WOEHRLE 607,269.3044Checks in this report. Packet Page Number 29 of 248 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 9-23-11 and 9-30-11 Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee Description Amount 9/14/2011 9/19/2011 U.S. Treasurer Federal Payroll Tax 94,520.78 9/14/2011 9/19/2011 P.E.R.A.P.E.R.A.90,774.62 9/14/2011 9/19/2011 MN Dept of Revenue Sales Tax 5,546.00 9/16/2011 9/19/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 10,710.64 9/14/2011 9/20/2011 MN State Treasurer State Payroll Tax 20,597.48 9/14/2011 9/20/2011 MidAmerica - ING HRA Flex plan 14,502.30 9/19/2011 9/20/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 12,182.82 9/14/2011 9/21/2011 MN Dept of Revenue Fuel Tax 305.20 9/20/2011 9/21/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 14,116.18 9/21/2011 9/22/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 28,705.35 9/16/2011 9/23/2011 Optum Health DCRP & Flex plan payments 1,963.15 9/22/2011 9/23/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 27,035.73 9/22/2011 9/23/2011 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 700.17 TOTAL 321,660.42 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Packet Page Number 30 of 248 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 9-23-11 and 9-30-11 Check Description Amount 85302 02464 FUNDS FOR ATMS 10,000.00 85303 04640 PROJ 08-09 LIONS PARK IMP PMT#6 5,099.12 85304 04640 PROJ 08-09 LIONS PARK IMP PMT#7 51,305.36 85305 00157 PROJ 10-14 PROF SRVS 7/16 - 8/12 4,064.50 85306 00519 ALUMINUM EXTENSION TUBES #616 1,148.48 85307 01337 PLANTS 547.20 85308 01409 PROJ 09-08 ENGINEERING 25,416.31 01409 PROJ 04-21 ENGINEERING 14,305.38 01409 PROJ 11-19 ENGINEERING 2,379.05 01409 PROJ 11-13 ENGINEERING 1,401.78 01409 PROJ 10-01 ENGINEERING 670.00 01409 PROJ 11-13 ENGINEERING 190.50 01409 PROJ 10-14 ENGINEERING 167.40 01409 PROJ 04-21 ENGINEERING -8.00 85309 01574 PROJ 10-14 WESTERN HILLS PARTPMT#6 791,574.03 01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS NOT TO EXCEED 1,598.79 01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS NOT TO EXCEED 300.05 85310 01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 24,506.03 85311 02074 REIMB FOR MEALS 9/18 - 9/21 162.00 85312 00090 CHARITABLE GAMBLING 800.00 85313 00211 PROJ 04-21 PROF SRVS THRU 9/9 3,211.75 85314 04862 PROJ 09-13 APPRAISALS 6,000.00 85315 04805 PROJ 10-14 PROF SRVS 5/17 - 7/31 6,887.50 85316 02929 LTC MONTHLY PREMIUM - OCT 479.54 85317 00403 CHARITABLE GAMBLING 1,050.00 85318 03619 PROJ 10-14 TELEVISING 81.00 85319 00003 ESCROW REL KETTLER 349 SOPHIA 1,500.00 00003 ESCROW REL KETTLER 351 SOPHIA 1,500.00 85320 00003 ESCROW REL BIC DEVELOPMENT 814.70 85321 00003 ESCROW REL LODAHL 433 O'DAY CIR 500.00 85322 04867 PROF SRVS THRU 9/9 2,289.20 85323 03597 REIMB FOR MILEAGE 8/9 - 9/22 13.60 85324 00827 CLAIM DEDUCTIBLE #11077440 2,277.64 85325 00932 MDSE FOR RESALE 470.38 00932 MDSE FOR RESALE 431.16 85326 02823 SECURITY OFFICER FOR MCC SPET 17 210.00 85327 04849 TEXAS HOLD'EM INSTUCTOR 108.00 85328 04507 PROJ 09-15 PROF SRVS 7/31 - 9/3 365.00 85329 00001 REIMB R MAZANEC DRIVEWAY APRON 1,880.45 85330 00001 REIMB T DEVANEY - DRIVEWAY 1,444.67 85331 00001 REIMB C BREWSTER - TREE 800.00 85332 00001 REIMB B HASSE DRIVEWAY APRON 542.40 85333 00001 REFUND C FITCH BCBS BENEFIT 200.00 85334 00001 REIMB P RUNNING SPRINKLER SYSTEM 186.00 85335 00001 REFUND D WATNEMO MEMBERSHIP 80.37 85336 00001 REFUND R DAKAM CLASS CANCELATION 60.00 85337 00001 REIMB C DORDING DRIVEWAY 14.55 85338 01387 ADMIN FEE FOR STRESS TEST - SEPT 100.00 85339 01418 VENDING MACHINE SUPPLIES 253.32 01418 MOVIE NIGHT/CARVER GYM SUPPLIES 205.98 01418 DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 121.83 01418 TASTE OF MAPLEWOOD PRODUCT 102.04 01418 SUPPLIES EMP PICNIC/CITY COUNCIL 67.8610/04/2011 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 10/04/2011 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 10/04/2011 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 10/04/2011 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 10/04/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 10/04/2011 DR. JAMES ROSSINI 10/04/2011 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 10/04/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 10/04/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 10/04/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 10/04/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 10/04/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 10/04/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 10/04/2011 NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 10/04/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 10/04/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR 10/04/2011 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY 10/04/2011 JERROLD MARTIN 10/04/2011 RICHARD NIELSEN 10/04/2011 MARY JO HOFMEISTER 10/04/2011 L M C I T 10/04/2011 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY 10/04/2011 ESCROW REFUND 10/04/2011 ESCROW REFUND 10/04/2011 FOTH INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIR 10/04/2011 DRAIN KING INC 10/04/2011 ESCROW REFUND 10/04/2011 ESCROW REFUND 10/04/2011 CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING 10/04/2011 CNAGLAC 10/04/2011 DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER 10/04/2011 AMERICAN RED CROSS 10/04/2011 BRAUN INTERTEC CORP. 10/04/2011 BRKW APPRAISALS, INC. 10/04/2011 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 10/04/2011 XCEL ENERGY 10/04/2011 R CHARLES AHL 10/04/2011 S.E.H. 10/04/2011 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 10/04/2011 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 10/04/2011 S.E.H. 10/04/2011 S.E.H. 10/04/2011 S.E.H. 10/04/2011 S.E.H. 10/04/2011 S.E.H. 10/04/2011 S.E.H. 10/04/2011 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 10/04/2011 S.E.H. 09/30/2011 FITOL HINTZ CONSTRUCTION INC. 09/30/2011 FITOL HINTZ CONSTRUCTION INC. 10/04/2011 BARR ENGINEERING CO Check Register City of Maplewood 09/29/2011 Date Vendor 09/27/2011 US BANK 10/04/2011 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL CO. Packet Page Number 31 of 248 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 9-23-11 and 9-30-11 85339 01418 SUPPLIES FOR DAY CAMP 18.00 01418 BUTTER FOR NSP 5K PANCAKES 9.98 01418 PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9.68 01418 TASTE OF MAPLEWOOD PRODUCT 7.98 85340 03879 EMS FEES - OCT 577.08 85341 00198 WATER UTILITY 360.90 85342 03642 MCC LOCKER ROOM REPAINT PROJ 14,455.00 85343 01578 SAFETY GLOVES FOR UTILITY DEPT 264.60 85344 04352 DENT REMOVAL ON SQUADS 1,260.00 04352 DENT REMOVAL ON SQUADS 100.00 85345 04931 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 997.32 85346 01807 REIMB FOR MILEAGE 9/18 - 9/22 186.4810/04/2011 SUSAN ZWIEG 988,123.9445Checks in this report. 10/04/2011 ULTIMATE DENT WORKS 10/04/2011 ULTIMATE DENT WORKS 10/04/2011 VIDACARE CORP 10/04/2011 ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER SRVS 10/04/2011 SWANSON & YOUNGDALE 10/04/2011 T R F SUPPLY CO. 10/04/2011 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 10/04/2011 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 10/04/2011 SANSIO 10/04/2011 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 10/04/2011 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT Packet Page Number 32 of 248 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 9-23-11 and 9-30-11 Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee Description Amount 9/23/2011 9/26/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 27,766.98 9/26/2011 9/27/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 40,193.72 9/23/2011 9/28/2011 US Bank VISA One Card*Purchasing card items 3,276.50 9/27/2011 9/28/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 48,346.17 9/28/2011 9/29/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 33,703.09 9/23/2011 9/30/2011 US Bank VISA One Card*Purchasing card items 48,521.23 9/28/2011 9/30/2011 ICMA (Vantagepointe)Deferred Compensation 4,312.76 9/28/2011 9/30/2011 ING - State Plan Deferred Compensation 27,573.00 9/29/2011 9/30/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 20,514.32 9/29/2011 9/30/2011 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 83.00 TOTAL 254,290.77 *Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Packet Page Number 33 of 248 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 9-23-11 and 9-30-11 Packet Page Number 34 of 248 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 9-23-11 and 9-30-11 Transaction Date Posting Date Merchant Name Transaction Amount Name 09/15/2011 09/19/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $117.98 MARKESE BENJAMIN 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 VIKING ELECTRIC - CREDIT $905.37 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 09/15/2011 09/16/2011 VIKING ELECTRIC - CREDIT $119.69 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 09/19/2011 09/20/2011 VIKING ELECTRIC - CREDIT $74.19 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 G&K SERVICES 182 $114.08 CHARLES DEAVER 09/14/2011 09/16/2011 LE #869 WOODBURY $22.50 VIRGINIA ERICKSON 09/08/2011 09/12/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $18.64 JEAN GLASS 09/19/2011 09/21/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $41.89 JEAN GLASS 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 VZWRLSS*APOCC VISN $97.01 KAREN E GUILFOILE 09/08/2011 09/12/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $188.17 RON HORWATH 09/14/2011 09/16/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $22.43 RON HORWATH 09/14/2011 09/16/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $56.66 RON HORWATH 09/20/2011 09/22/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 ($24.60)RON HORWATH 09/15/2011 09/19/2011 ASPEN MILLS INC.$214.50 STEVE LUKIN 09/21/2011 09/23/2011 PAKOR INC $238.33 SHELLY NEPHEW 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 G&K SERVICES 182 $804.91 AMY NIVEN 09/14/2011 09/16/2011 ANDON BALLOONS INC -$38.48 CHRISTINE PENN 09/08/2011 09/12/2011 WHEELCO BRAKE &SUPPLY $60.87 STEVEN PRIEM 09/15/2011 09/16/2011 FACTORY MTR PTS #1 $55.41 STEVEN PRIEM 09/08/2011 09/12/2011 GRAND VIEW LODGE & TENNIS $109.99 JOANNE M SVENDSEN $3,276.50 Packet Page Number 35 of 248 Transaction Date Posting Date Merchant Name Transaction Amount Name 09/21/2011 09/23/2011 HILTON HOTELS $841.84 JAMES ANTONEN 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 HISTORY THEATRE $57.00 MANDY ANZALDI 09/08/2011 09/12/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $157.29 JIM BEHAN 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 SEELYE PLASTICS $33.66 JIM BEHAN 09/12/2011 09/13/2011 MENARDS 3059 $7.52 JIM BEHAN 09/12/2011 09/14/2011 CVS PHARMACY #1751 Q03 $25.67 JIM BEHAN 09/12/2011 09/14/2011 CVS PHARMACY #1751 Q03 $4.49 JIM BEHAN 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $142.75 JIM BEHAN 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER $690.56 JIM BEHAN 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER $720.59 JIM BEHAN 09/15/2011 09/15/2011 STATE SUPPLY $124.85 JIM BEHAN 09/19/2011 09/20/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $10.26 JIM BEHAN 09/20/2011 09/21/2011 MENARDS 3022 $281.10 JIM BEHAN 09/20/2011 09/22/2011 NUCO2 01 OF 01 $72.72 JIM BEHAN 09/20/2011 09/22/2011 NUCO2 01 OF 01 $125.59 JIM BEHAN 09/20/2011 09/22/2011 NUCO2 01 OF 01 $70.24 JIM BEHAN 09/20/2011 09/22/2011 NUCO2 01 OF 01 $72.16 JIM BEHAN 09/20/2011 09/22/2011 NUCO2 01 OF 01 $139.81 JIM BEHAN 09/20/2011 09/22/2011 NUCO2 01 OF 01 $125.59 JIM BEHAN 09/21/2011 09/21/2011 STATE SUPPLY $132.86 JIM BEHAN 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 MENARDS 3022 ($42.28)JIM BEHAN 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 MENARDS 3022 $39.72 JIM BEHAN 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 MENARDS 3022 $38.47 JIM BEHAN 09/22/2011 09/22/2011 SPORTSMITH $44.64 JIM BEHAN 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 WM SUPERCENTER SE2 $73.28 NEIL BRENEMAN 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 VALLEY TROPHY $68.40 NEIL BRENEMAN 09/19/2011 09/20/2011 DICK'S CLOTHING&SPORTING $12.83 NEIL BRENEMAN 09/19/2011 09/21/2011 ALPHA VIDEO + AUDIO IN $566.77 NEIL BRENEMAN 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 CONCRETE FORM ENGINEERS $17.70 TROY BRINK 09/20/2011 09/22/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $24.54 TROY BRINK 09/12/2011 09/13/2011 CHILI'S-MAPLEWOOD $135.47 SARAH BURLINGAME 09/17/2011 09/19/2011 TARGET 00018325 $10.46 SARAH BURLINGAME 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $72.44 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $289.54 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 MENARDS 3022 $7.38 CHARLES DEAVER 09/12/2011 09/13/2011 SDHARDWRE HARDWARESOURCE $119.17 CHARLES DEAVER 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 MENARDS 3022 $10.13 CHARLES DEAVER 09/17/2011 09/19/2011 MENARDS 3022 $32.24 CHARLES DEAVER 09/21/2011 09/23/2011 RYCO SUPPLY COMPANY $73.44 CHARLES DEAVER 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 OAKDALE RENTAL CENTER $197.11 THOMAS DEBILZAN 09/12/2011 09/14/2011 SOUTHWESTAIR5262199159316 $400.80 RICHARD DOBLAR 09/20/2011 09/22/2011 ARBY'S #6910 00069104 $6.31 RICHARD DOBLAR 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 POTBELLY 093 $8.78 RICHARD DOBLAR 09/21/2011 09/23/2011 OFFICE MAX $23.02 RICHARD DOBLAR 09/08/2011 09/12/2011 OAKDALE RENTAL CENTER $186.40 DOUG EDGE 09/08/2011 09/12/2011 TRI-STATE BOBCAT INC.$73.74 DOUG EDGE 09/15/2011 09/19/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $29.81 DOUG EDGE 09/20/2011 09/22/2011 MIKES LP GAS INC $151.20 DOUG EDGE 09/08/2011 09/12/2011 NAPA STORE 3279016 $61.16 DAVE EDSON 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 MENARDS 3022 $807.72 DAVE EDSON 09/14/2011 09/16/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $57.62 DAVE EDSON 09/15/2011 09/16/2011 MENARDS 3022 $130.78 DAVE EDSON 09/22/2011 09/23/2011 NW LASERS AND INSTRUMENT $43.05 ANDREW ENGSTROM 09/08/2011 09/12/2011 WALGREENS #7388 $155.98 PAUL E EVERSON 09/10/2011 09/12/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $18.10 PAUL E EVERSON 09/12/2011 09/13/2011 OREILLY AUTO 00032565 $7.49 PAUL E EVERSON 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 SEARS ROEBUCK 1032 $134.49 LARRY FARR Packet Page Number 36 of 248 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 G&K SERVICES 182 $303.70 LARRY FARR 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 G&K SERVICES 182 $543.00 LARRY FARR 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 YALE MECHANICAL LLC $1,124.53 LARRY FARR 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $20.28 LARRY FARR 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 ST PAUL WATER UTILITY $53.82 LARRY FARR 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 ACE SUPPLY CO., INC.$743.32 LARRY FARR 09/14/2011 09/16/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $41.39 LARRY FARR 09/14/2011 09/16/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $174.30 LARRY FARR 09/14/2011 09/16/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $21.92 LARRY FARR 09/15/2011 09/16/2011 ACE SUPPLY CO., INC.$652.35 LARRY FARR 09/15/2011 09/19/2011 SEARS ROEBUCK 1032 $73.35 LARRY FARR 09/15/2011 09/19/2011 BEISSWENGERS HARDWARE $28.39 LARRY FARR 09/15/2011 09/19/2011 ACME ELECTRONICS CENTER I $581.92 LARRY FARR 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $101.31 LARRY FARR 09/17/2011 09/19/2011 MENARDS 3022 $226.03 LARRY FARR 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 KEEFE CO PARKING $6.50 DAVID FISHER 09/15/2011 09/19/2011 KAHLER GRAND $105.81 DAVID FISHER 09/17/2011 09/19/2011 CURTIS 1000 INC.$93.15 KAREN FORMANEK 09/12/2011 09/14/2011 CUSTOMER SUPT CENTER $898.02 MYCHAL FOWLDS 09/13/2011 09/13/2011 PAY FLOW PRO $64.55 MYCHAL FOWLDS 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTION $1,348.63 MYCHAL FOWLDS 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTION $427.80 MYCHAL FOWLDS 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTION $443.12 MYCHAL FOWLDS 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTION $57.11 MYCHAL FOWLDS 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 SHI CORP $311.74 MYCHAL FOWLDS 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTION $798.73 MYCHAL FOWLDS 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTION $798.73 MYCHAL FOWLDS 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 IDU*PUBLIC SECTOR $365.96 NICK FRANZEN 09/10/2011 09/12/2011 IDU*PUBLIC SECTOR $252.04 NICK FRANZEN 09/10/2011 09/12/2011 IDU*PUBLIC SECTOR $53.58 NICK FRANZEN 09/12/2011 09/13/2011 TARGET 00006940 $14.13 NICK FRANZEN 09/17/2011 09/19/2011 HP DIRECT-PUBLICSECTOR $253.37 NICK FRANZEN 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 IDU*PUBLIC SECTOR $17.50 NICK FRANZEN 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 SHI CORP $2,213.21 NICK FRANZEN 09/13/2011 09/15/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $749.81 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $25.67 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 09/08/2011 09/12/2011 OFFICE MAX $31.05 CLARENCE GERVAIS 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 FEDEX OFFICE #0617 $202.25 CLARENCE GERVAIS 09/15/2011 09/19/2011 YOCUM OIL CO $88.00 MARK HAAG 09/20/2011 09/21/2011 ABLE HOSE & RUBBER, INC $55.31 MARK HAAG 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 MENARDS 3059 $11.78 MARK HAAG 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $75.99 GARY HINNENKAMP 09/16/2011 09/21/2011 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC $501.44 DAVID JAHN 09/15/2011 09/16/2011 ABLE HOSE & RUBBER, INC $327.68 DON JONES 09/12/2011 09/14/2011 SUBWAY 00052159 $12.86 DUWAYNE KONEWKO 09/19/2011 09/20/2011 MENARDS 3059 $26.77 JASON KREGER 09/13/2011 09/13/2011 COMCAST CABLE COMM $34.00 DAVID KVAM 09/15/2011 09/19/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $149.99 DAVID KVAM 09/15/2011 09/19/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $31.00 DAVID KVAM 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 SHRED IT $49.00 DAVID KVAM 09/19/2011 09/21/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $38.67 DAVID KVAM 09/20/2011 09/20/2011 COMCAST CABLE COMM $59.95 DAVID KVAM 09/20/2011 09/22/2011 KEEPRS INC 1 $2,400.00 DAVID KVAM 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 AMAZON.COM $56.46 DAVID KVAM 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 OVERHEAD DOOR COMP $186.95 STEVE LUKIN 09/15/2011 09/16/2011 MENARDS 3059 $32.11 STEVE LUKIN 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 ARBY'S #1152 00011528 ($15.36)STEVE LUKIN 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 ARBY'S #1152 00011528 $15.36 STEVE LUKIN Packet Page Number 37 of 248 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 VIKING ELECTRIC - ST PAUL $160.73 STEVE LUKIN 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 WW GRAINGER $261.10 STEVE LUKIN 09/18/2011 09/19/2011 STREET TALK MAPLEWOOD $17.15 STEVE LUKIN 09/19/2011 09/20/2011 NOVACARE REHB/HEALT $200.00 STEVE LUKIN 09/19/2011 09/21/2011 CUBBY S INC 07049471 $35.01 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 G&K SERVICES 182 $212.28 MARK MARUSKA 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 HUGO'S TREE CARE $1,750.61 MARK MARUSKA 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 HUNT ELECTRIC CORPORATION $4,088.31 MARK MARUSKA 09/22/2011 09/23/2011 MERIT CHEVROLET $46.29 MARK MARUSKA 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 MASIMO $22.82 MICHAEL MONDOR 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $90.72 MICHAEL MONDOR 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $6.25 MICHAEL MONDOR 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $66.54 MICHAEL MONDOR 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $50.00 MICHAEL MONDOR 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $904.74 MICHAEL MONDOR 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $320.00 MICHAEL MONDOR 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $233.30 MICHAEL MONDOR 09/14/2011 09/16/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $26.75 MICHAEL MONDOR 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $370.00 MICHAEL MONDOR 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 TAKE A NUMBER, INC $388.95 SHELLY NEPHEW 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1080 $3.13 MARY KAY PALANK 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $84.76 MARY KAY PALANK 09/14/2011 09/16/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $117.79 MARY KAY PALANK 09/08/2011 09/12/2011 ORIENTAL TRADING CO $87.23 CHRISTINE PENN 09/10/2011 09/12/2011 DOLRTREE 4375 00043752 $30.00 CHRISTINE PENN 09/10/2011 09/12/2011 CVS PHARMACY #1751 Q03 $12.81 CHRISTINE PENN 09/12/2011 09/13/2011 CANDYWAREHOUSE.COM, INC.$46.06 CHRISTINE PENN 09/17/2011 09/19/2011 PARTY CITY #768 $50.23 CHRISTINE PENN 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 CUB FOODS, INC.$58.87 CHRISTINE PENN 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 MAINE SUPPLY CO $227.45 CHRISTINE PENN 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $13.14 ROBERT PETERSON 09/22/2011 09/23/2011 BEST BUY MHT 00000109 $85.68 PHILIP F POWELL 09/22/2011 09/23/2011 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $36.00 PHILIP F POWELL 09/08/2011 09/12/2011 TURF WERKS EGAN $498.49 STEVEN PRIEM 09/08/2011 09/12/2011 DAVIS EQUIPMENT $141.68 STEVEN PRIEM 09/08/2011 09/12/2011 HYDRAULIC SPECIALTY COMPA $158.38 STEVEN PRIEM 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $56.53 STEVEN PRIEM 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $32.89 STEVEN PRIEM 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $93.99 STEVEN PRIEM 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 PIONEER RIM & WHEEL HQ $96.53 STEVEN PRIEM 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 ZIEGLER INC - RETAIL $14.83 STEVEN PRIEM 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 NUSS TRUCK AND EQUIPT $248.19 STEVEN PRIEM 09/12/2011 09/13/2011 OREILLY AUTO 00020743 $73.21 STEVEN PRIEM 09/12/2011 09/14/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL ($93.99)STEVEN PRIEM 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $4.49 STEVEN PRIEM 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $21.24 STEVEN PRIEM 09/13/2011 09/15/2011 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $63.12 STEVEN PRIEM 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL ($21.24)STEVEN PRIEM 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $178.51 STEVEN PRIEM 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 BAUER BUILT TIRE 18 $757.29 STEVEN PRIEM 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 BAUER BUILT TIRE 18 $400.69 STEVEN PRIEM 09/15/2011 09/16/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $5.04 STEVEN PRIEM 09/15/2011 09/19/2011 TURF WERKS OMAHA $26.16 STEVEN PRIEM 09/15/2011 09/19/2011 WHEELCO BRAKE &SUPPLY $19.84 STEVEN PRIEM 09/15/2011 09/20/2011 BAUER BUILT TIRE 18 ($206.43)STEVEN PRIEM 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS $478.80 STEVEN PRIEM 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $150.65 STEVEN PRIEM 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 BAUER BUILT TIRE 18 $1,561.57 STEVEN PRIEM Packet Page Number 38 of 248 09/19/2011 09/20/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $69.99 STEVEN PRIEM 09/19/2011 09/20/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $5.76 STEVEN PRIEM 09/20/2011 09/21/2011 AMERICAN FASTENER AND SUP $54.18 STEVEN PRIEM 09/20/2011 09/22/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL ($138.07)STEVEN PRIEM 09/20/2011 09/22/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL ($12.58)STEVEN PRIEM 09/20/2011 09/22/2011 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $355.87 STEVEN PRIEM 09/20/2011 09/22/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $16.76 STEVEN PRIEM 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $5.59 STEVEN PRIEM 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 CERTIFIED LABORATORIES $536.11 STEVEN PRIEM 09/21/2011 09/23/2011 DAVIS EQUIPMENT $174.55 STEVEN PRIEM 09/21/2011 09/23/2011 DAVIS EQUIPMENT $67.89 STEVEN PRIEM 09/21/2011 09/23/2011 WHEELCO BRAKE &SUPPLY $213.69 STEVEN PRIEM 09/22/2011 09/23/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $87.73 STEVEN PRIEM 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 PIONEER PRESS ADVERTISING $950.00 TERRIE RAMEAUX 09/09/2011 09/13/2011 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC $888.91 MICHAEL REILLY 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS $748.70 MICHAEL REILLY 09/16/2011 09/19/2011 HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS $106.13 MICHAEL REILLY 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 CVS PHARMACY #1751 Q03 $24.97 AUDRA ROBBINS 09/15/2011 09/19/2011 OFFICE MAX $107.08 AUDRA ROBBINS 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 STAYWELL - KRAMES $419.12 AUDRA ROBBINS 09/12/2011 09/13/2011 ESCH CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY $401.10 ROBERT RUNNING 09/12/2011 09/14/2011 MIKES LP GAS INC $70.25 ROBERT RUNNING 09/20/2011 09/21/2011 MENARDS 3059 $38.37 ROBERT RUNNING 09/20/2011 09/22/2011 MILLS FLEET FARM #2,700 $22.90 ROBERT RUNNING 09/13/2011 09/15/2011 ON SITE SANITATION INC $1,236.31 DEB SCHMIDT 09/20/2011 09/21/2011 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSPAPE $64.63 DEB SCHMIDT 09/13/2011 09/14/2011 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL CO $53.44 SCOTT SCHULTZ 09/19/2011 09/20/2011 MINNESOTA FALL EXPO $150.00 SCOTT SCHULTZ 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 PAYPAL *OBSERVATION $100.00 JOANNE SVENDSEN 09/15/2011 09/16/2011 CUB FOODS, INC.$50.31 JOANNE SVENDSEN 09/15/2011 09/16/2011 CUB FOODS, INC.$9.57 JOANNE SVENDSEN 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 PAYPAL *HOME LINE $24.00 JOANNE SVENDSEN 09/22/2011 09/23/2011 CUB FOODS, INC.$14.96 JOANNE SVENDSEN 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 DICKS SPORTING GOODS#393 $38.50 JAMES TAYLOR 09/09/2011 09/12/2011 CUB FOODS, INC.$33.77 JAMES TAYLOR 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 CUB FOODS, INC.$9.16 JAMES TAYLOR 09/21/2011 09/23/2011 SUBWAY 00052159 $59.17 JAMES TAYLOR 09/14/2011 09/15/2011 MCDONALD'S F17277 $6.33 DAVID THOMALLA 09/12/2011 09/14/2011 VOYAGEURS AREA COUNC $150.00 JOE TRAN 09/22/2011 09/23/2011 USPS 26833800033400730 $3.41 KAREN WACHAL 09/12/2011 09/14/2011 LYNN CARD COMPANY $153.03 SUSAN ZWIEG $48,521.23 Packet Page Number 39 of 248 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 9-23-11 and 9-30-11 CHECK #CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME 09/30/11 DEMULLING, JOSEPH 2,761.93 09/30/11 COFFEY, KEVIN 2,842.94 09/30/11 CROTTY, KERRY 3,575.20 09/30/11 BOHL, JOHN 3,170.17 09/30/11 BUSACK, DANIEL 3,427.39 09/30/11 BENJAMIN, MARKESE 2,862.04 09/30/11 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 4,431.25 09/30/11 BARTZ, PAUL 3,845.64 09/30/11 BELDE, STANLEY 2,981.44 09/30/11 ALDRIDGE, MARK 3,499.43 09/30/11 BAKKE, LONN 3,235.84 09/30/11 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,882.15 09/30/11 ABEL, CLINT 3,153.99 09/30/11 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 2,081.79 09/30/11 THOMALLA, DAVID 4,936.26 09/30/11 PALANK, MARY 1,886.77 09/30/11 POWELL, PHILIP 2,903.66 09/30/11 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,882.15 09/30/11 KVAM, DAVID 4,188.29 09/30/11 WEAVER, KRISTINE 2,288.56 09/30/11 CARLE, JEANETTE 480.00 09/30/11 OSTER, ANDREA 1,886.77 09/30/11 RICHTER, CHARLENE 993.04 09/30/11 MECHELKE, SHERRIE 1,129.29 09/30/11 MOY, PAMELA 1,496.49 09/30/11 CORTESI, LUANNE 1,205.39 09/30/11 LARSON, MICHELLE 1,758.15 09/30/11 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 2,719.20 09/30/11 SPANGLER, EDNA 617.53 09/30/11 GUILFOILE, KAREN 4,176.43 09/30/11 NEPHEW, MICHELLE 1,630.15 09/30/11 ARNOLD, AJLA 1,535.69 09/30/11 CAREY, HEIDI 2,005.19 09/30/11 KELSEY, CONNIE 2,569.23 09/30/11 RUEB, JOSEPH 2,493.80 09/30/11 DEBILZAN, JUDY 1,270.59 09/30/11 JACKSON, MARY 2,158.28 09/30/11 FORMANEK, KAREN 508.22 09/30/11 ANDERSON, CAROLE 1,199.57 09/30/11 RAMEAUX, THERESE 3,030.67 09/30/11 BAUMAN, GAYLE 4,014.97 09/30/11 FARR, LARRY 3,030.67 09/30/11 JAHN, DAVID 1,840.37 09/30/11 KANTRUD, HUGH 184.62 09/30/11 CHRISTENSON, SCOTT 2,126.11 09/30/11 ANTONEN, JAMES 5,300.00 09/30/11 BURLINGAME, SARAH 1,966.91 09/30/11 STRAUTMANIS, MARIS 202.00 09/30/11 AHL, R. CHARLES 4,958.72 09/30/11 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 473.15 09/30/11 KOPPEN, MARVIN 416.42 09/30/11 LLANAS, JAMES 416.42 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD AMOUNT 09/30/11 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 416.42 09/30/11 NEPHEW, JOHN 416.42 Packet Page Number 40 of 248 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 9-23-11 and 9-30-11 09/30/11 HUTCHINSON, JAMES 404.00 09/30/11 HENDRICKSON, NICHOLAS 2,500.36 09/30/11 HERLUND, RICK 264.00 09/30/11 HALWEG, JODI 2,656.44 09/30/11 HAWTHORNE, ROCHELLE 456.00 09/30/11 HAGEN, MICHAEL 294.00 09/30/11 HALE, JOSEPH 364.00 09/30/11 EVERSON, PAUL 3,189.37 09/30/11 FOSSUM, ANDREW 2,676.26 09/30/11 DIERICH, REBECCA 108.00 09/30/11 EATON, PAUL 168.00 09/30/11 CRUMMY, CHARLES 192.00 09/30/11 DAWSON, RICHARD 2,769.30 09/30/11 CAPISTRANT, JOHN 616.00 09/30/11 CRAWFORD, RAYMOND 48.00 09/30/11 BRESIN, ROBERT 276.00 09/30/11 CAPISTRANT, JACOB 720.00 09/30/11 BOURQUIN, RON 672.00 09/30/11 BRADBURY, RYAN 192.00 09/30/11 BECK, YANCEY 90.00 09/30/11 BIGELBACH, ANTHONY 72.00 09/30/11 BASSETT, BRENT 192.00 09/30/11 BAUMAN, ANDREW 2,642.69 09/30/11 ANDERSON, BRIAN 264.00 09/30/11 BAHL, DAVID 476.00 09/30/11 WENZEL, JAY 3,008.14 09/30/11 XIONG, KAO 2,921.60 09/30/11 THIENES, PAUL 3,637.27 09/30/11 TRAN, JOSEPH 2,955.28 09/30/11 TAUZELL, BRIAN 2,490.35 09/30/11 THEISEN, PAUL 3,056.84 09/30/11 SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM 2,862.04 09/30/11 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 3,090.49 09/30/11 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 4,060.51 09/30/11 STEINER, JOSEPH 3,452.68 09/30/11 REZNY, BRADLEY 3,001.72 09/30/11 RHUDE, MATTHEW 2,887.72 09/30/11 OLSON, JULIE 3,008.14 09/30/11 PARKER, JAMES 2,317.85 09/30/11 METRY, ALESIA 3,001.43 09/30/11 NYE, MICHAEL 3,587.23 09/30/11 MARTIN, JERROLD 3,255.67 09/30/11 MCCARTY, GLEN 2,975.01 09/30/11 LYNCH, KATHERINE 2,159.33 09/30/11 MARINO, JASON 2,856.23 09/30/11 LANGNER, TODD 2,943.49 09/30/11 LU, JOHNNIE 2,842.94 09/30/11 KROLL, BRETT 2,856.23 09/30/11 LANGNER, SCOTT 3,054.26 09/30/11 KONG, TOMMY 2,895.38 09/30/11 KREKELER, NICHOLAS 852.68 09/30/11 JOHNSON, KEVIN 4,171.70 09/30/11 KALKA, THOMAS 913.09 09/30/11 HER, PHENG 2,935.28 09/30/11 HIEBERT, STEVEN 3,867.66 09/30/11 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 3,144.52 09/30/11 HAWKINSON JR, TIMOTHY 2,785.00 09/30/11 FRASER, JOHN 3,223.99 09/30/11 FRITZE, DEREK 3,581.08 09/30/11 FLOR, TIMOTHY 3,574.41 09/30/11 FORSYTHE, MARCUS 2,042.62 09/30/11 DUGAS, MICHAEL 3,480.81 09/30/11 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 3,170.17 09/30/11 DOBLAR, RICHARD 3,886.81 Packet Page Number 41 of 248 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 9-23-11 and 9-30-11 09/30/11 KREGER, JASON 3,190.17 09/30/11 JACOBSON, SCOTT 2,484.80 09/30/11 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 3,191.34 09/30/11 DUCHARME, JOHN 2,713.98 09/30/11 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 2,530.95 09/30/11 TEVLIN, TODD 2,135.35 09/30/11 BURLINGAME, NATHAN 2,006.40 09/30/11 OSWALD, ERICK 2,347.97 09/30/11 RUNNING, ROBERT 2,333.35 09/30/11 MEISSNER, BRENT 1,930.15 09/30/11 NAGEL, BRYAN 3,408.40 09/30/11 HAMRE, MILES 1,440.00 09/30/11 JONES, DONALD 2,135.35 09/30/11 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 2,125.35 09/30/11 EDGE, DOUGLAS 2,114.20 09/30/11 BRINK, TROY 2,288.55 09/30/11 BUCKLEY, BRENT 1,986.95 09/30/11 NIVEN, AMY 1,411.62 09/30/11 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2,713.17 09/30/11 ZWIEG, SUSAN 2,234.16 09/30/11 KNUTSON, LOIS 2,034.95 09/30/11 GERVAIS-JR, CLARENCE 3,867.86 09/30/11 LUKIN, STEVEN 4,475.33 09/30/11 WESSELS, TIMOTHY 258.00 09/30/11 WHITE, JOEL 484.50 09/30/11 STREFF, MICHAEL 2,799.35 09/30/11 SVENDSEN, RONALD 2,828.26 09/30/11 SCHULTZ, JEROME 192.00 09/30/11 SEDLACEK, JEFFREY 2,821.12 09/30/11 RICE, CHRISTOPHER 927.50 09/30/11 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO 312.00 09/30/11 RAVENWALD, CORINNE 210.00 09/30/11 REYNOSO, ANGEL 168.00 09/30/11 RANK, NATHAN 816.00 09/30/11 RANK, PAUL 864.00 09/30/11 POWERS, KENNETH 216.00 09/30/11 RAINEY, JAMES 678.00 09/30/11 PETERSON, ROBERT 3,018.22 09/30/11 PLACE, ANDREA 2,679.21 09/30/11 PACHECO, ALPHONSE 384.00 09/30/11 PETERSON, MARK 644.00 09/30/11 OLSON, JAMES 2,709.83 09/30/11 OPHEIM, JOHN 119.00 09/30/11 NOVAK, JEROME 2,648.38 09/30/11 NOWICKI, PAUL 240.00 09/30/11 MORGAN, JEFFERY 156.00 09/30/11 NIELSEN, KENNETH 120.00 09/30/11 MONDOR, MICHAEL 3,089.18 09/30/11 MONSON, PETER 383.00 09/30/11 MILLER, LADD 215.00 09/30/11 MILLER, NICHOLAS 336.00 09/30/11 MELLEN, CHRISTOPHER 528.00 09/30/11 MELLEN, RICHARD 96.00 09/30/11 LINDER, TIMOTHY 2,506.11 09/30/11 LOCHEN, MICHAEL 404.00 09/30/11 KONDER, RONALD 312.00 09/30/11 KUBAT, ERIC 2,336.52 09/30/11 KARRAS, JAMIE 396.00 09/30/11 KERSKA, JOSEPH 120.00 09/30/11 JONES, JONATHAN 72.00 09/30/11 KANE, ROBERT 728.00 09/30/11 JANSEN, CHAD 336.00 09/30/11 JOHNSON, JAMES 702.00 09/30/11 IMM, TRACY 391.00 Packet Page Number 42 of 248 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 9-23-11 and 9-30-11 09/30/11 VANG, KAY 198.81 09/30/11 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 687.44 09/30/11 STARK, SUE 231.25 09/30/11 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 645.96 09/30/11 PENN, CHRISTINE 2,199.26 09/30/11 KULHANEK-DIONNE, ANN 343.63 09/30/11 OLSON, SANDRA 70.00 09/30/11 HOFMEISTER, MARY 838.06 09/30/11 HOFMEISTER, TIMOTHY 428.13 09/30/11 GLASS, JEAN 2,103.68 09/30/11 HER, PETER 261.10 09/30/11 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 482.20 09/30/11 EVANS, CHRISTINE 1,510.72 09/30/11 ANZALDI, MANDY 1,262.21 09/30/11 BRENEMAN, NEIL 1,603.71 09/30/11 KLOOZ, AUSTIN 920.00 09/30/11 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 3,060.34 09/30/11 GERMAIN, DAVID 2,134.59 09/30/11 HAAG, MARK 2,288.56 09/30/11 TAYLOR, JAMES 2,466.23 09/30/11 ADAMS, DAVID 1,975.35 09/30/11 SCHALLER, SCOTT 118.25 09/30/11 SCHALLER, TYLER 29.00 09/30/11 ROBBINS, AUDRA 2,847.74 09/30/11 ROBBINS, CAMDEN 82.00 09/30/11 JANASZAK, MEGHAN 141.06 09/30/11 MILTON, SCOTT 47.50 09/30/11 BJORK, BRANDON 336.00 09/30/11 GERMAIN, BRADY 96.00 09/30/11 BERGER, STEPHANIE 323.01 09/30/11 BETHEL III, CHARLES 78.63 09/30/11 WELLENS, MOLLY 1,742.34 09/30/11 ALLEN, KATELYN 267.75 09/30/11 FISHER, DAVID 3,778.99 09/30/11 SWAN, DAVID 2,738.95 09/30/11 BRASH, JASON 2,259.75 09/30/11 CARVER, NICHOLAS 3,211.95 09/30/11 FINWALL, SHANN 3,202.16 09/30/11 MARTIN, MICHAEL 2,682.95 09/30/11 THOMPSON, DEBRA 752.86 09/30/11 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 3,800.52 09/30/11 KROLL, LISA 1,882.15 09/30/11 SINDT, ANDREA 2,013.80 09/30/11 WACHAL, KAREN 879.08 09/30/11 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 3,211.95 09/30/11 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,622.79 09/30/11 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 228.38 09/30/11 GERNES, CAROLE 511.88 09/30/11 HAYMAN, JANET 1,212.17 09/30/11 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 1,295.49 09/30/11 DEAVER, CHARLES 522.41 09/30/11 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 2,127.66 09/30/11 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 7,258.83 09/30/11 MARUSKA, MARK 3,183.11 09/30/11 NAUGHTON, JOHN 2,125.35 09/30/11 EDSON, DAVID 2,170.59 09/30/11 HINNENKAMP, GARY 2,138.46 09/30/11 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 4,390.46 09/30/11 SCHOENECKER, LEIGH 1,554.15 09/30/11 THOMPSON, MICHAEL 4,028.26 09/30/11 ZIEMAN, SCOTT 188.15 09/30/11 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,713.97 09/30/11 LOVE, STEVEN 3,281.20 09/30/11 KUMMER, STEVEN 3,239.20 Packet Page Number 43 of 248 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 9-23-11 and 9-30-11 9984899 9984900 9984901 9984902 9984903 9984904 9984905 09/30/11 MASON, KYLE 96.00 09/30/11 FEIST, ASHLEY 78.00 09/30/11 LUBKE, COLLEEN 189.00 09/30/11 CATTANACH, SETH 45.00 09/30/11 COLLOVA, MATT 36.00 09/30/11 AYD, GWEN 45.00 09/30/11 BOEHM, BRIAN 15.00 09/30/11 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 3,469.86 09/30/11 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 2,601.28 09/30/11 WOEHRLE, MATTHEW 2,804.55 09/30/11 BERGO, CHAD 2,651.63 09/30/11 AICHELE, CRAIG 2,196.23 09/30/11 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,390.15 09/30/11 THOMPSON, BENJAMIN 487.13 09/30/11 VANG, PETER 72.50 09/30/11 REILLY, MICHAEL 2,248.82 09/30/11 SCHULZE, KEVIN 420.00 09/30/11 MALONEY, SHAUNA 195.00 09/30/11 PRINS, KELLY 1,448.95 09/30/11 FULFORD, ZAHKIYA 94.25 09/30/11 LONETTI, JAMES 480.00 09/30/11 COLEMAN, PATRICK 135.00 09/30/11 DOUGLASS, TOM 1,320.90 09/30/11 BOSLEY, CAROL 97.50 09/30/11 BEHAN, JAMES 1,988.19 09/30/11 TUPY, MARCUS 285.00 09/30/11 WARNER, CAROLYN 396.00 09/30/11 TREPANIER, TODD 432.00 09/30/11 TUPY, HEIDE 91.60 09/30/11 SMITLEY, SHARON 259.00 09/30/11 THORWICK, MEGAN 51.45 09/30/11 SCHREIER, ROSEMARIE 157.25 09/30/11 SMITH, ANN 162.40 09/30/11 RONNING, ISAIAH 184.80 09/30/11 ROTH, DEEPALI 90.00 09/30/11 RESENDIZ, LORI 2,129.22 09/30/11 RICHTER, DANIEL 113.40 09/30/11 NELSON, ELEONOR 50.00 09/30/11 PROESCH, ANDY 305.79 09/30/11 MCCANN, NATALIE 19.00 09/30/11 NADEAU, KELLY 16.20 09/30/11 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 761.38 09/30/11 LAMSON, ELIANA 72.00 09/30/11 KOHLER, ROCHELLE 90.00 09/30/11 KOLLER, NINA 47.50 09/30/11 IVES, RANDY 230.00 09/30/11 JOHNSON, BARBARA 97.30 09/30/11 HOLMBERG, LADONNA 392.50 09/30/11 HORWATH, RONALD 2,589.01 09/30/11 HASSAN, KIANA 124.80 09/30/11 HEINRICH, SHEILA 608.00 09/30/11 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 353.50 09/30/11 HANSEN, HANNAH 134.60 09/30/11 ERICKSON-CLARK, CAROL 49.00 09/30/11 FONTAINE, KIM 122.50 09/30/11 DEMPSEY, BETH 214.63 09/30/11 DUNN, RYAN 1,109.94 09/30/11 CRANDALL, KRISTA 109.48 09/30/11 DAYTON, HEATHER 50.00 09/30/11 BUCKLEY, BRITTANY 174.70 09/30/11 BUTLER, ANGELA 34.00 09/30/11 ANDERSON, MAXWELL 230.00 09/30/11 BAUDE, SARAH 73.00 09/30/11 VUE, LOR PAO 204.00 Packet Page Number 44 of 248 S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 9-23-11 and 9-30-11 9984906 9984907 9984908 9984909 9984910 9984911 9984912 9984913 9984914 9984915 9984916 9984917 9984918 9984919 09/30/11 STEFFEN, MICHAEL 87.00 505,298.22 09/30/11 MCLAURIN, CHRISTOPHER 141.90 09/30/11 ROSTRON, ROBERT 800.30 09/30/11 VANG, TIM 230.50 09/30/11 FLUEGEL, LARISSA 37.75 09/30/11 VUKICH, CANDACE 76.88 09/30/11 YANG, CHINU 126.00 09/30/11 PETERSON, HAYLIE 65.00 09/30/11 ROKKE, MARINA 78.00 09/30/11 O'BRIEN, PATRICIA 82.50 09/30/11 O'BRIEN, REBECCA 75.00 09/30/11 MIELZAREK, MAGGIE 78.00 09/30/11 MUELLNER, CHADD 202.50 09/30/11 MEISSNER, MICHAEL 49.50 Packet Page Number 45 of 248 Agenda Item G2 AGENDA REPORT TO: Jim Antonen, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: October 3, 2011 RE: Application for Temporary Gambling for the Church of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Introduction Fr. Mark A. Huberty representing Church of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary has submitted an application for a temporary gambling permit. This is for the Turkey Bingo annual event that will be held in the school gym located at 1725 Kennard Street on November 19, 2011 from 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. In order for the State of Minnesota to issue a temporary gambling permit, approval of the following resolution from the City is required: RESOLUTION BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the temporary gambling permit for lawful gambling is approved for the Church of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 1725 Kennard Street, to be used on November 19, 2011. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute §349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute §349.213. NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval. Recommendation It is recommended that the Council approve the above application for a temporary gambling permit. Packet Page Number 46 of 248 P:\AGENDA REPORTS\10.10.11\G3 - DESTRUCTION OF FILES-2011 CONSENT.DOC AGENDA NO: G3 AGENDA REPORT TO: James W. Antonen, City Manager FROM: Gayle Bauman, Finance Manager RE: AUTHORIZATION TO DISPOSE OF OLD FINANCIAL RECORDS DATE: October 10, 2011 Annually the City disposes of financial records that have passed their legally required retention period. However, before the records can be destroyed, the City is required by law to submit the attached application for approval to the State. The application has been submitted and approved by the Minnesota Historical Society. It is recommended that the attached resolution be adopted so that the appropriate financial records can be destroyed. Packet Page Number 47 of 248 R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, M.S.A. 138.17 governs the destruction of city records; and WHEREAS, a list of records has been presented to the Council with a request in writing that destruction be approved by the Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA; 1. That per state law, the Finance Manager has applied to the Minnesota State Historical Society for an order authorizing destruction of the records as described in the attached list. 2. That the State has approved the Application for Authority to Dispose of Records and the Finance Manager is hereby authorized and directed to destroy the records listed. Packet Page Number 48 of 248 Packet Page Number 49 of 248 Packet Page Number 50 of 248 P:\Agenda Reports\10.10.11\G4 - historical society payment CONSENT.doc AGENDA NO. G4 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Manager RE: Approval of Annual Maplewood Historical Society Payment DATE: October 3, 2011 INTRODUCTION On September 11, 2001 the City Council approved a motion to include a $2,000 payment to the Maplewood Historical Society in the city’s budget each year. This annual payment has been incorporated in the 2011 Budget. This year’s payment of $2,000 needs to be authorized. RECOMMENDATION Council authorization is needed annually to make the $2,000 payment because it is not a required payment. We are asking the council to approve the payment for 2011. Packet Page Number 51 of 248 P:\Agenda Reports\10.10.11\G5 - Landfall Rates 2012 CONSENT.doc AGENDA NO. G5 AGENDA REPORT City Manager To: Finance Manager From: October 3, 2011 Date: Approval of Rates for Police and Fire Services Provided to the City of Landfall for 2012 Re: BACKGROUND Contracts were executed in 2005 between the cities of Maplewood and Landfall for the provision of police and fire services by Maplewood for Landfall. Rates were established at that time for the year 2006, with provision for increases based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or such other index as was deemed appropriate by the Maplewood Finance Department. Based on the Consumer Price Index, the following rates are recommended which represents a 1.8% increase: Police Fire 2011 Annual Rate $119,480 $11,411 2012 Recommended Annual Rate $121,630 $11,620 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the above rates for 2012. Packet Page Number 52 of 248 AGENDA NO. G6 AGENDA REPORT TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Consider Approval of Contract with Charles Bethel for 2012 Human Resources Attorney Services DATE: October 4, 2011 INTRODUCTION/ BACKGROUND The City of Maplewood has retained the services of Chuck Bethel as the Human Resources Attorney since the middle of 2006. Mr. Bethel is currently operating under a contract that expires at the end of 2011. The current agreement with Mr. Bethel has an automatic renewal clause that required notice to Mr. Bethel by September 30th that the City intended to not renew or revise the agreement. The City Manager notified Mr. Bethel in September that the City intended to renegotiate the terms of his service, but wished to retain him under new contract conditions. The preliminary budget approved by the City Council in establishing the maximum levy called for a reduction in the services provided by Mr. Bethel. The current 2011 contract calls for Mr. Bethel to provide 1,020 hours per year and to office at City Hall at least two days per week. Due to the need to reduce operating costs as part of the 2012 Budget, the City Manager’s Budget Team recommended a reduction in Mr. Bethel’ service. It should be noted that there is satisfaction with Mr. Bethel’s service and this reduction is only for financial reasons. The proposed contract for 2012, proposes that Mr. Bethel reduce his time to a single day per week for the first eight months of 2012 and then resume to at least two days per week for the remaining four months of 2012. This provision is provided due to the likely additional services needed for Mr. Bethel to serve with Chuck Ahl on the negotiating team since all employment contracts with the City’s seven Bargaining Groups all expire at the end of 2012. The current contract with Mr. Bethel provides for an annual payment of $79,200.00 plus various benefits such as office and support materials. The current agreement reduces this amount to $60,000, plus eliminates a number of the support material and office benefits. An additional amount of $10,000 is available as Extra Time to supplement usage of Mr. Bethel’s service above the base amount provided in the contract. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached contract with Charles Bethel for 2012 as Human Resources Attorney and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute said contract. . Attachments: 1. Contract for Attorney Services Packet Page Number 53 of 248 1 City of Maplewood Contract for Attorney Services This AGREEMENT entered into this _____day of _________, 20__, (the “Effective Date”) by and between the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as “City”) and Charles E. Bethel (hereinafter referred to as “Bethel” or “Attorney”). WHEREAS, in 2006 the City originally put forth a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) to contract out its legal services for 2 years and in response to that RFP retained Attorney as its City Attorney for Human Resources, Employment and Labor Relations on or about September 11, 2006; and WHEREAS, the City has found Attorney’s performance as City Attorney to be competent and professional and has continued to retain his services; and WHEREAS, the City’s original term of two years as set forth in the RFP expired, as has the extensions of the contract through 2011; and WHEREAS, the City believes it is in the best interests of the City to maintain consistency in its legal representation; and WHEREAS, the City now desires to enter into a contract for the continued services of Attorney as City Attorney to assure his continued performance of that position through 2012; and WHEREAS, Attorney is agreeable to entering into a contract with the City pursuant to the understated proposed terms and conditions NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Duties The City hereby agrees to retain Attorney as the City Attorney for Human Resources, Employment and Labor Relations to perform the functions and duties of City Attorney and such other legally permissible and proper functions and duties as the City Manager and City Council from time to time shall assign. Said duties shall be consistent with and guided by the course-of-conduct established through the previous period of representation, and the parties hereto agree that while the established duties have been mutually satisfactory, the parties agree that due to budget constraints requiring a cut in funds available to pay for said services, that the services previously provided shall be reduced as set out more fully herein. While the term of service shall be for the entire year of 2012, the parties agree that for the latter part of the year, from September 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, Attorney shall still be available 16 hours per week and generally perform at the same level and in the same manner that he has in the past with regard to contract negotiations, drafting and final editing of the labor agreements with all the collective bargaining units for the City. However, from January 1, 2012 through August 31, 2012 Attorney shall be available on a more limited basis as follows: (a) Agenda Item G6 Attachment Packet Page Number 54 of 248 2 Attorney will maintain office hours of one day per week. It is anticipated that Attorney will be available for 8 hours at City Hall on Tuesdays, although the Parties may mutually agree on another day if so desired; and (b) Attorney shall remain part of the management team and attend the Tuesday morning staff meetings and also continue to co-chair the Safety Committee on behalf of management. In addition to this time commitment, Attorney shall also remain available for consultation, drafting of documents, meetings, mediations, trainings, grievances, contract interpretation disputes, investigations, hearings, back-up for the other City Attorney as needed, and other duties pursuant to past pattern and practice, in person and/or via phone, fax and email for up to an additional 3 hours per week as needed. For any time required beyond this allotted time (hereafter “Extra Time”) during the period from January 1, 2012 through August 31, 2012 the City will pay Attorney $125.00 per hour. For the first $10,000.00 of such Extra Time, Attorney shall work any such Extra Time at the verbal request of the Human Resources Coordinator, the Assistant City Manager or the City Manager. However, any additional such Extra Time shall only be paid if Attorney has received written approval in advance from the City Manager or Assistant City Manager. Additionally, Attorney will “bank” any prepaid hours not used from January through August pursuant to this Agreement, so that if a project/grievance or other matter arises that may require a larger portion of Attorney’s time, Attorney shall use up any available “banked” time before seeking approval to bill any Extra Time. The City may also borrow ahead on the time allotted for January through August, as needed, to cover any extraordinary time needs for Attorney that may arise. Section 2. Term It is agreed the term of services shall be January1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. Section 3. Salary The City agrees to pay Attorney for his services rendered pursuant hereto at an annual base rate of $60,000.00 per year, payable to attorney in the same manner as it is currently paid - in monthly installments of $5,000.00. Additionally, the City shall pay Attorney for Extra Time as set forth above, and has pre-allocated another $10,000.00 towards such payment. Attorney shall track and invoice City monthly for any such Extra Time and City shall also pay such invoices monthly. The City shall continue to rent Attorney his same office space including computer, printer, fax and normal office services and supplies for $225.00 per month, but Attorney shall provide his own cell phone. The City shall also provide Attorney a single membership at the Maplewood Community Center (MCC) so long as Attorney maintains usage of the MCC at eight times per month in the same manner as required by other employees. General Provisions A. The text herein shall constitute the entire Agreement between the parties hereto. B. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs at law and executors of Attorney. Agenda Item G6 Attachment Packet Page Number 55 of 248 3 C. If any provision or portion thereof contained in this Agreement shall be held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, it shall be deemed severable and the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected and shall remain in fill force and effect. D. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the City to terminate the services of Attorney at any time, because of malfeasance, nonfeasance or gross misconduct. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties here to have signed and executed this Agreement, both in duplicate, effective on the day and year first above written. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ATTORNEY _____________________ ________________________ Jim Antonen, City Manager Charles E. Bethel _____________________ Will Rossbach, Mayor Agenda Item G6 Attachment Packet Page Number 56 of 248 AGENDA REPORT To: James Antonen, City Manager From: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director Subject: Approval of Resolution Accepting Donation from Home Depot Date: September 29, 2011 INTRODUCTION The Maplewood Public Works Department has received 2 pallets of Patch Master Lawn Repair Mix from Home Depot. Recognizing this donation and its acceptance is requested. DISCUSSION The Maplewood Home Depot store had 2 pallets of Patch Master, a mulch, seed, and fertilizer mix that were nearing their expiration date and could no longer be sold. Home Depot donated the patch mix to the City for use in the parks. The Parks maintenance crew will use the patch mix to patch bare spots on soccer and ball fields in Goodrich Park, Afton Park and Geranium Park. The patch mix has been provided to us free of charge; but the estimated dollar value of the donation is approximately $1,000. City Council approval is required for us to accept this donation. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting this donation from Home Depot. Attachments: 1) Resolution Agenda Item G7 Packet Page Number 57 of 248 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, Home Depot (Maplewood), wishes to grant the City of Maplewood the following: 2 pallets of Patch Master Lawn Repair Mix, and; WHEREAS, Home Depot., has instructed that the City will be required to use the aforementioned for: Use in the Parks of the City of Maplewood, 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______________ City Manager ___ City Clerk____________ (Title) (Title) (Title) ___________________ _____________________ ____________________ (Date) (Date) (Date) Agenda Item G7 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 58 of 248 AGENDA REPORT TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director SUBJECT: Stop Sign Policy Revision DATE: September 19, 2011 INTRODUCTION The council will consider discontinuing the outdated stop sign policy originally adopted in 1992, and consider using best practices according to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. BACKGROUND The City receives a handful of requests each year, mostly for installing neighborhood intersection controls such as stop signs. Proponents of stop sign installation typically present a relatively emotional appeal based on a recent accident or series of “near misses”. Likewise, opponents to stop signs voice their dissatisfaction with the inconvenience, noise, pollution, and determined motorists who simply ignore or circumvent stop signs. Over the past few years the City often has installed intersection controls at the request of neighborhood residents per the current policy, only to be opposed by other residents with a dueling petition. In 1992 a neighborhood stop sign policy (see attached) was adopted by the City to accomplish the following objectives: 1. Provide the opportunity to consider any proposal that demonstrates reasonable neighborhood support. 2. Provide information to the entire community about the proposals under consideration. 3. Provide for open discussion before the city council representing all sides of the issue. 4. Utilize the city council’s and staff’s time most effectively. The following approach was then adopted in 1992 by the city council: 1. At least 12 signatures required to show neighborhood support. 2. Response mailed to requesting party about public meeting time. 3. Article published in the city newsletter about stop sign pros and cons, along with subject area of consideration. 4. Either a special meeting or regular city council meeting would serve as the open meeting for the public discussion and consideration. DISCUSSION The current policy is dated and does not reflect best practices regarding regulatory intersection control and sign applications. A majority of the petitioner requests do not meet regulatory sign warrants. Research suggests that at most locations, increasing the level of intersection control will not improve safety (FHWA-RD-81-084 Stop, Yield, and No Control at Intersections). According to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD), stop signs cause a substantial inconvenience to motorists and should be used only where warranted by facts and field studies. A stop sign may be warranted at an intersection where one or more of the following conditions Agenda Item G8 Packet Page Number 59 of 248 exist: 1. Intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of- way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law; 2. Street entering a through highway or through street; 3. Unsigned intersection in a signalized area; and/or 4. High speed, restricted view, or crash records that indicate a need for control by the STOP sign. The following is an excerpt of guidance from the MnMUTCD for multi-way stop applications: Agenda Item G8 Packet Page Number 60 of 248 It is important to remember that installing unwarranted intersection control signage (i.e... stop signs) does not control speed and can have a number of negative outcomes such as:  Increased traffic noise (braking and accelerating)  Increased traffic speeds to make up for lost time  Increased automobile pollution  Stop compliance is poor because drivers feel it serves no purpose  Pedestrians get a false sense of security at the intersection because they expect all vehicles to stop when signed as such (but many drivers do not)  Increased costs to the local jurisdiction for sign installation, maintenance, and replacement. Also, there are associated costs for enforcement. WORKSHOP SUMMARY A workshop was held with the City Council on September 26, 2011 to discuss the potential policy revisions and why they were needed (see attached presentation notes). There was a general consensus to have this item brought back to the council in October for policy revision and action. The recommendation below is consistent with that discussion. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council eliminate the stop sign policies and procedures adopted in 1992 and instead use best practices and the proper engineering approach to sign requests which are consistent to guidelines set forth in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Attachments: 1) Old 1992 Stop Sign Policy/Procedure 2) MnMUTCD (Stop Sign Information) 3) Workshop Presentation Notes Agenda Item G8 Packet Page Number 61 of 248 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 62 of 248 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 63 of 248 February, 20082B-1 Chapter 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS 2B.1 Application of Regulatory Signs Regulatory signs shall be used to inform road users of selected traffic laws or regulations and indicate the applica- bility of the legal requirements. Regulatory signs shall be installed at or near where the regulations apply. The signs shall clearly indicate the requirements imposed by the regulations and shall be designed and installed to provide adequate visibility and legibility in order to obtain compliance. Regulatory signs shall be retroreflective or illuminated to show the same shape and similar color by both day and night, unless specifically stated otherwise in the text discussion of a particular sign or group of signs (see Section 2A.8). The requirements for sign illumination shall not be considered to be satisfied by street, highway, or strobe lighting. 2B.2 Design of Regulatory Signs Most regulatory signs are rectangular, with the longer dimension vertical. The shapes and colors of regulatory signs are listed in Tables 2A-4 and 2A-5, respectively. Exceptions are specifically noted in the following Sections. The use of educational plaques to supplement symbol signs is described in Section 2A.13. Changeable message signs displaying a regulatory message incorporating a prohibitory message that includes a red circle and slash on a static sign should display a red symbol that approximates the same red circle and slash as closely as possible. 2B.3 Size of Regulatory Signs The Mn/DOT “Standard Signs Manual” (see Map & Manual Sales Unit, page ii) and the Federal "Standard Highway Signs" (see Government Printing Office, page ii) book contains sign sizes and letter heights for regulatory signs. SUPPORT: GUIDANCE: SUPPORT: STANDARD: The Expressway and Freeway sizes should be used for higher-speed applications to provide larger signs for increased visibility and recognition. The Minimum size may be used on low-speed roadways where reduced legend size would be adequate for the regulation or where physical conditions preclude the use of the other sizes. The Oversized size may be used for those special appli- cations where speed, volume, or other factors result in conditions where increased emphasis, improved recognition, or increased legibility would be desirable. Signs larger than those shown in this chapter may be used (see Section 2A.12 and Appendix C). 2B.4 STOP Sign (R1-1, R1-3, R1-4) When a sign is used to indicate that traffic is always required to stop, a STOP (R1-1) sign shall be used. The STOP sign shall be an octagon with a white legend and border on a red background. Secondary legends shall not be used on STOP sign faces. If appropriate, a supplemental plaque (R1-3 or R1-4) shall be used to display a secondary legend. Such plaques shall have a white legend and border STANDARD: R1-4 450 x 150 mm 18” x 6” R1-3 300 x 150 mm 12” x 6” R1-1 750 x 750 mm 30” x 30” ALL WAY4WAY- STOP OPTION: GUIDANCE: STANDARD: The sizes for regulatory signs used on conventional roads, expressways, freeways, and low-volume roads, and under special conditions shall be as shown in Appendix C at the back of this Manual. Compliance Date: December 22, 2013 MN Rev. 2 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 64 of 248 May, 2005 2B-2 on a red background. If the number of approach legs controlled by STOP signs at an intersection is three or more, the numeral on the supplemental plaque, if used, shall correspond to the actual number of legs controlled by STOP signs. Because the potential for conflicting commands could create driver confusion, STOP signs shall not be installed at intersections where traffic control signals are installed and operating except as noted in Section 4D.1. Portable or part-time STOP signs shall not be used except for emergency and temporary traffic control zone purposes. STOP signs should not be used for speed control. STOP signs should be installed in a manner that minimizes the numbers of vehicles having to stop. At inter- sections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, con- sideration should be given to using less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Section 2B.8). In many low volume situations with no unusual history of intersection crashes, no control at the intersections is a cost effective strategy. Research suggests that at most locations, increasing the level of intersection control will not improve safety (see FHWA-RD-81-084 Stop,Yield and No Control at Intersections). Once the decision has been made to install two-way stop control, the decision regarding the appropriate street to stop should be based on engineering judgment. In most cases, the street carrying the lowest volume of traffic should be stopped. A STOP sign should not be installed on the major street unless justified by a traffic engineering study. The following are considerations that might influence the decision regarding the appropriate street upon which to install a STOP sign where two streets with relatively equal volumes and/or characteristics intersect: A. Stopping the direction that conflicts the most with established pedestrian crossing activity or school walking routes; B. Stopping the direction that has obscured vision, dips, or bumps that already require drivers to use lower operating speeds; C. Stopping the direction that has the longest distance of uninterrupted flow approaching the intersection; and D. Stopping the direction that has the best sight distance to conflicting traffic. The use of the STOP sign at highway-railroad grade crossings is described in Section 8B.7. The use of the STOP sign at highway-light rail transit grade crossings is described in Section 10C.4. SUPPORT: GUIDANCE: SUPPORT: GUIDANCE: STANDARD: At intersections where all approaches are controlled by STOP signs (see Section 2B.7), a supplemental plaque (R1-3 or R1-4) shall be mounted below each STOP sign. Compliance Date: January 17, 2004 The ALL WAY (R1-4) supplemental plaque may be used instead of the 4-WAY (R1-3) supplemental plaque. The design and application of Stop Beacons are described in Section 4K.5. 2B.4.1 CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP Plaque (R1-X2) The CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP sign may be used at intersections where geometric, topographic or other conditions exist and motorists approaching a STOP sign may expect cross traffic to stop. When used, it shall be installed on the same structure as the STOP sign beneath all other supplemental plaques. Its use shall be limited to those intersections where an engineering and traffic investigation indicate a need. 2B.5 STOP Sign Applications STOP signs should be used if engineering judgment indicates that one or more of the following conditions exist: A. Intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of-way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law; B. Street entering a through highway or through street; C. Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area; and/or D. High speeds, restricted view, or crash records that indicate a need for control by the STOP sign. GUIDANCE: STANDARD: OPTION: R1-X2 600 x 300 mm 24” x 12” CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOTSTOP SUPPORT: OPTION: Agenda Item G8 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 65 of 248 2B.6 STOP Sign Placement The STOP sign shall be installed on the right side of the approach lane to which it applies. When the STOP sign is installed at this required location and the sign visibility is restricted, a Stop Ahead sign (see Section 2C.29) shall be installed in advance of the STOP sign. The STOPsign shall be located as close as practical to the intersection it regulates, while optimizing its visibility to the road user it is intended to regulate. STOPsigns and YIELD signs shall not be mounted on the same post. GUIDANCE: STANDARD: 2B.7 Multi-way Stop Applications Multi-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with Multi-way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multi-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.5 also apply to Multi-way stop applications. The decision to install Multi-way stop control should be based on an engineering study. The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi-way STOP sign installation: A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi- way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. A crash problem, as indicated by 5 or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right- and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour, but 3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major- street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the above values. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition. GUIDANCE: SUPPORT: 2B-3 May, 2005 There should be no sign mounted back-to-back with a STOP sign in a manner that obscures the shape of the STOP sign. Compliance Date: December 22, 2013 Section 2A.16 contains additional information about separate and combined mounting of other signs with STOP signs. Stop lines when used to supplement a STOP sign, should be located at the point where the road user should stop (see Section 3B.16). If only one STOP sign is installed on an approach, the STOP sign should not be placed on the far side of the inter- section. Where two roads intersect at an acute angle, the STOP sign should be positioned at an angle or shielded so that the legend is out of view of traffic to which it does not apply. Where there is a marked crosswalk at the intersection, the STOP sign should be installed approximately 1.3 m (4 ft)in advance of the crosswalk line nearest to the approaching traffic. At wide-throat intersections or where two or more approach lanes of traffic exist on the signed approach, observance of the stop control may be improved by the installation of an additional STOPsign on the left side of the road and/or the use of a stop line. At channelized intersec- tions, the additional STOPsign may be effectively placed on a channelizing island. Figure 2A-2 shows examples of some typical placements of STOP signs. SUPPORT: OPTION: GUIDANCE: SUPPORT: Agenda Item G8 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 66 of 248 Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include: A. The need to control left-turn conflicts; B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to reasonably safely negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where Multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteris- tics of the intersection. 2B.8 YIELD Sign (R1-2) The YIELD (R1-2) sign shall be a downward-pointing equilateral triangle with a wide red border and the legend YIELD in red on a white background. The YIELD sign assigns right-of-way to traffic on certain approaches to an intersection. Vehicles controlled by a YIELD sign need to slow down or stop when necessary to avoid interfering with conflicting traffic. 2B.9 YIELD Sign Applications OPTION: SUPPORT: STANDARD: R1-2 900 x 900 x 900 mm 36” x 36” x 36” YIELD OPTION:C. At the second crossroad of a divided highway, where the median width is 9 m (30 ft) or greater. A STOP sign may be installed at the entrance to the first roadway of a divided highway, and a YIELD sign may be installed at the entrance to the second roadway. D. At an intersection where a special problem exists and where engineering judgment indicates the problem to be susceptible to correction by the use of the YIELD sign. AYIELD (R1-2) sign shall be used to assign right-of-way at the entrance to a roundabout intersection. 2B.10 YIELD Sign Placement The YIELD sign shall be installed on the right side of the approach to which it applies. YIELD signs shall be placed on both the left and right sides of approaches to roundabout intersections with more than one lane on the signed approach where raised splitter islands are available on the left side of the approach. When the YIELD sign is installed at this required location and the sign visibility is restricted, a Yield Ahead sign (see Section 2C.29) shall be installed in advance of the YIELD sign. The YIELD sign shall be located as close as practical to the intersection it regulates, while optimizing its visibility to the road user it is intended to regulate. YIELD signs and STOPsigns shall not be mounted on the same post. GUIDANCE: STANDARD: STANDARD: 2B-4May, 2005 YIELD signs may be used instead of STOP signs if engineering judgment indicates that one or more of the following conditions exist: Compliance Date: January 11, 2011 A. When the ability to see all potentially conflicting traffic is sufficient to allow a road user traveling at the posted speed, the 85th-percentile speed, or the statutory speed to pass through the intersection or to stop in a reasonably safe manner. B. If controlling a merge-type movement on the entering roadway where acceleration geometry and/or sight distance is not adequate for merging traffic operation. There should be no sign mounted back-to back with a YIELD sign in a manner that obscures the shape of the YIELD sign. Compliance Date: December 22, 2013 Section 2A.16 contains additional information about separate and combined mounting of other signs with YIELD signs. YIELD lines, when used to supplement a YIELD sign, should be located at a point where the road user should yield (see Section 3B.16). Where two roads intersect at an acute angle, the YIELD sign should be positioned at an angle, or shielded, so that the legend is out of view of traffic to which it does not apply. Except at roundabout intersections where there is a marked crosswalk at the intersection, the YIELD sign should be installed in advance of the crosswalk line nearest to the approaching traffic. GUIDANCE: SUPPORT: Agenda Item G8 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 67 of 248 At a roundabout intersection, to prevent circulating vehicles from yielding unnecessarily, the face of the YIELD sign should not be visible from the circulatory roadway. At wide-throat intersections or where two or more approach lanes of traffic exist on the signed approach, observance of the yield control may be improved by the installation of an additional YIELD sign on the left side of the road and/or the use of a yield line. At channelized inter- sections, the additional YIELD sign may be effectively placed on a channelizing island. 2B.11 Yield Here to Pedestrian Signs (R1-5, R1-5a) This section has been removed because it is in conflict with Minnesota Statute 169. 2B.12 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign (R1-6b) The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing (R1-6b) sign may be used to remind road users of laws regarding right of way. The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall only be used at mid-block locations or at intersection approaches not controlled by a STOP sign or a traffic control signal. The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall only be installed at in-street locations. It shall not be installed on the outside shoulder nor in a parking lane. If an island (see Chapter 3G) is available, the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign, if used, should be placed on the island. GUIDANCE: STANDARD: OPTION: R1-6b 300 x 1100 mm 12” x 44” STATE STOP FOR WITHIN CROSSWALK LAW OPTION: In order to avoid overuse, the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign should only be used at locations having high pedestrian crossings. If used, the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing (R1-6b) sign shall have a black legend and border on a white and fluorescent yellow-green background. According to State Statute, the legend STATE LAW and STOP FOR shall be included on the sign. The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall have either the same sign message on the back side or a strip of retroreflective sheeting not less than 50 mm (2 in) in width. The color of this strip shall be the same as that of the lane line the on which the sign is placed. If the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign is placed in the roadway, the sign support shall comply with the breakaway requirements of NCHRP-350, Category 2 for 70km/h (45 mph) (see Section 1A.11). The maximum mounting height from the roadway to the bottom of the sign shall be 0.6 m (2 ft). The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall only be installed on roadways with posted speed limits of 35 mph or less and shall not impede normal through or turning traffic movements. There shall be only one In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign installed for each approach to marked crosswalks (see Figure 2B-2). In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs should be mounted back-to-back only when used on two-lane, two-way roadways. The Provisions of Section 2A.18 concerning mounting height are not applicable for the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign. When used as an informational sign and not at pedestrian crosswalks, the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign may have the same legend on both sides. The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign may be used seasonably to prevent damage in winter because of plowing operations, and may be removed at night if the pedestrian activity at night is minimal. OPTION: SUPPORT: GUIDANCE: STANDARD: 2B-5 February, 2008 MN Rev. 1MN Rev. 1MN Rev. 2MN Rev. 3 Agenda Item G8 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 68 of 248 2B-6May, 2005 Four-Lane Undivided Roadway Four-Lane Divided Roadway with Turn Lanes Two-Lane, Two-Way Roadway R1-6b R1-6b with SCHOOL plaque STATE STOP FOR WITHIN CROSSWALK LAW SCHOOL STATE STOP FOR WITHIN CROSSWALK LAW Direction of travel Sign Structure Single Sided Structure Back-to-Back Structure Legend Two-Lane, Two-Way Roadway with Center Turn Lane Figure 2B-2. Typical Placement of In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs Agenda Item G8 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 69 of 248 StopSignPolicyDiscussionStop Sign Policy Discussion(UnwarrantedLocations)(Unwarranted Locations)By: Michael Thompson, P.E.City Engineer Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 70 of 248 “STOP signs have been routinely yinstalled at hundreds of low‐volumeresidentialvolume residential intersections where there is no compelling reason to stop. Also, there is no proof pthat these signs have ever accomplishedaccomplished anything other than wasting fuel.” Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 71 of 248 Stop Sign Policy DiscussionObjective is to solicit feedback from the council about the current policy and potential revisions.pCurrentpolicyestablishedin1992:Current policy established in 1992:1. 12 signatures2Mailed responsewithmeetingdate2.Mailed response with meeting date3. Article published in city news with stop signprosandconsandsubjectareasign pros and cons, and subject area4. Hold special or regular council meeting Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 72 of 248 Stop Sign Policy DiscussionPolicy was to provide open discussion, consideranyproposalwithreasonableconsider any proposal with reasonable support, provide update to the entire itdtffdilcommunity, and use staff and council time wiselyThe current policy does not account for pybest practices in regards to sign placementratheronlyifsupportisplacement rather only if support is gathered for unwarranted signs Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 73 of 248 Stop Sign Policy DiscussionMany residents petition for stop signs (unwarranted)becausetheybelieve(unwarranted) because they believe traffic will be slowed, it will make the ihb h df htdineighborhood safer; however studies dispute this (FHWA‐RD‐81‐084)Staff obviously reviews all requests and yqif regulatory signs are found to be warrantedtheyare broughttocouncilwarranted they are brought to council for approval and installed Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 74 of 248 Stop Sign Policy DiscussionUnwarranted stop signs:•Notconsistentwithbestpractices, MnMUTCDNot consistent with best practices, MnMUTCD•Pits neighbors against neighbors (Atlantic/Junction petition then repetition)•Stop compliance is poor•Pedestrians get false sense of securityIdi flljidii•Increased operating costs for local jurisdiction (Annualized = $17 per year). Plus enforcement.•Canincreasespeeds(makeupforlosttime)•Can increase speeds (make up for lost time)•Increase in pollution and braking/acceleration noise Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 75 of 248 Stop Sign Policy DiscussionRecommendations:•FollowMnMUTCDguidanceforregulatorysignsFollow MnMUTCD guidance for regulatory signs•Staff reviews requests as they come in (no petition required)•If unwarranted the requestor(s) would be notified•Warranted signs would be brought to council for l d hilliapproval and then installation•Staff is currently working on a TRAFFIC SIGN POLICYAportionofthepolicycouldaddressthisPOLICY. A portion of the policy could address this issue. Policy, once drafted, would be brought to council for review and approval.pp•Operate under current policy until new one is adopted. Agenda Item G8 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 76 of 248 AGENDA REPORT TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Steven Love, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Project Update, July 16th Storm Clean-up and Investigation, City Project 11-19 DATE: September 29, 2011 INTRODUCTION The following agenda report provides the council with an update on the status of City Project 11-19, July 16th Storm Clean-up and Investigation. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On Friday evening through Saturday morning (July 15-16) the city received 4.54 inches of rain, with a majority of that total received over a 3 hour span on Saturday morning. A 100-year storm event, which has only a 1% chance of occurring in any given year, equates to 3.8 inches of rain over a 3 hour span. So clearly the 100-year storm event was eclipsed causing many problems throughout the city. The high intensity storm event taxed the overall storm sewer networks especially the ponds and lakes which could not drain fast enough to avoid flooding and backups in the storm pipe networks. Following the storm event 20 areas were identified that reported localized flooding issues. Please refer to the attached City Map showing the approximate general location of these areas. The City Council authorized the establishment of a budget of $100,000 for the investigation and remediation efforts of the localized flooding issues resulting from the July 16, 2011 storm event. City staff and S.E.H., the City’s consultant, have been meeting with property owners, performing preliminary site reviews, building drainage models, researching area history, and completing design alternatives. Several of the identified areas are being reviewed together as they are part of an overall larger drainage system. The following is a brief summary of activities completed to date:  Area 1 (City Hall Pond) Area 17 (2260 Van Dyke Street) o As-built drawings have been provided to S.E.H. to review the performance of the existing ponding system and the low point on Van Dyke Street  Area 2 (Ivy Pond System) Area 3 (Glendon Pond) Area 4d (Lakewood/McKnight Road) o Gathering as-built information for S.E.H. as requested to support development of a model o S.E.H. is coordinating with Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) for existing modeling information Agenda Item G9 Packet Page Number 77 of 248  Area 5 (Wakefield Lake) o RWMWD is reviewing the design of the outlet for Wakefield Lake o Obtained the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) flow data for the sanitary sewer metering stations in the area of the sanitary sewer issues along Hazelwood Street and Prosperity Road  In process of reviewing these files  Area 6 (Larpenture Avenue at Sterling Street) Area 4b (Gas Station at McKnight Road and Larpenture Avenue) Area 4c (McKnight Road and Larpenture Avenue) o Gathering as-built information for S.E.H. as requested to support development of a model and site review  Area 7 (Knucklehead Lake) o Staff met with residents on Lark Avenue and performed a preliminary site review o S.E.H. has created a hydrologic/hydraulic model for the area to evaluate the response of the Knucklehead Lake system and look at potential improvement scenarios  S.E.H.’s model evaluates the system improvements in the overall area, from upstream of Knuckelhead Lake (e.g., the ditch along T.H. 36 to the east) and downstream to the planned T.H. 36-English Street Interchange improvements  As-built plans have been provided to S.E.H. for the development of the model  Area 8 (Edgerton Pond) Area 12 (Ripley) o Researching and reviewing past hydrologic models completed for both areas as part of past projects or previous studies o Gathering as-built information for S.E.H. as requested to support development of a new model  Area 9 (T.H. 36 Underpass) Area 16 (Truck Utilities) o These areas are both being evaluated as part of the drainage analysis for City Project 09-08, English Street / T.H. 36 Interchange o Both areas will be addressed as part of the overall proposed improvement plan  Area 10 (1398 Myrtle Street) o City staff and S.E.H. met with the homeowner on September 12, 2011 to review the site conditions and interview the homeowner. o City staff is providing S.E.H. with as-built plans of the existing system o The existing system is currently under review  Area 11 (East Shore Drive) o S.E.H. performed an hydrologic/hydraulic model of the area and recommended increasing the outlet pipe size from a 3 inch PVC to a 12 inch RCP o City crews completed the proposed improvement in late August 2011 Agenda Item G9 Packet Page Number 78 of 248  Area 13 (Schneider’s Pond) o Gathering as-built information for S.E.H. as requested to support development of a model o Site visit to be complete in early October o Following site visit modeling and of the area will begin  Area 14 (County Road D Court) o RWMWD completed the repairs and mitigation needs for the road and utility washout of County Road D Court  Area 15 (2496 Flandrau Street) o City staff and S.E.H. met with the homeowner on August 20, 2011 to review the site conditions and interview the homeowner o City staff is providing S.E.H. with as-built plans of the existing system o The existing system is currently under review  Area 18 (2010 County Road B East) o City staff and S.E.H. met with the homeowner on September 6, 2011 to review the site conditions and interview the homeowner o City staff is providing S.E.H. with as-built plans of the existing system o The existing system is currently under review  Area 19 (2324 Holloway Avenue) o City staff and S.E.H. met with the homeowner on August 30, 2011 to review the site conditions and interview the homeowner o City staff is providing S.E.H. with as-built plans of the existing system o The existing system is currently under review  Area 20 (2482 Adele Street) o City staff and S.E.H. met with the homeowner on September 6, 2011 to review the site conditions and interview the homeowner o City staff is providing S.E.H. with as-built plans of the existing system o The existing system is currently under review SUMMARY City staff and S.E.H. have completed the majority of the site visits and are currently in the process of reviewing the 20 identified impacted areas. The initial investigation report is anticipated to be completed by the end of October 2011. For each of the indentified areas this report will include findings, conclusions, remediation recommendations, and recommendations for areas in need of further analyses. Based on the current schedule, staff plans to bring this item before the council in November. Attachments: 1. 2011 Flooding Issues Map Agenda Item G9 Packet Page Number 79 of 248 CITY OF MAPLEWOODLEGENDSTATE HIGHWAYSCOUNTY ROADSCITY STREETSAgenda Item G9 Attachment 1Packet Page Number 80 of 248 MEMORANDUM TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, ACIP, Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Rolling Hills of Maplewood Mobile Home Park—Conditional Use Permit Review LOCATION: 1316 Pearson Drive DATE: October 4, 2011 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permits for the first and second additions of the Rolling Hills Manufactured Home Park, located at 1316 Pearson Drive, are due for its annual city council review. BACKGROUND On October 25, 1982, the city council approved the CUP for the Rolling Hills 1st Addition. The CUP for the 1st Addition was reconsidered on August 13, 1984 due to compliance issues during the early stages of site development. On May 11 1987, the city council approved the CUP for the Rolling Hills 2nd Addition. There were many subsequent reviews that followed to monitor CUP compliance during the development years. Recent Council Action On July 26, 2010, the city council approved an amendment to the Rolling Hills of Maplewood Mobile Home Park conditional use permit (CUP). This amendment allowed the park owner to place used mobile homes in the park instead of the previous requirement that all homes placed in the park be new. In addition, the council required that “all shelters and restroom facilities within shelters shall be kept sanitary and well maintained” as a result of complaints from Park residents. Following the July 26 meeting, two residents of the Park contacted the city stating that they felt that the CUP was not being met because the Park owner removed the restrooms from the south shelter instead of repairing the facilities. On September 13, 2010, the city council revisited the Rolling Hills CUP conditions to clarify their motion about the restroom requirement. The council moved that staff bring the CUP back for language clarification with the intent of reinforcing any of the original conditions of the CUP that might be erroneously thought to have been removed when it was revised and to call for a public hearing for the clarified CUP. On October 11, 2010, the city council approved a revised CUP for Rolling Hills which incorporated previous conditions of approval for the Rolling Hills 1st and 2nd Additions and also a third section of conditions that apply to the entire Rolling Hills development which council approved on July 26, 2010. Agenda Item G10 Packet Page Number 81 of 248 2 DISCUSSION On July 26, 2010, the city council reviewed and revised the two original sets of CUP conditions for the 1st and 2nd Additions of Rolling Hills to delete unneeded conditions that were no longer relevant. These were conditions that pertained generally to the start up of the development, to utility installation or to site grading. Conditions relative the continued operation of the Park were kept. One item that was not foreseen was the matter of the poor condition of the restrooms in the southerly storm shelter which was raised by park residents immediately before the July 26, 2010 meeting. That matter was addressed by the council with Condition 10 which stated that “All shelters and restroom facilities within shelters shall be kept sanitary and well maintained.” The required restroom facilities have been installed in the shelters and staff is not aware of any outstanding issues since this CUP was before council last year. BUDGET IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permits for 1316 Pearson Drive (Rolling Hills First and Second Additions) again in one year. Packet Page Number 82 of 248 3 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 55.56 acres Existing Use: Rolling Hills of Maplewood Mobile Home Park SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Union Pacific Railroad tracks South: Ivy Avenue and single dwellings East: Century Avenue and single dwellings in the City of Oakdale West: Pond View Apartments PLANNING Land Use Plan: MDR (medium density residential) Zoning: R3 (multiple dwelling residential) p:sec24-29\Rolling Hills CUP Review_CC_101011 1. Site/Location Map Attachments 2. Zoning Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. City Council Minutes, dated October 11, 2010 Packet Page Number 83 of 248 Packet Page Number 84 of 248 Packet Page Number 85 of 248 Packet Page Number 86 of 248 Attachment 4 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m., Monday, October 11, 2010 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 21-10 H. PUBLIC HEARING 1. 7:00 p.m. or Later – Rolling Hills of Maplewood Mobile Home Park – Conditional Use Permit Reconsideration a. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the council. b. City Manager, James Antonen addressed and answered questions of the council. Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. 1. Tom DeVink, Attorney, Representing Rolling Hills Manufactured Home Park addressed the council. 2. Paul Ruby, President Rolling Hills Resident Association addressed the council. Mayor Rossbach closed the public hearing. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the CUP for Rolling Hills of Maplewood Mobile Home Park incorporating revisions from the original CUP’s. 10. Change the clause to specify that toilets and stall walls shall be maintained in both the north and south shelter restrooms. Including 14. 23. A clause added for the standard one year and the usual language in CUP’s about that so that in the future it can be deferred for longer times. 24. Strike the first sentence after April 23, 1984. Change it to (a) The following improvements must be installed within 60 days after a mobile home is placed on a lot. (then include (1) and (2) and (b). 5. the second addition covers some of the same language so whatever fits briefer would be fine. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Mayor Rossbach made a friendly amendment to ensure that all of the items from the initial CUP and the second addition CUP (except for items from the first CUP 1, 2, 6, 7, 18, and 22 are not necessary), all other items should be represented in the third addition for the CUP. (Staff made the revisions and changes which are included in the resolution below) Councilmember Nephew agreed with the friendly amendment. Packet Page Number 87 of 248 Attachment 4 The motion for the Rolling Hills CUP revision shall, therefore, include the conditions of approval required in the following resolution. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION 10-10-475 WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council reconsidered the conditional use permit for the Rolling Hills of Maplewood Mobile Home Park to review which former and current conditions of approval were still pertinent to the operation of the Park. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located on the west side of Century Avenue between Ivy Avenue and the Chicago and Northwest Railroad tracks, addressed as 1316 Pearson Drive. The legal description is: The SE’ly ¼ of the NE’ly ¼ of Section 24, Township 29, Range 22, lying southeasterly of the Chicago and Northwest Railroad right-of-way, in Ramsey County, Minnesota. and The NE’ly ¼ of the SE’ly ¼ of Section 24, Township 29, Range 22 in Ramsey County, MN. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1. On October 11, 2010, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The city council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered the reports and recommendation of city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above-described conditional use permit revision, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 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. Packet Page Number 88 of 248 Attachment 4 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. The conditional use permit for the Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park shall be subject to the following conditions. These include conditions from the Rolling Hills 1st Addition approval, conditions from the Rolling Hills 2nd Addition approval and from the conditions approved by the council on July 26, 2010 which pertain to the entire development: Rolling Hills 1st Addition CUP Conditions 1. The conditional use permit for Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park shall be reviewed by the city council in one year, October 2011. Subsequent annual reviews can be waived based on city council direction. 2. There shall be no exterior of equipment, such as bikes, hoses, lawnmowers, rakes, etc. 3. Each lot shall be allowed an exterior storage shed of no more than 120 square feet. Such shed must be kept in workmanlike repair and painted. 4. No access shall be allowed to Century Avenue. 5. No construction or grading shall be allowed to disturb the tamarack grove. 6. All utility installations shall be underground. 7. The private streets must be at least 28 feet in width, with parking on one side only. No parking shall be permitted in the vicinity of intersections. The Director of Public Safety shall specify the no parking distances for each intersection. Signs shall be posted by the park owner when available. 8. Water lines must be flushed at least once each year or as required by the environmental health official. 9. All storm water discharge must be directed to the wetland to the west. No connection to the city storm sewer shall be allowed. 10. All mobile homes must be new, skirted and tied down. Skirting shall extend from the frame of the chassis to the ground. Skirting must be painted to complement the mobile home. 11. All tie downs and foundations must meet the state building code. 12. (a) Construction on the below-grade storm shelter shall begin May 11, 1984, and shall be completed by June 22, 1984, unless the Director of Public Safety extends the deadline due to circumstances beyond the control of the developer. (b) The design of the below grade structure must be approved by the Director of Emergency Services, including emergency lighting, ventilation and sanitary facilities. (c) The above grade portion of the building must receive approval from the design review board before Packet Page Number 89 of 248 Attachment 4 construction. (d) The storm shelter must remain free of storage and be kept available for use. (e) No further permits for additional mobile homes shall be issued until the shelter is completed. 13. The sign regulations for the R3 district shall apply. 14. The following minimum setbacks shall apply: (1) Twenty feet to a private street. (2) Thirty feet to a public right-of-way, except for storage sheds. (3) Five foot side yard setback on the side opposite the entry. (4) Twenty foot side yard setback on the entry side. 15. No structures shall be allowed in a required setback, except for an accessory building, in the twenty foot side yard setback and the thirty foot setback from a public right-of-way. An accessory building must have a side yard setback of at least five feet. 16. The developer shall provide traffic control signs as required by the Director of Public Safety. 17. Compliance with all pertinent state statutes and regulations. 18. No variation shall be permitted from the site plan dated 3-21-83 without community design review board approval. 19. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed in one year to determine compliance with conditions and whether a change in conditions is necessary to resolve problems that may have developed. 20. A) The following improvements must be installed within sixty days after a mobile home is placed on a lot: (1) A paved driveway and off street parking pad at least sixteen feet wide and twenty feet deep. (2) A thirty inch wide sidewalk from the mobile home entrance to the parking pad subject to placement of entrance decks. B) Improvements required in item 20 shall not apply to model homes. 21. If any of the above conditions are not met, no additional mobile homes shall be moved into the park. Rolling Hills 2nd Addition CUP Conditions 1. Compliance with state requirements. 2. There shall be no exterior storage of equipment such as bikes, hoses, lawnmowers, rakes, etc. 3. Each lot shall be allowed an exterior storage shed of no more than 120 square feet. Such shed must be kept in workmanlike repair and painted. 4. Each lot shall be allowed to have children’s play equipment unless the developer provides a tot lot adjacent to the community building. Packet Page Number 90 of 248 Attachment 4 5. Each lot shall be allowed a deck and carport, provided that either structure shall not be closer than ten feet to any adjacent dwelling. Carports shall not be closer than six feet to a private street and shall not have walls. On lots along Century Avenue, sheds shall not be closer than forty seven feet to the right-of-way. 6. All mobile homes be new, skirted and tied down. Skirting shall extend from the frame of the chassis to the ground. Skirting must be painted to complement the mobile home. 7. All tie downs and foundations must meet the state building code. 8. The sign regulations for the R3 district shall apply. 9. The following minimum setbacks shall apply for dwellings: a. Twenty feet to a private street. b. Forty seven feet to the Century Avenue right-of-way. c. Five foot side yard setback on the side opposite the entry side. d. Twenty foot side yard setback on the entry side. e. Seventy feet to a railroad track. 10. Sales of mobile homes shall be limited to those owned by park residents and those sold by the park owner for placement in the park. 11. The storm shelter shall be kept free of storage. The shelter shall be kept open at all times or keys shall be made available to all residents in a manner to be approved by the Director of Emergency Services. 12. The city shall not be responsible for maintaining any of the internal improvements. 13. Water lines shall be flushed at least once a year. 14. Parking shall only be permitted on one side of each street. No parking shall be permitted closer than thirty feet to any intersection. 15. Adherence to the approved site plan and related conditions. Any significant change must be approved by the community design review board. Minor changes may be approved by staff. The city council’s July 26, 2010 Motion Rolling Hills which pertain to the entire development 1. Compliance with all building code requirements. 2. There shall be no exterior storage of equipment such as bikes, hoses, lawnmowers, rakes, etc. 3. Each lot shall be allowed an exterior storage shed of no more than 120 square feet. Sheds must be kept in good repair. 4. Each lot shall be allowed to have children’s play equipment unless the developer provides a tot lot adjacent to the community building. Packet Page Number 91 of 248 Attachment 4 5. All mobile homes shall be skirted and tied down. Skirting shall extend from the frame of the chassis to the ground. Skirting must match the mobile home. 6. Manufactured homes to be placed in the park are no longer required to be new. All homes to be moved into the park must meet all current building code and fire code requirements. 7. The sign regulations for the R3 district shall apply. 8. The following minimum setbacks shall apply for dwellings: • Twenty feet to a private street. • Thirty feet to any public right-of-way for homes in the 1st • Forty-seven feet to the Century Avenue right-of-way for homes in the 2 Addition. nd • Five foot side yard setback on the side opposite the entry side. Addition. • Twenty foot side yard setback on the entry side. • Seventy feet to a railroad track. • Ten feet to any adjacent dwelling for a deck or car port. • Six feet to a private street for a carport (carports shall not have walls). • Forty-seven feet to the Century Avenue right-of-way for a shed in the 2nd Addition. 9. The storm shelters shall be kept free of storage. The shelters shall be kept open at all times or keys shall be made available to all residents in a manner to be approved by the Director of Public Safety. 10. All shelters shall have private restroom facilities within the shelters which shall be kept sanitary and well maintained. 11. The park owner shall be responsible for maintaining all internal infrastructure improvements. 12. Water lines shall be flushed at least once a year. 13. Parking shall only be permitted on one side of each street. No parking shall be permitted closer than thirty feet to any intersection. These requirements are subject to the review and approval of the police chief. 14. There shall be no driveway access to Century Avenue or Ivy Avenue from the individual manufactured home sites. 15. Internal traffic signs shall be installed subject to the approval of the police chief. 16. Adherence to the approved site plan and related conditions. Any significant change must be approved by the community design review board. Minor changes may be approved by staff. The number of home sites shall not be increased without the revision of this conditional use permit. Packet Page Number 92 of 248 Attachment 4 The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on October 11, 2010. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes – All The motion passed. Packet Page Number 93 of 248 MEMORANDUM TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Nick Carver, Assistant Building Official/Green Building Manager Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Acceptance of Grants to Attend the International Green Construction Code Final Action Hearings DATE: October 4th, 2011 for the October 10th, 2011 City Council Meeting INTRODUCTION The International Code Council will conduct final action hearings regarding the International Green Construction Code (IgCC) this fall. The hearings are November 2-6, 2011 in Phoenix, Arizona. As an active committee member at the Spring code development hearings, Nick Carver has been recruited to attend and testify at the final action hearings. Nick has been awarded a $1,250.00 grant from the Association of Minnesota Building Officials and a $1,000.00 grant from the International Code Council to testify at the 2012 IgCC final action hearings. The City of Maplewood has been an active participant in shaping the 2012 International Green Construction Code. The results of the final action hearings will determine the course of Maplewood’s “Green Building Program” and guidance for the State of Minnesota. BUDGET IMPACT The grant will provide support to the City for the expenses for Nick Carver to attend this International Conference. There will be no expense to the City for this program other than the continued support to pay for Nick’s involvement in this environmental program. The City will receive the grants into the General Fund and then pay for Nick’s conference expenses accordingly. RECOMMENDATION Recommend acceptance of awarded grants. Agenda Item G11 Packet Page Number 94 of 248 P:\AGENDA REPORTS\10.10.11\G12 - 101 FEES - UTILITY RATES 2012 NEW.DOC AGENDA NO. G12 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Manager Assistant City Manager RE: Approval of Resolution Adopting 2012 Rates for Utilities DATE: October 3, 2011 INTRODUCTION During preparation of the annual budget, staff reviews revenues produced by the current rates to determine if they are sufficient to cover operating, capital and infrastructure costs. The programs that were reviewed were Sanitary Sewer, Environmental Utility, North St. Paul Water Surcharge, St. Paul Water Surcharge, Recycling and Street Lights. Based on current information, it was determined that Recycling and Street Lights did not warrant a fee increase at this time but the remaining programs did. DISCUSSION The attached statements identify the expense and revenue categories, as well as the cash balances for the following programs. Sanitary Sewer – the proposed 2012 Budget includes an increase in sanitary sewer utility rates of 3%. This fund is needed to finance the Metropolitan Council sewage treatment charges to Maplewood that will be 62% of the operating expenses for the Sanitary Sewer Fund in 2012. The sewage treatment charges for 2012 are anticipated to be $2,460,130. Other operating expenses (including depreciation), are anticipated to be $1,532,660 in 2012. Present 2012 St. Paul Billing District: Rate per 100 cubic feet $2.74 $2.82 Minimum Charge (per quarter) $15.40 $15.86 North St. Paul, Roseville, Little Canada and Woodbury Billing Districts: Rate per 1,000 gals. $ 3.66 $3.77 Minimum Charge (per quarter) $15.40 $15.86 Environmental Utility – a 10% increase is being proposed to offset the demands on city resources for storm water treatment and increasing operating costs. This is the amount Packet Page Number 95 of 248 P:\AGENDA REPORTS\10.10.11\G12 - 101 FEES - UTILITY RATES 2012 NEW.DOC used during the preparation of the 2012-2016 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) document. As staff projects expenses into future years, the pressures to expand this program are significant. Annual increases of 10% are proposed in the CIP for the next two years and then 5% for the following three years to help fund improvements and increased operating expenses. The anticipated operating expenses in 2012 for the Environmental Utility Fund (EUF) are $1,683,960. The largest expense is the Storm Sewer program which accounts for $1,128,740 of this expense, including depreciation in the amount of $438,290. The net income for 2012 is projected to be $328,220. This will provide for an operating balance to help achieve the goal of self-sufficiency. We are not projecting a need for increased bonding in 2012 to cover projects in the 2012-2016 CIP Plan. The 10% proposed increase will raise the quarterly rates on a single-family home from $17.13 ($5.71 per month) to $18.84 ($6.28 per month); a $0.57 per month increase. North St. Paul Water Surcharge – this fund is needed to finance the unassessable water system improvements that would otherwise have to be financed by property taxes. The proposed 2012 Budget includes an increase in the water surcharge for the North St. Paul W ater Service District from $1.00 per account per month to $1.20 per account per month. This is the first fee increase since the City began charging the fee in 2007. St. Paul Water Surcharge - this fund is needed to finance the unassessable water system improvements that would otherwise have to be financed by property taxes. The proposed 2012 Budget includes an increase in the water surcharge for the St. Paul Water Service District from 4% of the St. Paul Water charge to 4.4% of the St. Paul Water charge. The increase would be approximately $0.20 per quarter for a family of four with average water usage (i.e. 22 units per quarter). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution authorizing the above rates for 2012. Packet Page Number 96 of 248 P:\AGENDA REPORTS\10.10.11\G12 - 101 FEES - UTILITY RATES 2012 NEW.DOC RESOLUTION ADOPTION OF THE 2012 RATES FOR UTILITIES: SANITARY SEWER ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY (STORM WATER) WATER SURCHARGE (N ST PAUL and ST PAUL) WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has established utility rates, and WHEREAS, city staff has reviewed the utility rates. NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that: 1. The updated sanitary sewer rates with a 3% increase shall become effective beginning January 1, 2012, with fees set as follows: St. Paul Billing District: Rate per 100 cubic feet $2.82 Minimum Charge (per quarter) $15.86 North St. Paul, Roseville, Little Canada and Woodbury Billing Districts: Rate per 1,000 gals. $3.77 Minimum Charge (per quarter) $15.86 2. The updated Environmental Utility Fund rates with a 10% increase shall become effective beginning January 1, 2012, with quarterly rates set at $18.84 ($6.28 per month). 3. The updated water surcharge rates for the North St. Paul Water District shall become effective beginning January 1, 2012, with fees set as follows: $1.20 per account per month 4. The updated water surcharge rates for the St. Paul Water District shall become effective beginning January 1, 2012, with fees set as follows: 4.4% of the St. Paul water charge. 5. The updated utility rates are approved for all related services received on or after January 1, 2012. 6. The rates shown will be reviewed by staff on an annual basis with recommendations for revisions brought to the city council for consideration. Packet Page Number 97 of 248 2011 ACCT 2009 2010 ORIGINAL 2011 2012 NO.ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET RE-EST. BUDGET Operating revenues: 3305 Sewer permits $4,001 $5,344 $4,000 $4,000 $4,300 3651 Sewer billings 4,132,607 4,440,773 4,731,420 4,510,440 4,645,750 3808 Connection charges 0 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 4,136,608 4,446,117 4,735,420 4,514,440 4,650,050 Operating expenses: Personnel services 501,727 458,683 504,610 504,610 507,880 Materials and supplies 28,412 14,521 38,860 38,860 38,530 Contractual services 215,323 212,669 257,700 257,700 258,210 4485 Billing 23,780 40,306 36,110 36,110 36,110 4510 Sewage treatment 2,561,797 2,570,600 2,625,260 2,625,260 2,460,130 4950 Administration 323,960 323,960 323,960 323,960 323,960 4795 Depreciation 362,024 362,365 400,000 400,000 367,970 Total expenses 4,017,023 3,983,104 4,186,500 4,186,500 3,992,790 Operating income (loss)119,586 463,013 548,920 327,940 657,260 Nonoperating revenues (expenses): 3160 Special assessment penalties & interest 53 24 50 50 0 3801 Investment earnings 7,455 645 690 4,870 3,330 3809 Miscellaneous revenues 6,632 6,854 0 0 0 4975 Miscellaneous expenses 0 (5,222) (4,120) (4,120)0 3980 Gain/(loss) on disposal of property 576 0 0 0 0 4930 Investment management fees (3,833)(2,319)(30)(970)(670) Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)10,883 (18) (3,410)(170) 2,660 Net income (loss) before contributions and transfers 130,469 462,995 545,510 327,770 659,920 Transfers in (out): Public Improvement Projects Fund (net)(428,600) (112,152) (402,000) (412,400) (445,600) Debt Service (293,925) (184,400) (269,150) (269,150) (266,930) Tax Increment funds 0 0 0 0 0 Sewer Lift Station projects 0 0 (260,000) (355,860)0 Housing Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 Fish Creek Open Space 0 0 (700,000)0 0 Information Technology 0 0 0 0 0 Employee Benefits Fund 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers assets purchases 0 0 0 0 0 Capital contributions 1,306,819 330,845 0 0 0 Change in net assets 714,763 497,288 (1,085,640) (709,640) (52,610) Net assets - January 1 11,669,644 12,384,407 12,408,467 12,881,695 12,172,055 Net assets - December 31 $12,384,407 $12,881,695.29 $11,322,827 $12,172,055 $12,119,445 STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS SANITARY SEWER FUND (601) CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Packet Page Number 98 of 248 2011 2009 2010 ORIGINAL 2011 2012 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET RE-EST. BUDGET Net income (loss) before contributions and transfers $130,469 $462,995 $545,510 $327,770 $659,920 Add depreciation 362,024 362,365 400,000 400,000 367,970 Change in current assets 86,391 153,253 0 0 0 Change in current liabilities (3,015) 765 0 0 0 Purchase of fixed assets 0 0 0 0 0 Sale of fixed assets/non cash activity 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers in (out) (722,525) (296,552) (1,631,150) (1,037,410) (712,530) Net increase (decrease) in cash (146,656) 682,827 (685,640) (309,640) 315,360 Cash balance - January 1 438,627 291,970 (208,260) 974,797 665,157 Cash balance - December 31 $291,970 $974,797 ($893,900) $665,157 $980,517 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA SANITARY SEWER FUND (601) STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS Packet Page Number 99 of 248 2011 ACCT 2009 2010 ORIGINAL 2011 2012 NO. ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET RE-EST. BUDGET Operating revenues: 3651 Environmental utility charges $1,617,338 $1,736,452 $1,903,610 $1,868,930 $2,011,520 3633 Miscellaneous 00000 Total revenues 1,617,338 1,736,452 1,903,610 1,868,930 2,011,520 Operating expenses: Building operations 00000 Nature center 70,441 69,710 72,330 72,330 72,890 Planning 0000284,990 Storm sewer maintenance 643,729 714,820 767,500 767,500 527,690 Street sweeping 181,684 179,474 195,480 195,480 197,340 4485 Billing 46,544 40,716 36,300 36,300 40,000 4950 Administration 69,408 69,400 92,300 92,300 122,760 4795 Depreciation 416,668 438,285 480,000 480,000 438,290 Total expenses 1,428,474 1,512,404 1,643,910 1,643,910 1,683,960 Operating income (loss) 188,864 224,047 259,700 225,020 327,560 Nonoperating revenues (expenses): 3110 Special assessments 0 31,084 0 0 0 3801 Investment earnings (1,717)438 (310)1,750 2,610 3809 Miscellaneous income 9,977 0000 3899 Gain/(loss) on disposal of property 0 (30,653)0 0 0 4930 Investment management fees 0 (1,766)0 (2,000)(1,950) Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)8,260 (896)(310)(250)660 Net income (loss) before contributions and transfers 197,124 223,151 259,390 224,770 328,220 Transfers in (out): Public Improvement Projects Fund (127,000) (397,298) (1,900,000) (2,176,200) (405,000) Amount to be bonded for 0 0 1,600,000 1,910,200 0 Public Works Building Addition Fund 00000 Debt Service Fund (112,660) (174,650) (194,540) (193,050) (301,460) Capital Improvements Projects Fund 00000 Fire Training Facility Fund 0 (15,000) (60,000)0 0 Park Development Fund 0 0 (200,000) (25,000) (100,000) Employee Benefits Fund 00000 Capital Contributions 3,672,480 1,342,559 0 0 0 Change in net assets 3,629,944 978,762 (495,150) (259,280) (478,240) Net assets - January 1 14,272,822 17,902,765 18,509,526 18,881,528 18,622,248 Net assets - December 31 $17,902,765 $18,881,528 $18,014,376 $18,622,248 $18,144,008 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND (604) STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS Packet Page Number 100 of 248 2011 2009 2010 ORIGINAL 2011 2012 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET RE-EST. BUDGET Net income (loss) before contributons and transfers $197,124 $223,151 $259,390 $224,770 $328,220 Add depreciation 416,668 438,285 480,000 480,000 438,290 Change in current assets (2,790) (41,121) 0 0 0 Change in current liabilities (2,820) (12,965) 0 0 0 Purchase of fixed assets 00000 Sale of fixed assets/non cash activity 0 30,653 0 0 0 Transfers in (out) (239,660) (586,948) (754,540) (484,050) (806,460) Net increase (decrease) in cash 368,522 51,056 (15,150) 220,720 (39,950) Cash balance - January 1 (217,429) 151,092 37,853 202,149 422,869 Cash balance - December 31 $151,092 $202,149 $22,703 $422,869 $382,919 ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND (604) STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Packet Page Number 101 of 248 2011 ACCT 2009 2010 ORIGINAL 2011 2012 NO. ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET RE-EST. BUDGET Miscellaneous Revenue: 3651 Utility billings $0 $37,927 $9,480 $9,510 $11,350 3801 Investment earnings 61 (6)0 (210) (250) 3808 Connection charges 00000 Total revenues 61 37,921 9,480 9,300 11,100 Expenditures: Capital projects 0 8,622 0 4,200 0 4485 Fees for utility billing 0 6,170 1,550 1,550 1,550 4930 Investment management fees 43 0000 Total expenditures 43 14,792 1,550 5,750 1,550 Excess (deficit) of revenues over expenditures 18 23,129 7,930 3,550 9,550 Other financing sources (uses): Operating transfers in (out): Public Improvement Project Fund 0 (80,000)0 0 0 Capital Improvement Fund 00000 Net increase (decrease) in fund balance 18 (56,871) 7,930 3,550 9,550 Fund balance - January 1 (1,923) (1,905) (56,405) (58,776) (55,226) Fund balance - December 31 ($1,905) ($58,776) ($48,475) ($55,226) ($45,676) STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE WATER AVAILABILITY CHARGE FUND - NORTH ST. PAUL WATER DISTRICT (408) CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Packet Page Number 102 of 248 2011 ACCT 2009 2010 ORIGINAL 2011 2012 NO.ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET RE-EST. BUDGET Miscellaneous Revenue: 3651 Utility billings $103,424 $50,569 $165,000 $134,900 $181,500 3801 Investment earnings 585 (194) (300)400 500 3808 Water availability charge 45,356 36,960 45,360 36,960 36,960 Total revenues 149,365 87,335 210,060 172,260 218,960 Expenditures: Capital projects 0 35,102 0 16,790 0 4485 Fees for utility billing 2,558 (3,756) 1,760 880 1,760 4930 Investment management fees 1,027 0 0 470 400 Total expenditures 3,585 31,346 1,760 18,140 2,160 Excess (deficit) of revenues over expenditures 145,780 55,990 208,300 154,120 216,800 Other financing sources (uses): Operating transfers in (out): General Fund 00000 Water Fund 00000 Public Improvement Project Fund 0 212,000 0 (40,800) (318,600) Amount to be bonded for 00000 1993/2002B G.O. Imp. Refunding Bonds (33,460) (33,460) (33,460) (33,460)0 2010A G.O. Improvement Bonds 0 0 (16,580) (15,860) (46,080) Net increase (decrease) in fund balance 112,320 234,530 158,260 64,000 (147,880) Fund balance - January 1 (271,572) (159,251) (115,911) 75,278 139,278 Fund balance - December 31 ($159,251) $75,278 $42,349 $139,278 ($8,602) STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE WATER AVAILABILITY CHARGE FUND - ST. PAUL WATER DISTRICT (407) CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Packet Page Number 103 of 248 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Packet Page Number 104 of 248 MEMORANDUM TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Dearborn Meadow East, Building Elevation Revision LOCATION: Castle Avenue and Castle Court DATE: October 4, 2011 INTRODUCTION Dearborn Meadow East is a 15-unit town house planned unit development (PUD) on Castle Avenue and Castle Court, east of White Bear Avenue. This project was approved in 2003 and the construction of this project is nearly complete. There is a single twin home left to be built. The owners of this site have applied for a building permit but during staff’s review, the rear building elevation facing Castle Avenue did not have brick shown as required by the city council. The owners are asking the city to consider a revision to the condition that required the application of brick. BACKGROUND May 27, 2003: The city council approved the Dearborn Meadow East PUD. The council also approved the design plans. Condition 7e required that the applicant shall, “present a revised building plan for staff approval that shows brick wainscoting on the north sides of all units that are along Castle Avenue.” DISCUSSION The building permit that was submitted for city approval showed no brick on the north elevation. The developer stated that placing brick on the rear elevation would be costly and difficult because of the locations of decks, utilities and egress window wells. The planning staff conferred with the city’s building inspectors who commented that while it would be more intensive work it would not be impossible to include a brick wainscot even with decks, utilities and egress window wells. Staff met with the applicant who felt that a landscaping screen in back of the proposed twin home would screen the back of the building and conceal the mechanical projections from the back wall (plumbing and heating vents). This was hoped to eliminate the need for brick. Staff thought this was a potential alternative, but the applicant’s proposal was to add three shrubs (six total) behind each unit. CDRB Recommendation September 27, 2011: The CDRB rejected the applicant’s proposal to add six shrubs behind the proposed twin home as an alternative to applying brick to the back elevation. The board, however, recommended a revision requiring the applicant to extend the deck and deck rail to the window wells to conceal part of the mechanical projections from the back wall and provide more visual interest to the building. Agenda Item I1 Packet Page Number 105 of 248 Summary The proposal to extend the decks to the window wells would provide visual interest and an architectural element to this long back elevation. Also, the proposed lot is lower than the street grade of Castle Avenue, making it’s lower half less visible from a driver’s view. With these considerations, staff feels that the proposed deck extensions are an acceptable alternative to the brick. BUDGET IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION The remaining twin home to be built in the Dearborn Meadows PUD, west of 1986 Castle Avenue, shall be built with decks extended to the window wells as shown on the plans date-stamped September 30, 2011. The previous requirement for brick wainscoting on this north-facing elevation is waived. Packet Page Number 106 of 248 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Development size: 3.6 acres SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Home Depot across Highway 36 South: Single and double dwellings on Cope Avenue West: Houses on Castle Avenue East: Houses on Castle Avenue APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on September 23, 2011. State law required that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. The review deadline for city council action is November 22, 2011. p:sec11\Dearborn Meadow Elevation Revision Request CC 10 11 te Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Photograph of the proposed site 3. Photograph of the neighboring twin home (rear elevation) to the west 4. Proposed Deck Extension Alternative (two sheets) Packet Page Number 107 of 248 Packet Page Number 108 of 248 Packet Page Number 109 of 248 Packet Page Number 110 of 248 Packet Page Number 111 of 248 Packet Page Number 112 of 248 September 27, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Dearborn Meadow East, Building Elevation Revision, north of Castle Avenue. i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the board. ii. Applicant, Steve Boynton, Homebridge LLC, addressed and answered questions of the board. Boardmember Shankar moved to deny the applicant’s proposal to add six shrubs behind the proposed twin home as an alternative to applying rick to the back elevation. The applicant shall revise the plans to extend the deck and deck rail to the window wells. The height of the railing shall be at least 42 inches. Seconded by Boardmember Ahmed. Ayes – All The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on October 10, 2011. Packet Page Number 113 of 248 Agenda Item I.2 MEMORANDUM TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner SUBJECT: Trash Collection System Analysis - Request for Authorization to Negotiate a Draft Trash Collection Contract with the Top Ranked Proposer DATE: October 6, 2011 for the October 10 City Council Meeting INTRODUCTION 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. The City Council adopted goals for the City’s trash collection system as follows: 1) Economic, 2) Service, 3) Environment, 4) Safety, 5) Efficiency, 6) Planning Process*, 7) Aesthetics, and 8) Hauler Impacts*. *These goals are required by state statute. 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, two Environmental and Natural Resources Commissioners, and two City staff. Dan Krivit of Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC, participated in the Working Group meetings as the City’s solid waste management consultant. DISCUSSION The Trash Hauling Working Group was charged with analyzing two areas of trash collection systems including improvements to the City’s existing subscription (or “open trash hauling”) system and a contractual (or “organized trash hauling”) system. Review and Analysis of Existing Subscription System The Trash Hauling Working Group gave a report to the City Council on August 29, 2011, regarding possible improvements that could be made to the City’s subscription system. That discussion will continue during a workshop on October 24, 2011, with final analysis of both the subscription and the contracted systems coming before the City Council in November 2011. Review and Analysis of Contractual Systems Request for Proposal The analysis of a contractual system included the creation of a request for proposal (RFP) for residential trash collection. On July 11, 2011, the City Council authorized the release of a Comprehensive, Residential Trash Collection System RFP. A summary of the RFP content follows: Packet Page Number 114 of 248 2  City-wide trash collection for all single-family residential properties (properties with one to four units).  Proposal options include: a contract for the entire City; or a contract for one to three of the City’s existing day certain trash pick up districts.  Term of Contract: Five years with two one-year extensions possible.  Proposals can be submitted by one hauler or a joint proposal from up to four haulers. Joint proposals can be submitted for the entire City contract option only.  RFP specifies billing directly by the Hauler to the residents.  RFP specifies City-owned trash carts.  RFP requires the vendor to submit a fixed base collection fee (BCF) for all properties, with variable disposal fee pricing depending on cart sizes (i.e., 20/30/60/90 gallon).  Added service requirements include pick up of yard waste, bulky items, extra bags, Christmas trees, e-waste.  RFP does not include trash collection from City buildings. Responses to the RFP August 19, 2011, was the deadline for proposal responses to the RFP. On August 19 the City received six responses to the RFP from the following companies:  Allied Waste Services  Dick's Sanitation, Inc.  Highland Sanitation and Recycling  Tennis Sanitation, LLC  Walters Recycling and Refuse, Inc.  Waste Management, Inc. Proposal Review and Ranking On September 13, 2011, the Trash Hauling Working Group met to review and rank the proposals based on the following evaluation criteria specified in the RFP: Criteria Points 1. Proposed prices 32 points  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. Packet Page Number 115 of 248 3 Criteria Points  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 2. Qualifications 10 points  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  Aggregate age of truck equipment proposed  Any lawsuits that may impact the proposer’s ability to perform the services specified in this RFP and/or the Contract 3. Service 20 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, etc.).  Proposed public education services.  Proposed plans to implement a RFID system. 4. Environmental benefits and street impacts 19 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 Packet Page Number 116 of 248 4 Criteria Points 5. Safety 8 points  Safety record on Minnesota operations  Proposed safety plan concept for City of Maplewood operations  Other safety policies, programs and proposed operations 6. Aesthetics 5 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 7. Proposal content and overall responsiveness 6 points  Degree of exceptions  Thoroughness of written proposal (e.g., lack of omissions) TOTAL POINTS 100 The proposal ranking system was per the criteria weightings and other procedures in the RFP. The Working Group was diligent in evaluating the relative strengths and weaknesses of each proposal as fairly and objectively as possible. Based on the Trash Hauling Working Group’s review of the responses received, the Group determined that there were four responsive proposals submitted. All four responsive proposals were cost competitive. The companies were thorough and very thoughtful in completing their proposals. Top Ranked Proposal As a result of the Working Group’s careful proposal evaluations, Allied Waste Services (“Allied”) was ranked as the number one proposer. Allied had the best overall score when evaluated against all seven criteria as per the RFP, including the lowest price. Summary of Proposals Upon initial analysis many of the proposals, if implemented, would save resident’s money and meet all of the goals outlined by the City Council for a trash collection system. Several of the proposals would save City residents a significant amount of money if a contract were executed as per their proposal. For example, when comparing the average proposed prices of the top three proposals to the current, average published rates as reported by the licensed haulers to the City for 2011, residents collectively could save over $500,000 per year. If the City is able to Packet Page Number 117 of 248 5 successfully negotiate with the top ranked proposer, Allied, this savings compared to average reported rates could be over $800,000 per year. It is recommended that further details of proposals and proposed prices not be released publicly until such time as a contract is successfully negotiated and executed. Review of Proposals by City Council On October 5, 2011, the City Council held a special City Council Workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to allow all City Councilmembers an opportunity to review the proposals, not just the City Council Members who were part of the Trash Hauling Working Group. During the review the City Council discussed the various proposal scenarios and asked questions of the staff in preparation for the October 10 City Council meeting. Timeline for Completion of the Trash Collection System Analysis Following is the proposed timeline for the completion of the Trash Collection System Analysis:  October 10, 2011: City Council Meeting - Authorize Contract Negotiations  October 24, 2011: City Council Workshop or Meeting – Continued Review of Existing Subscription System  Nov. 21, 2011: 90-day negotiation period ends (90 days from Aug. 19 RFP deadline)  Nov. 28, 2011: City Council Meeting – Decide on System (1. Review Draft Contract, 2. Review Statutory Findings, 3. Decide on System – Contracted or Improved Subscription)  Dec. 12, 2011: City Council Meeting: Authorize Implementation of Selected System  October 1, 2012: New Service Implemented if City Council Chooses Contracted System RECOMMENDATION The Trash Hauling Working Group recommends that the City Council authorize staff to negotiate with Allied Waste Services for City-wide Residential Trash Collection Services. This recommendation and the evaluation process are consistent with the requirements of the City’s RFP. If City staff and Allied Waste Services are unable to negotiate the details of a final draft contract based on the RFP and Allied’s proposal, then City staff should have the authority to end negotiations with Allied and begin negotiations with the second ranked proposer, and so on, as outlined in the RFP. Packet Page Number 118 of 248 Agenda Item I.3 MEMORANDUM TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner SUBJECT: Renewable Energy Ordinance – Second Reading DATE: October 4, 2011 for the October 10 City Council Meeting INTRODUCTION The City adopted an energy efficiency and conservation strategy in December 2009. The strategy was required as part of the City’s energy efficiency conservation block grant. One purpose for the strategy is to help establish policies and priorities to move Maplewood in the direction of improved long-term operational energy efficiency. Implementation of the strategy includes the adoption of energy policies that will ensure achievement of the City’s energy goals. The renewable energy ordinance, which will assist in the promotion of renewable energy sources throughout the City, will help Maplewood meet that goal and will address regulations for wind, solar and geothermal energy sources. The City’s zoning code does not address the installation of these types of energy sources. BACKGROUND On September 26, 2011, the City Council adopted the first reading of the renewable energy ordinance. Changes requested by the City Council prior to the adoption of the ordinance are outlined in the discussion section below. DISCUSSION Following is a brief summary of the changes requested by the City Council prior to the adoption of the renewable energy ordinance: 1. Neighborhood Consent for Small WECS Because of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission for residential turbines, the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission added language which would allow residentially installed Small WECS as a permitted use if 100 percent of the owners or occupants adjacent the property consent to the project. This requirement is reflective of the neighborhood consent required in the City’s new chicken ordinance. The City Council may want to discuss this requirement as a reasonable process for allowing residential wind turbines. 2. Setbacks of Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS): During the first reading of the renewable energy ordinance, Environmental and Natural Resources Commissioner Yingling discussed a concern brought up by the Planning Packet Page Number 119 of 248 2 Commission during their review of the ordinance in regard to ice throw from wind turbines. Ice that accumulates on Large WECS blades can be shed from the turbine by gravity and mechanical forces of the rotating blades. An increase in temperature, wind, or solar radiation can also cause sheets of ice to loosen and fall, making the area directly under the rotor subject to the greatest risks. The rotating turbine blades could also propel ice fragments some distance from the turbine. Commissioner Yingling stated that studies reflect that increased setbacks can help mitigate ice throw. GE Energy recommends a setback of one and one-half times the height of the structure from any road, occupied structure, or public use area as a safe risk mitigation strategy for placement of Large WECS. The renewable energy ordinance had required a setback of one times the height of the turbine from any property line, road, occupied structure, electric substation, transmission line, or other WECS (plus an additional 25 feet when adjacent residential property). The additional setback of one and one-half times the height of the turbine to a road, occupied structure, or public use area has been added to the ordinance to mitigate possible ice throw from Large WECS. 3. Setbacks of Small Wind Energy Conversation Systems (WECS): The ordinance now clarifies that the setbacks of Small WECS does not include increased setbacks to bluffs or property guided as park or open space in the City’s Land Use Designations of the Comprehensive Plan. The increased setback to these areas is recommended as a strategy for protecting bird and bat populations from the rotating blades of the Large WECS. There are no studies to reflect the same concerns for Small WECS with a maximum height of 60 feet. The City’s Mississippi Critical Area ordinance does require a 40-foot minimum setback from a bluff to any structure, including a Small WECS. 4. General Standards for Wind Energy Conversion Systems: The ordinance section which addresses general standards for wind has been modified to separate Large WECS standards from Small WECS standards. 5. Placement of Geothermal Source Heat Pump Systems (GSHPS): The ordinance section which addresses the placement of GSHPS has been modified to prohibit GSHPS in surface water, except for storm water ponds. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the second reading of the attached renewable energy ordinance (Attachment 1). The ordinance creates regulations for wind, solar, and geothermal energy sources in a new ordinance placed in the Environment Chapter (Chapter 18) of the City code. The ordinance also places all environmental ordinances under the Environment Chapter (Chapter 18) by adding Article V (Environmental Protection and Critical Areas) and including the following existing ordinances: Wetlands and Streams, Tree Protection, Slopes, Mississippi Critical Area, Flood Plain Overlay District, and Shoreland Overlay District. Attachments: Ordinance - Renewable Energy Ordinance and Ordinance Placement Packet Page Number 120 of 248 1 Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE TO THE MAPLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS (Wind, Solar, Geothermal) The Maplewood City Council approves the following addition to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances. This ordinance creates a new renewable energy ordinance which will be placed in the Environment Chapter (Chapter 18) of the city code. Section 1. Scope. This ordinance applies to the regulations of on-site renewable energy systems within the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, MN. The ordinance focuses on wind turbines, solar photovoltaic systems, and geothermal ground-source heat pumps which are located on the site for which the generation of energy will be used, with excess energy distributed into the electrical grid. Section 2. Purpose and Intent. It is the goal of the city to provide a sustainable quality of life for the city’s residents, making careful and effective use of available natural resources to maintain and enhance this quality of life. Cities are enabled to regulate land use under Minnesota Statutes 394 and 462 for the purpose of “promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community.” As part of this regulatory power, Maplewood believes it is in the public interest to encourage renewable energy systems that have a positive impact in energy conservation, with limited adverse impact on the community. While Maplewood strongly encourages increased energy conservation and improved energy efficiency, the city also finds that increased use of appropriate renewable energy systems will be an important part of improving urban sustainability. The renewable energy regulations are intended to supplement existing zoning ordinances and land use practices, and ensure these systems are appropriately designed, sited and installed. These regulations are in place to balance the need to improve energy sustainability through increased use of renewable energy systems with concerns for preservation of public health, welfare, and safety, as well as environmental quality, visual and aesthetic values, and existing neighborhood social and ecological stability. With these regulations, Maplewood is concerned that renewable energy systems, particularly wind energy systems, be designed to minimize the negative impacts on bird and bat species which are vulnerable to mortality from these energy gathering machines. Section 3. Wind Energy Sources and Systems a. Definitions, Wind Energy Sources and Systems The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall have the meaning provided herein, except where the context clearly indicates otherwise: Packet Page Number 121 of 248 2 Feeder Line. Any power line that carries electrical power from one or more wind turbines or individual transformers associated with an individual wind turbine to the point of interconnection with the electric power grid. In the case of interconnection with the high voltage transmission systems the point of interconnection shall be the substation serving the WECS. Front Yard. A front yard is any part of a yard located between a structure and a street right-of-way line. A corner lot shall have a front yard on each street frontage. Ground mounted WECS. Freestanding WECS mounted to the ground with footings or other apparatus. Large WECS. A WECS of equal to or greater than 100 kW in total nameplate generating capacity. The energy must be used on-site with excess energy distributed into the electrical grid. Large WECS are limited to one-hundred twenty five (125) feet in height. Property Line. The boundary line of the area over which the entity applying for WECS permit has legal control for the purposes of installation of a WECS. This control may be attained through fee title ownership, easement, or other appropriate contractual relationship between the project developer and landowner. Rear Yard. A rear yard is the yard that is opposite and most parallel to the front yard. Roof Mounted WECS. A WECS utilizing a turbine mounted to the roof of a structure. Side Yard. A side yard is any yard between any part of a structure and the side property line. Significant Tree. Significant Tree means a healthy tree measuring a minimum of six (6) inches in diameter for hardwood deciduous trees, eight (8) inches in diameter for coniferous/evergreen trees, twelve (12) inches diameter for softwood deciduous tree, and specimen tree of any species twenty-eight (28) inches in diameter or greater as defined herein. Buckthorn or others noxious woody plants as determined by the city not considered a significant tree species at any diameter. Small WECS. A WECS of less than 100kW in total nameplate generating capacity. The energy must be used on-site with excess energy distributed into the electrical grid. Small WECS are limited to sixty (60) feet in height. Tower. Vertical structures that support the electrical generator, rotor, and blades, or the meteorological equipment. Tower Height. The total height of the WECS, including tower, rotor, and blade to its highest point of travel. Turbine Cut-In Speed. The lowest wind speed at which turbines generate power to the utility system. Wind Energy. Kinetic energy present in wind motion that can be converted into electrical energy. Packet Page Number 122 of 248 3 WECS. A Wind Energy Conversion System which is an electrical generating facility comprised of one or more wind turbines and accessory facilities, including but not limited to, power lines, transformers, substations and metrological towers that operate by converting the kinetic energy of wind into electrical energy. The energy must be used on- site with excess energy distributed into the electrical grid. Wind Energy System. An electrical generating facility that consists of a wind turbine associated controls and may include a tower. Wind Turbine. A wind turbine is any piece of electrical generating equipment that converts the kinetic energy of blowing wind into electrical energy through the use of airfoils or similar devices to capture the wind. Zoning Official. Zoning official is any person designated by the city manager to administer and enforce the city’s zoning code. b. WECS Districts 1. Large WECS Districts. (a) Ground and Roof Mounted Large WECS shall be allowed with approval of a conditional use permit as outlined in section d (conditional use permit procedure) in the following zoning districts and land use designations: (1) In all properties located in commercial zoning districts (Heavy Manufacturing, Light Manufacturing, Business Commercial, Business Commercial Modified, Limited Business Commercial, Commercial Office, Neighborhood Commercial, Shopping Center). (2) In all properties located in multiple dwelling residential zoning districts (Multiple Dwelling Residential and Multiple Dwelling Residential Townhouse) for purposes of shared WECS energy production among the residential dwelling units. (3) In all properties approved as a planned unit development for purposes of shared WECS energy production among the businesses/organizations, residential dwelling units, or adjoining businesses/organizations/residential dwelling units. (4) In all properties guided as Government or Institutional in the city’s Land Use Designations of the Comprehensive Plan. (b) Ground and Roof Mounted Large WECS shall be prohibited in all properties guided as park or open space in the city’s Land Use Designations of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Small WECS Districts. (a) Roof Mounted Small WECS shall be deemed permissible in all zoning districts. Packet Page Number 123 of 248 4 (b) Ground Mounted Small WECS shall be deemed an accessory structure, permissible in the following zoning districts and land use designations: (1) In all properties located in commercial zoning districts (Heavy Manufacturing, Light Manufacturing, Business Commercial, Business Commercial Modified, Limited Business Commercial, Commercial Office, Neighborhood Commercial, Shopping Center). (2) In all properties located in multiple dwelling residential zoning districts (Multiple Dwelling Residential and Multiple Dwelling Residential Townhouse) for purposes of shared WECS energy production among the residential dwelling units. (3) In all properties approved as a planned unit development for purposes of shared WECS energy production among the businesses/organizations, residential dwelling units, or adjoining businesses/organizations/residential dwelling units. (4) In all properties guided as Government or Institutional in the city’s Land Use Designations of the Comprehensive Plan. (5) In all properties guided as park in the city’s Land Use Designations of the Comprehensive Plan. (c) Ground Mounted Small WECS shall be deemed an accessory structure, permissible in double or single dwelling residential zoning districts if the following neighborhood consent requirements are met: Written consent of one hundred (100) percent of the owners or occupants of privately or publicly owned real estate that are located adjacent (i.e., sharing property lines) on 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 house. Where an adjacent property 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. c. Placement and Design 1. Ground Mounted WECS. (a) Height (1) Large WECS shall have a total height, including tower and blade to its highest point of travel, of no more than one-hundred twenty five (125) feet. Packet Page Number 124 of 248 5 (2) Small WECS shall have a total height, including tower and blade to its highest point of travel, of no more than sixty (60) feet. (b) Placement (1) Large WECS shall be located as follows: a) Shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street, unless the city determines that such a location would lessen the visibility of the Large WECS or would lessen the negative impacts of such a WECS on nearby properties. b) Have a minimum setback distance from the base of the monopole of one (1) times the height from any property line, public right-of-way, electric substation, transmission line, principal structure, or other WECS. In addition, the setback distance must be increased by twenty-five (25) feet from any property that is zoned or planned for residential. c) Have a minimum setback distance from the base of the monopole of one and one-half (1-1/2) times the height from any public right of way, occupied structure, or public use area. dc) Have a minimum setback distance from the base of the monopole of six hundred (600) feet from any property guided as park or open space in the city’s Land Use Designations of the Comprehensive Plan. ed) Have a minimum setback distance from the base of the monopole of one-fourth (¼) mile or one thousand three hundred and twenty (1,320) feet from any bluff. (2) Small WECS shall be located a) Shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street, unless the city determines that such a location would lessen the visibility of the Small WECS or would lessen the negative impacts of such a WECS on nearby properties. Be located entirely in the rear or side yard (not including side yards on corner properties where the side yard is adjacent a street). b) Have a minimum setback distance from the base of the monopole of one (1) times the height from any property line, public right-of-way, electric substation, transmission line, or other WECS. Packet Page Number 125 of 248 6 c) Have a minimum setback distance from the base of the monopole of six hundred (600) feet from any property guided as park or open space in the city’s Land Use Designations of the Comprehensive Plan. d) Have a minimum setback distance from the base of the monopole of six hundred (600) feet from any bluff. (c) Number (1) Large WECS. One (1) large WECS shall be allowed on a single lot of one (1) to five (5) acre(s). All other larger parcels will be limited to one (1) large WECS per five (5) acres of land area. (2) Small WECS. One (1) small WECS shall be allowed on a single lot up to one (1) acre in size. All other larger parcels will be allowed one (1) small WECS per five (5) acres of land area. (d) Design (1) Tower Configuration. All ground mounted WECS shall: a) Be installed with a tubular, monopole type tower. b) Have no guyed wires attached to the tower or other components. c) Have no ladder, step bolts, rungs, or other features used for tower access to extend within eight (8) feet of the ground. Lattice-style towers shall have a protective barrier to prevent unauthorized access to the lower eight (8) feet of the tower. (2) Signs. A WECS operator is required to provide a single posting, not to exceed four (4) square feet, at the base of a WECS prohibiting trespassing, warning of high voltage, and providing the emergency contact information for the operator. 2. Roof Mounted WECS. (a) Height (1) Large Roof Mounted WECS: a) Total height of not more than twenty-five (25) feet, measured from the top of the roof to the blade tip at its highest point of travel. (2) Small Roof Mounted WECS: Packet Page Number 126 of 248 7 a) Total height of not more than twenty-five (25) feet, measured from the top of the roof to the blade tip at its highest point of travel. b) Residential Installation: In addition to the twenty-five (25) foot height restriction for the Small Roof Mounted WECS, the height of the WECS and the structure on which it is attached must not exceed the maximum height allowed in the residential zoning district for which it is installed. (b) Placement Roof mounted WECS must be erected above the roof of a building or structure. The mounts associated with the WECS may extend onto the side of the building or structure. (c) Number (1) Large Roof Mounted WECS. The maximum number of Large Roof Mounted WECS shall be approved through the conditional use permit process. (2) Small Roof Mounted WECS. No more than three (3) roof mounted Small WECS shall be installed on any rooftop. d. Conditional Use Permit Procedure. Procedures for granting conditional use permits from this ordinance are as follows: 1. The city council may approve conditional use permit requirements in this ordinance. 2. Before the city council acts on a conditional use permit the environmental and natural resources commission and the planning commission will make a recommendation to the city council. 3. In reviewing the conditional use permit the environmental and natural resources commission, planning commission, and city council will follow the requirements for conditional use permit approvals as outlined in Article V (conditional use permits). e. General Standards 1. The following provisions will apply to all WECS erected under the provisions of this ordinance: (a)1. Noise: Have a maximum noise production rating of fifty-five (55) dB fifty (50) dBA and shall conform to this standard under normal operating conditions as measured at any property line. 2. Color: Packet Page Number 127 of 248 8 (a) Large WECS: Turbine paint color and high levels of ultraviolet and infrared components of paint could have an impact on the attraction of insect species to the structure, which may attract birds and bats and cause bird and bat mortality. As such, turbine paint color may be approved as part of the conditional use permit process and must be shown to reduce the negative impacts to birds and bats and be a non- obtrusive color so not to cause negative visual impacts to surrounding properties. (b) Small WECS: Turbine paint color must be a non-obtrusive color so not to cause negative visual impacts to surrounding properties. (b)3. Over Speed Controls: Shall be equipped with manual and automatic over speed controls to limit the blade rotation within design specifications. (c)4. Lighting: Have no installed or accessory lighting, unless required by federal or state regulations. (d)5. Intent to Install: Prior to the installation or erection of a WECS, the operator must provide evidence showing their regular electrical service provider has been informed of the customer’s intent to install an interconnected, customer-owned generator. Off-grid systems shall be exempt from this requirement. (e)6. Signs: The placement of all other signs, postings, or advertisements shall be prohibited on the units. This restriction shall not apply to manufacturer identification, unit model numbers, and similar production labels. (f)7. Commercial Installations: All WECS shall be limited to the purpose of on- site energy production, except that any additional energy produced above the total on-site demand may be sold to the operator’s regular electrical service provider in accordance with any agreement provided by the same or applicable legislation. (g)8. Feeder Lines: Any lines accompanying a WECS, other than those contained within the WECS’ tower or those attached to on-site structures by leads, shall be buried within the interior of the subject parcel, unless there are existing lines in the area which the lines accompanying a WECS can be attached. (h)9. Clearance: Rotor blades or airfoils must maintain at least 20 feet of clearance between their lowest point and the ground. (i)10. Blade Design: The blade design and materials must be engineered to insure safe operation in an urban area. 11. Warnings: For all large WECS, a sign or signs shall be posted on the tower, transformer and substation warning of high voltage. Signs with emergency contact information shall also be posted on the turbine or at another suitable point. Packet Page Number 128 of 248 9 (j)12. Energy Storage: Batteries or other energy storage devices shall be designed consistent with the Minnesota Electric Code and Minnesota Fire Code. 2. In addition to the provisions outlined in Section 3, item e(1) above, the following provisions will apply to large WECS erected under the provisions of this ordinance: (a) Color: Turbine paint color and high levels of ultraviolet and infrared components of paint could have an impact on the attraction of insect species to the structure, which may attract birds and bats and cause bird and bat mortality. As such, turbine paint color may be approved as part of the conditional use permit process and must be shown to reduce the negative impacts to birds and bats and be a non-obtrusive color so not to cause negative visual impacts to surrounding properties. (b) Warnings: A sign or signs shall be posted on the tower, transformer and substation warning of high voltage. Signs with emergency contact information shall also be posted on the turbine or at another suitable point. (c) Environmental Standards: The applicant shall provide the following information in the conditional use permit application. The information will be evaluated in meeting the criteria of a conditional use permit for purposes of minimzing minimize impacts on the environment: (a) Natural Heritage Review by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (b) Lands guided as park or open space in the city’s Land Use Designation of the Comprehensive Plan that are located within one (1) mile of the project. (c) Conservation easements and other officially protected natural areas within a quarter mile of the project. (d) Shoreland, Mississippi Critical Area, Greenways, wetland buffers, wildlife corridors and habitat complexes. (e) All significant trees impacted by the project. (f) A plan for turbine-cut in speed strategies where feasible in order to reduce bird and bat deaths. Studies have shown that bird and bat fatalities would be significantly reduced by changing turbine cut-in speed and reducing operational hours during low-wind periods, evening hours (one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise-only in spring, summer, and early fall), and migration times in spring and fall. Packet Page Number 129 of 248 10 3. In addition to the provisions outlined in Section 3, item e(1) above, the following provisions will apply to small WECS erected under the provisions of this ordinance: (a) Color: Turbine paint color must be a non-obtrusive color so not to cause negative visual impacts to surrounding properties. f.e. Abandonment A WECS that is allowed to remain in a nonfunctional or inoperative state for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months, and which is not brought in operation within the time specified by the city after notification to the owner or operator of the WECS, shall be presumed abandoned and may be declared a public nuisance subject to removal at the expense of the operator. Section 4. Solar Energy Sources and Systems a. Definitions, Solar Energy Sources and Systems The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall have the meaning provided herein, except where the context clearly indicates otherwise: Building-Integrated Photovoltaic System. An active solar system that is an integral part of a principal or accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device, replacing or substituting for an architectural or structural component of the building. Building- integrated systems include, but are not limited to, photovoltaic or hot water solar systems that are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings. Ground mounted Panels. Freestanding solar panels mounted to the ground by use of stabilizers or similar apparatus. Photovoltaic System. An active solar energy system that converts solar energy directly into electricity. Roof or Building Mounted SES. Solar energy system (panels) that are mounted to the roof or building using brackets, stands or other apparatus. Roof Pitch. The final exterior slope of a building roof calculated by the rise over the run, typically, but not exclusively, expressed in twelfths such as 3/12, 9/12, 12/12. Solar Access. A view of the sun, from any point on the collector surface that is not obscured by any vegetation, building, or object located on parcels of land other than the parcel upon which the solar collector is located, between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Standard time on any day of the year. Solar Collector. A device, structure or a part of a device or structure for which the primary purpose is to transform solar radiant energy into thermal, mechanical, chemical, or electrical energy. Solar Energy. Radiant energy received from the sun that can be collected in the form of heat or light by a solar collector. Packet Page Number 130 of 248 11 Solar Energy System (SES). An active solar energy system that collects or stores solar energy and transforms solar energy into another form of energy or transfers heat from a collector to another medium using mechanical, electrical, or chemical means. Solar Hot Water System. A system that includes a solar collector and a heat exchanger that heats or preheats water for building heating systems or other hot water needs, including residential domestic hot water and hot water for commercial processes. Zoning Official. Zoning official is any person designated by the city manager to administer and enforce the city’s zoning code. b. Districts Solar energy systems (SES) shall be allowed as an accessory use in all zoning districts. c. Placement and Design 1. Height (a) Roof or building mounted SES shall not exceed the maximum allowed height in any zoning district. For purposes for height measurement, solar systems other than building-integrated systems shall be considered to be mechanical devices and are restricted consistent with other building- mounted mechanical devices. (b) Ground mounted SES shall not exceed the height of an allowed accessory structure within the zoning district, or fifteen (15) feet in height, whichever is greater, when oriented at maximum tilt. 2. Placement (a) Ground mounted SES must meet the accessory structure setback for the zoning district in which it is installed. (b) Roof or Building Mounted SES. The collector surface and mounting devices for roof or building mounted SES shall not extend beyond the required building setbacks of the building on which the system is mounted. 3. Coverage Ground mounted SES may not exceed the area restrictions placed on accessory structures within the subject district. 4. Visibility (a) SES shall be designed to blend into the architecture of the building or be screened from routine view from public right-of-ways other than alleys. The color of the solar collector is not required to be consistent with other roofing materials. Packet Page Number 131 of 248 12 (b) Building Integrated Photovoltaic Systems - Building integrated photovoltaic solar systems shall be allowed regardless of visibility, provided the building component in which the system is integrated meets all required setback, land use or performance standards for the district in which the building is located. (c) Ground mounted SES shall be screened from view to the extent possible without reducing their efficiency. Screening may include walls, fences, or landscaping. d. General Standards 1. Notification. Prior to the installation or erection of a SES, the operator must provide evidence showing their regular electrical service provider has been informed of the customer’s intent to install an interconnected, customer-owned SES. Off-grid systems shall be exempt from this requirement. 2. Feeder lines. Any lines accompanying a SES, other than those attached to on- site structures by leads, shall be buried within the interior of the subject parcel, unless there are existing lines in the area which the lines accompanying an SES can be attached. 3. Commercial. All SES shall be limited to the purpose of on-site energy production, except that any additional energy produced above the total onsite demand may be sold to the operator’s regular electrical service provider in accordance with any agreement provided by the same or applicable legislation. 4. Restrictions on SES Limited. No homeowners’ agreement, covenant, common interest community, or other contract between multiple property owners within a subdivision of Maplewood shall restrict or limit solar systems to a greater extent than Maplewood’s renewable energy ordinance. 5. Maplewood encourages solar access to be protected in all new subdivisions and allows for existing solar to be protected consistent with Minnesota Statutes. Any solar easements filed, must be consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 500, Section 30. e. Abandonment A SES that is allowed to remain in a nonfunctional or inoperative state for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months, and which is not brought in operation within the time specified by city officials, shall be presumed abandoned and may be declared a public nuisance subject to removal at the expense of the operator. Section 5. Geothermal Energy Sources and Systems a. Definitions, Geothermal Energy Sources and Systems The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall have the meaning provided herein, except where the context clearly indicates otherwise: Packet Page Number 132 of 248 13 Closed Loop Ground Source Heat Pump System. A system that circulates a heat transfer fluid, typically food-grade antifreeze, through pipes or coils buried beneath the land surface or anchored to the bottom in a body of water. Geothermal Energy. Renewable energy generated from the interior of the earth and used to produce energy for heating buildings or serving building commercial or industrial processes. Ground Source Heat Pump System (GSHPS). A system that uses the relatively constant temperature of the earth or a body of water to provide heating in the winter and cooling in the summer. System components include closed loops of pipe, coils or plates; a fluid that absorbs and transfers heat; and a heat pump unit that processes heat for use or disperses heat for cooling; and an air distribution system. The energy must be used on-site. Heat Transfer Fluid. A non-toxic and food grade fluid such as potable water, aqueous solutions of propylene glycol not to exceed twenty percent (20%) by weight or aqueous solutions of potassium acetate not to exceed twenty percent (20%) by weight. Stormwater Pond. These are ponds created for stormwater treatment. A stormwater pond shall not include wetlands created to mitigate the loss of other wetlands. b. Districts Ground source heat pump systems (GSHPS) shall be deemed an accessory structure, permissible in all zoning districts. c. Placement and Design 1. Placement (a) All components of GSHPS including pumps, borings and loops shall be set back at least five (5) feet from interior and rear lot lines. (b) Easements. All components of GSHPS shall not encroach on easements. (c) GSHPS are permitted in prohibited in surface waters, except for stormwater ponds where they are permitted. 2. Design (a) Only closed loop GSHPS utilizing Minnesota Department of Health approved heat transfer fluids are permitted. (b) Screening. Ground source heat pumps are considered mechanical equipment and subject to the requirements of the city’s zoning ordinance. d. General Standards Packet Page Number 133 of 248 14 1. Noise. GSHPS shall comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards outlined in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7030. e. Abandonment A GSHPS that is allowed to remain in a nonfunctional or inoperative state for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months, and which is not brought in operation within the time specified by the city after notification to the owner or operator of the GSHPS, shall be presumed abandoned and may be declared a public nuisance subject to removal at the expense of the operator. Section 6. General Ordinance Provisions a. Interpretation In interpreting this ordinance and its application, the provisions of these regulations shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the protection of public health, safety and general welfare. This ordinance shall be construed broadly to promote the purposes for which it was adopted. b. Conflict This ordinance is not intended to interfere with, abrogate or annul any other ordinance, rule or regulation, statute or other provision of law except as provided herein. If any provision of this ordinance imposes restrictions different from any other ordinance, rule or regulation, statute or provision of law, the provision that is more restrictive or imposes high standards shall control. c. Severability If any part or provision of this ordinance or its application to any developer or circumstance is judged invalid by any competent jurisdiction, the judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision or application directly involved in the controversy in which the judgment shall be rendered and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of these regulations or the application of them to other developers or circumstances. Section 7. Ordinance Placement The ordinance places all environmental ordinances under the Environment Chapter (Chapter 18) by adding Article V (Environmental Protection and Critical Areas) and including the following ordinances under the new Article: wetlands and streams, tree protection, slopes, Mississippi Critical Area, Flood Plain Overlay District, Shoreland Overlay District, and Renewable Energy. Following is the revised Chapter 18 Article headings (additions are underlined): Packet Page Number 134 of 248 15 Chapter 18 ENVIRONMENT Article I. In General Sec. 18‐1 ‐ 18‐25. Reserved. Article II. Nuisances Division 1. Generally Sec. 18‐26 Unlawful to cause, create or commit. Sec. 18‐27 Common law and statutory nuisances adopted by reference. Sec. 18‐28 Unlawful to permit; cellars, drains cesspools or sewers. Sec. 18‐29 Rental agents to disclose name of owner or principal to city manager upon request. Sec. 18‐30 Public nuisances generally. Sec. 18‐31 Nuisances affecting health, safety, comfort or repose. Sec. 18‐32 Nuisances affecting morals and safety. Sec. 18‐33 Enforcement of article generally. Sec. 18‐34 Continuing violations. Sec. 18‐35 Notice to abate. Sec. 18‐36 Abatement by council. Sec. 18‐37 Abatement on premises. Sec. 18‐38 Violations of article. Sec. 18‐39 Loitering. Sec. 18‐40 ‐ 18‐65. Reserved. Division 2. Abandoned Motor Vehicles Sec. 18‐66 Purpose. Sec. 18‐67 Definitions. Sec. 18‐68 Violation. Sec. 18‐69 Taking into custody and impoundment. Sec. 18‐70 Certain vehicles declared nuisances; abatement; removal. Sec. 18‐71 Immediate sale of certain vehicles. Sec. 18‐72 Additional remedies. Sec. 18‐73 Police reports. Sec. 18‐74 Notice to owner and lienholders. Sec. 18‐75 Reclamation by owner or lienholder; preservation of lien rights. Sec. 18‐76 Sale of vehicle. Sec. 18‐77 Designation of poundkeeper. Sec. 18‐78 Bond of poundkeeper. Sec. 18‐79 Insurance of poundkeeper. Sec. 18‐80 Towing and storage charges generally. Sec. 18‐81 Release of vehicle and service fee before vehicle towed away. Sec. 18‐82 Abatement of towing and storage charges. Sec. 18‐83 Release of vehicles. Sec. 18‐84 Release form. Packet Page Number 135 of 248 16 Sec. 18‐85 Police records. Sec. 18‐86 ‐ 18‐110. Reserved. Division 3. Noise Control Sec. 18‐111 Prohibition generally; exception. Sec. 18‐112 Construction activities. Sec. 18‐113 Enforcement. Sec. 18‐114 ‐18‐140. Reserved. Article III. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Sec. 18‐115 Purpose. Sec. 18‐116 Scope. Sec. 18‐117 Erosion and sediment control plan. Sec. 18‐118 Review of plan. Sec. 18‐119 Modification of plan. Sec. 18‐120 Escrow requirement. Sec. 18‐121 Enforcement; penalty. Sec. 18‐122 ‐18‐175. Reserved. Article IV. Air Pollution Control Sec. 18‐176 Short title. Sec. 18‐177 State regulations adopted. Sec. 18‐178 Approval required to start fire. Sec. 18‐179 Penalties for violations. Sec. 18‐180 ‐18‐XXX. Reserved. Article V. Environmental Protection and Critical Areas Division 1. Stormwater Management Division 2. Wetlands and Streams Division 3. Tree Protection Division 4. Slopes Division 5. Mississippi Critical Area Division 6. Flood Plain Overlay District Division 7. Shoreland Overlay District Division 8. Renewable Energy Packet Page Number 136 of 248 17 The city council approved the first reading of this ordinance on September 26, 2011. The city council approved the second reading of this ordinance on ________________. Signed: _______________________________ _______________________________ Will Rossbach, Mayor Date Attest: ________________________________ Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk Packet Page Number 137 of 248 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Packet Page Number 138 of 248 MEMORANDUM TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit—LaMettry Collision Auto Repair (Simple majority vote required) LOCATION: North of 2923 Maplewood Drive DATE: September 28, 2011 INTRODUCTION Project Description Rick LaMettry, owner of LaMettry Collision, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to build a new auto body repair shop north of his existing location, 2923 Maplewood Drive. Mr. LaMettry would then sell his existing building to Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, to expand Maplewood Toyota’s campus. Maplewood Toyota would use the building to service automobiles as it is presently used. Requests Mr. LaMettry is requesting that the city council approve:  A conditional use permit for automotive repair.  The building, site and landscaping plans. BACKGROUND August 8, 2005: The city council approved a conditional use permit for Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, to build a temporary parking lot on the proposed site. The back half of the parking lot was constructed of a pervious parking material to comply with shoreland ordinance requirements. The front half was constructed with a temporary gravel surface. Mr. McDaniels’ intention was to build a permanent building on the graveled area. DISCUSSION CUP Findings for Approval The zoning ordinance requires that the city council find that all nine “standards” for CUP approval be met to allow a CUP. In short, these state that the use would (refer to the resolution for the complete wording):  Comply with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning code.  Maintain the existing or planned character of the neighborhood.  Not depreciate property values.  Not cause any disturbance or nuisance.  Not cause excessive traffic. Agenda Item J1 Packet Page Number 139 of 248  Be served by adequate public facilities and police/fire protection.  Not create excessive additional costs for public services.  Maximize and preserve the site’s natural and scenic features.  Not cause adverse environmental effects. The proposed use meets these nine criteria. The site was previously intended for an automotive use by Mr. McDaniels. This was noted in the 2005 CUP when the city council granted the approval for the temporary parking lot. Condition 6 of the CUP stated, “The property owner shall obtain city approvals and begin construction of a permanent building on this site by September 30, 2007. . .” Council subsequently extended this deadline until the summer of 2011 for the applicant to either begin the site development process or to pave, curb and landscape the gravel parking lot. EXISTING CUP FOR MAPLEWOOD TOYOTA PARKING LOT Staff suggests continuing the existing CUP for the temporary parking lot until construction begins for the proposed body shop. If the proposed building is not built for some reason, the existing CUP may remain. In that event, however, Mr. McDaniels should be required to pave, curb and landscape this parking lot as originally directed by the city council. Staff recommends reviewing this original CUP when construction begins for Mr. LaMettry’s building or in one year, whichever comes first. Shoreland Boundary Area The proposed site is within the Kohlman Lake Shoreland Boundary area. The Shoreland Ordinance requires a maximum impervious surface of 50 percent. This was considered in 2005 when the city council granted the CUP to allow Maplewood Toyota to use the site for parking. At that time, the city engineer determined that the proposed pervious parking surface, along with grassy areas to be provided, would meet shoreland ordinance requirements. The applicant is proposing to keep the pervious parking area on the west half the site as part of his development proposal. Design Considerations Building Design The proposed building would be constructed of precast concrete panels with a textured, stucco- like surface. The front entrance/vehicle-estimate area would be brick with a blue metal fascia. There would be a corresponding brick detail on the northerly front corner of the building to match. Please refer to the building elevations and the colored photos. The photos are of the applicant’s Lakeville shop. The proposed facility would match this building. The exterior materials of nearby buildings range from brick (the existing LaMettry Collision building and the Maplewood Toyota building south of LaMettry Collision) to concrete block (Gulden’s Roadhouse) and precast concrete (Venburg Tire). City ordinance states that in considering the design quality of a proposed building, the community design review board should strive for compatibility with the existing buildings in the area. Section 2-290(b)(2) states that “the design and location of the proposed development shall be in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly, and attractive development contemplated by this division and the city comprehensive plan.” Packet Page Number 140 of 248 The proposed building meets the goal of the ordinance and would fit the character of the existing buildings in this area. Site Design Elements Parking, Access: Access would be via the existing frontage drive which currently serves LaMettry Collision. City ordinance requires two parking spaces for each repair bay, plus one space per bay for a mechanic—three per bay total. The applicant has said that there will be nine body-work bays, two mechanical-repair bays and four paint bays. This would total 15 bays with a requirement for 45 parking spaces. The site plan shows 23 parking spaces adjacent to the building. The pervious-surface parking area to on the back of the site would support another 100+ parking stalls. The parking requirements would be easily met. Site Lighting: Site lighting was installed for the temporary parking lot. There would be light poles removed that are in the location of the proposed building. Any replacement lights shall meet the design of the existing pole lights and shall comply with city ordinance to guard against light spillover and light intensity maximums. Landscaping: The proposed landscaping plan consists of shrub beds along the east side of the frontage drive with five Royalty Crabapple trees. There would also be shrubs planted near the building and another crabapple tree as well. The rear of the site close on the west side of the existing pervious-surface parking lot would have a continuation of spruce and pine trees. Trash Storage: Trash is shown to be stored in the building. If outdoor storage is used in the future, the city code would require an enclosure for all trash containers. Staff Comments Assistant Fire Chief Butch Gervais, the assistant fire chief, requires that the applicant provide:  A fire protection system to be installed per code requirements.  An alarm system to be installed per code requirements.  The paint booths meet all code requirements. Building Official Dave Fisher, the building official, had the following comments:  The applicant shall provide a fire sprinkler system.  The building shall meet all applicable building codes.  It is recommended that the applicant have a preconstruction meeting with the city. Police Lieutenant Richard Doblar had the following comments:  Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large business affecting many large construction projects throughout the Twin Cities metro area. Packet Page Number 141 of 248  The contractor/developer should be encouraged to plan and provide for site security during the construction process.  On-site security, alarm systems and other appropriate security measures would be highly encouraged to deter and report theft and suspicious activity in a timely manner. City Engineer Steve Kummer, staff engineer, reviewed the proposal and has submitted the attached Engineering Plan Review. Mr. Kummer lists several conditions of approval that should be included as requirements if the project is approved. Mr. Kummer also raises the question as to whether the parking should be allowed directly from the frontage drive. This drive is a private driveway system and is not a high-volume roadway. Though this is not typical, it is also not in violation of any city ordinance and would serve the traffic circulation needs of the property. Neighbors’ Comments Staff surveyed the 47 property owners within 500 feet of the site for their comments. Of the five replies, two were opposed, one was not opposed and two expressed concerns about the maintenance of the pond. The comments received were:  Why should LaMettry Collision move? It would bring commercial commotion closer to the homes. You can already smell paint outside the homes.  The holding pond should be protected from snow melt which contains debris and gravel.  Overstory trees should be planted to help screen the site from the west. Staff’s reply:  We cannot comment on whether Mr. LaMettry should or should not relocate to this site. That is his decision. From the city’s perspective, though, it has been expected that another automotive-repair building would be constructed on this site since Mr. McDaniels proposed the temporary parking lot in 2005. His plan at that time was to build an auto- service building for Maplewood Toyota on the front half of the site.  Regarding paint smell, staff asked the assistant fire chief if there is any hazard due to the smell of paint. Mr. Gervais explained that LaMettry Collision has the proper ventilation equipment in their paint booth, but sometimes when doors are open, paint odor can be detected. This is not a toxic issue.  Mr. Kummer recommended the gravel that has been pushed onto the pond slope needs to be removed and the slope restored with an approved erosion-control blanket and native seeding. The use of the pond to dispose of snow should stop since this practice litters and contaminates the pond.  Overstory trees would be good for screening the parking lot from the hillside to the west. There is limited room available on site for tree planting, though. Deciduous trees could replace some or all of the proposed evergreens, but then there would be no continual Packet Page Number 142 of 248 screening of the parking lot as code requires on the residential side. Granted, this is questionable due to the difference in topography. Staff’s feeling is that the evergreens should be planted as proposed. Most of the yards to the west have existing tree cover that buffers them from the proposed site aleady. SUMMARY Staff supports the proposed CUP. The existing CUP for car parking, which was issued to Maplewood Toyota, should remain until construction begins on Mr. LaMettry’s building. Staff recommends one year for construction to start and for the termination of Maplewood Toyota’s use of this site for parking. If Mr. LaMettry’s plans change and he does not build, the Maplewood Toyota parking lot should be improved with paving, curbing and landscaping as previously directed by the city council. COMMISSION ACTIONS September 6, 2011: The planning commission recommended approval of the CUP. September 27, 2011: The community design review board recommended approval of the design plans. The board added the conditions that the coping on the top of the building be metal and be a color to match the wall color. The board also recommended that the metal fascia be made of all vertical panels with no horizontal breaks and that the color of the lighting fixtures on the proposed structure match the building color. BUDGET IMPACTS None. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for vehicle repair on the property north of 2923 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan date-stamped July 25, 2011. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. If within one year of this permit approval the construction does not begin, the city shall review the status of the 2005 conditional use permit granted to Maplewood Toyota for their temporary parking lot on this site. Consideration shall be given to terminating that CUP, or requiring permanent parking lot improvements, based on the development plans of Mr. LaMettry. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Packet Page Number 143 of 248 5. The applicant shall comply with the pervious-surface requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance and the pervious-surface area requirements determined by the Maplewood Engineering Department. This was determined in 2005 for the existing parking lot, however, a reevaluation shall be made to assure code compliance. 6. The applicant shall comply with the conditions stated in the Maplewood Engineering Department’s review of this proposal as prepared by Steve Kummer, staff engineer, dated August 10, 2011. 7. There shall be no plowing of snow from this site for deposit in the city’s holding pond to the west. B. Approve the plans date-stamped July 25, 2011, for the proposed LaMettry Collision building north of 2923 Maplewood Drive: Approval is subject to applicant doing the following: 1. Repeating this plan review if construction has not started within two years. 2. Any new light poles that are installed shall match those on the site presently in place. 3. An in-ground landscaping irrigation system shall be installed as required by code for all landscaped areas. The proposed evergreen trees to the west may not be irrigated, but the applicant shall assure the watering of these trees for their survival. 4. The applicant shall not plow snow or dump snow into the city’s holding pond west of the site. 5. The applicant shall submit cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit before the issuance of a grading permit to cover the cost of installing all required landscaping. This escrow shall be in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of all landscaping. 6. The building elevations shall be revised so the color of the wall lights matches the color of the building and that the coping on top of the building be metal and also match the building color. 7. The metal panels on the building shall be constructed all of vertical panel sections with no horizontal breaks or joints. Packet Page Number 144 of 248 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 47 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their comments about this proposal. Of the five replies, two were opposed, one was not opposed and two expressed concerns about the maintenance of the pond. Opposed  I do not see the need for LaMettry to move. Maplewood has already done more than enough for Toyota. This move would put LaMettry right behind me. More noise for us. It is hard enough to try and sell homes up here because of LaMettry and Toyota. (Buchman, 2954 Duluth Street N.)  We don’t like the idea because we sometimes smell paint outside out home. If they move to the proposed lot, it will be closer to the homes. (respondent unknown) Not Opposed  I personally am not opposed to this relocation. (Schmaecher, 1256 County Road D) Additional Comments  My main concern is the holding pond area. Snow is piled and dumped in the area where the fencing currently ends. There is a huge pile of debris, gravel and litter that needs to be removed. What steps, if any, is Mr. LaMettry going to utilize to keep the pond area free of debris and trash and piling of snow when removing the snow from the parking area? (Taylor, Manteca, CA)  I don’t object to LaMettry Collision relocating here, but they should take steps to not dump snow in the pond like they have in the past. There should be additional overstory trees planted for a better screen for the homes to the west. (call received by telephone, no name given) Packet Page Number 145 of 248 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Use: Temporary parking lot for Maplewood Toyota Site size: 2.7 acres. SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Gulden’s Roadhouse and the future Heritage Square 5th Addition town homes South: LaMettry Collision East: Highway 61 West: Single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: M1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M1 Criteria for CUP Approval Section 44-512(8) requires a CUP for vehicle maintenance facilities in M1 and BC (business commercial) zoning districts. Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP which must be based on the nine standards for approval noted in the resolution. APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on July 25, 2011. State law required that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. The review deadline for city council action was September 23, 2011. However, staff extended this review period an additional 60 days. The current review deadline for this proposal is now November 22, 2011. p:sec4\LaMettry Collision CUP CC Report 10 11 te Attachments: 1. Location/Zoning Map 2. Land Use Map 3. Site/Landscaping Plan 4. Project Narrative dated July 8, 2011 5. Engineering Report by Steve Kummer dated August 10, 2011 6. CUP Resolution 7. Plans and photos date-stamped July 25, 2011 (separate attachments) Packet Page Number 146 of 248 Packet Page Number 147 of 248 Packet Page Number 148 of 248 Packet Page Number 149 of 248 Packet Page Number 150 of 248 Packet Page Number 151 of 248 Packet Page Number 152 of 248 Attachment 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Richard LaMettry applied for a conditional use permit to construct a building for automotive repair. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located north of LaMettry Collision, 2923 Maplewood Drive. The legal description is: SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22, EX N 409.5 FT & EX W 197.4 FT OF NWLY 469.5 FT & EX S 698 FT THE FOL; THE E 723.4 FT LYING WLY OF HWY OF SE ¼ OF NE ¼ (SUBJ TO RD & EASEMENTS) IN SEC 04, TN 29, RN 22. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On September 6, 2011, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this proposal. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. 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 the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. The city council held a public meeting on October 10, 2011 to review this proposal. The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ________ 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. Packet Page Number 153 of 248 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. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan date-stamped July 25, 2011. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. If within one year of this permit approval the construction does not begin, the city shall review the status of the 2005 conditional use permit granted to Maplewood Toyota for their temporary parking lot on this site. Consideration shall be given to terminating that CUP, or requiring permanent parking lot improvements, based on the development plans of Mr. LaMettry. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The applicant shall comply with the pervious-surface requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance and the pervious-surface area requirements determined by the Maplewood Engineering Department. This was determined in 2005 for the existing parking lot, however, a reevaluation shall be made to assure code compliance. 6. The applicant shall comply with the conditions stated in the Maplewood Engineering Department’s review of this proposal as prepared by Steve Kummer, staff engineer, dated August 10, 2011. 7. There shall be no plowing of snow from this site for deposit in the city’s holding pond to the west. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on __________, 2011. Packet Page Number 154 of 248 September 6, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 5. PUBLIC HEARING a. 7:00 p.m. or later: Conditional Use Permit for LaMettry Collision Auto Repair, 2923 Maplewood Drive 1. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the commission. 2. Owner of LaMettry Collision, Rick LaMettry addressed and answered questions of the commission. 3. Owner of Maplewood Toyota, Steve McDaniels addressed and answered questions of the commission. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing. There were no residents that came forward to address the commission. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Yarwood moved to approve the resolution approving a conditional use permit for vehicle repair on the property north of 2923 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: (correcting impervious to pervious). 1. All construction shall follow the site plan date-stamped July 25, 2011. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. If within one year of this permit approval the construction does not begin, the city shall review the status of the 2005 conditional use permit granted to Maplewood Toyota for their temporary parking lot on this site. Consideration shall be given to terminating that CIP, or requiring permanent parking lot improvements, based on the development plans of Mr. LaMettry. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The applicant shall comply with the impervious-surface requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance and the impervious-surface area requirements determined by the Maplewood Engineering Department. This was determined in 2005 for the existing parking lot, however, a reevaluation shall be made to assure code compliance. 6. The applicant shall comply with the conditions stated in the Maplewood Engineering Department’s review of this proposal as prepared by Steve Kummer, staff engineer, dated August 10, 2011. Packet Page Number 155 of 248 September 6, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2 7. There shall be no plowing of snow from this site for deposit in the city’s holding pond to the west. Seconded by Commissioner Pearson. Ayes – All The motion passed. This item will go to the CDRB on September 27, 2011 and to the City Council on October 10, 2011. Packet Page Number 156 of 248 September 27, 2011 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 1. DESIGN REVIEW a. LaMettry Collision Auto Repair, 2923 Maplewood Drive. i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the board. ii. Owner of LaMettry Collision, Richard LaMettry addressed and answered questions of the board. Boardmember Shankar moved to approe the plans date-stamped July 25, 2011, for the proposed LaMettry Collision building north of 2923 Maplewood Drive: Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (additions to the motion are underlined). 1. Repeating this plan review if construction has not started within two years. 2. Any new light poles that are installed shall match those on the site presently in place. 3. An in-ground landscaping irrigation system shall be installed as required by code for all landscaped areas. The proposed evergreen trees to the west may not be irrigated, but the applicant shall assure the watering of these trees for their survival. 4. The applicant shall not plow snow or dump snow into the city’s holding pond west of the site. 5. The applicant shall submit cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit before the issuance of a grading permit to cover the cost of installing all required landscaping. This escrow shall be in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of all landscaping. 6. The metal fascia for the canopy shall be composite metal panel in lieu of vertical flat metal panels with vertical joints with no less than 3 feet on center horizontal joint in the middle is not required and it is noted the color of the panel is grayish blue rather than the intense shown in the photographs. 7. The pre-finished metal coping on the top of the tip up panels and wall pack lights shall match the color of the tip up panels. Seconded by Boardmember Lamers. Ayes – All The motion passed. Packet Page Number 157 of 248 Agenda Item J2 AGENDA REPORT TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager Sarah Burlingame, Senior Administrative Assistant DATE: October 4, 2011 SUBJECT: Consider 2012 Charitable Gambling Funds Requests INTRODUCTION Each year the Maplewood City Council solicits requests for charitable gambling funds. Every year the requests for funds have exceeded the available funds. That is the case this year. The city received 17 applications with $53,091 in requests. The amount of funds available is $30,000. BACKGROUND Several years ago the City Council developed a policy on the award criteria. In addition, a policy was established that allows the city an opportunity to review requests on an annual basis to determine their m erit and overall community benefit while still allowing time to include requests in the upcoming budget process. A copy of the policy is attached. The following is a list of the organizations and groups who have submitted donation requests. Staff has also attached a copy of the complete applications so that you will have a better understanding of the individual requests. In addition, at the back of the staff report and applications is a spreadsheet whereby each Council member can note their recommendations for funding. Also attached are the score sheets from the previous 3 years for your reference. Organization Amount Requested American Red Cross - TC Area Chapter $2,500.00 Boy Scout Troop 461 $2,500.00 Dispute Resolution Center $3,000.00 District 622 ADD/ADHD Support Group $600.00 District 622 Education Foundation $2,500.00 Friends of Ramsey County Libraries $4,500.00 Maple Tree Monastery Childcare Center $3,176.50 Maplewood Area Historical Society $7,614.00 Maplewood Mall - Simon Youth Foundation $500.00 Maplewood Police Explorers $8,000.00 Maplewood Police Reserves $5,000.00 Maplewood Youth Scholarship Fund $3,000.00 North St. Paul Area Food Shelf $1,000.00 Ramsey County Fair $3,200.00 Second Chance Animal Rescue $2,000.00 Tubman Family Alliance $3,500.00 Weaver Elementary PTA $500.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF REQUESTS $53,091 RECOMMENDATION The City Council should review the requests and fill out the provided score sheet. Staff will collect the score sheets and total the final suggested award amounts. The suggested award amounts will be brought before the Council at the next meeting for approval. Attachments: 1. City Charitable gambling policy 2. Previous 3 years final score sheets 3. Summary of 2012 Charitable Gambling Requests 4. Charitable Gambling applications 5. 2012 Charitable Gambling Requests - score sheet Packet Page Number 158 of 248 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL POLICIES ON AWARDS OF CHARITABLE GAMBLING TAX FUNDS 1. All licensed charitable gambling organizations within the City are required to contribute 10 percent (10%) of net profits derived from lawful gambling activity in the City to the Charitable Gambling Tax Fund. These funds are dispersed by the City Council for lawful expenditures. 2. Charitable Gambling Tax Funds shall be distributed for projects, equipment, or activities that are based in the community and which primarily benefit of Maplewood residents. 3. The allocation of Charitable Gambling Tax Funds is an annual award and receipt of funds does not in any way guarantee or commit the City of Maplewood to funding in any subsequent year. Each years funding requires a new, separate application. 4. Projects which involve the purchase of equipment, supplies, or specific items will be looked upon more favorably than requests for salaries or general operating costs. 5. All funds are required to be expended for the requested project within one year of the date of receipt of the award letter. Grantees shall submit such receipts or other proof of expenditure for the proposed purpose with their request for payment of the grant award. 6. No employee or department of the City of Maplewood shall solicit a donation from a licensed charitable organization without City Manager approval. If there is a financial need for a specific program that was not funded in the City budget, staff may submit a request to the City Manager for the use of Charitable Gambling Tax Funds. 7. In general, requests from organized athletic groups will not be funded. Funding for these programs should be from participating families or community auxiliary groups. There are so many athletic organizations within the community that the City of Maplewood is not capable of funding their financial requests nor fairly determining appropriate recipients. 8. The City of Maplewood grants funds from Lawful Gambling Tax Fund to support activities and services benefiting Maplewood residents.. The first priority in the granting of funds will be given to the City of Maplewood domiciled organizations. The second priority or consideration will be given to funding requests from other organizations which are used primarily for the benefit of Maplewood residents. 9. All applications must be complete and submitted by the application deadline established by the City Manager. Updated 06.26.07 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 159 of 248 2009 Charitable Gambling Funds Score SheetName of OrganizationRequested Amount DL KJ EH JN WRProposed AwardFriends of Maplewood Nature $10,740$5,400 $9,000 $0 $9,240 $7,378 $6,204Maplewood Community Center$10,000$7,000 $6,000 $10,000 $5,000 $6,919 $6,984Heritage Theatre Company$8,000$3,000 $3,000 $0 $5,000 $2,000 $2,600Ramsey County Fair$4,900$5,500 $0 $4,900 $2,450 $4,900 $3,550Maplewood Police Explorers$8,000$3,700 $4,000 $8,000 $5,200 $5,619 $5,304Maplewood Police Reserves$5,000$6,000 $5,000 $5,000 $3,250 $3,819 $4,614Maplewood Area Historical Society $15,814$5,000 $9,000 $14,600 $12,860 $9,805 $10,253Walker at Hazel Ridge$8,000$6,000 $4,000 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $2,600American Red Cross – TC Chapter$2,500$2,500 $1,500 $2,500 $1,000 $2,500 $2,000Dispute Resolution Center$3,000$1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500Fund Reserves$0$900 $3,500 $0 $0 $60 $392TOTAL AMOUNT OF REQUESTS$75,954$46,500 $46,500 $46,500 $46,500 $46,500 $46,000An estimated $46,000 is available revenue from proceeds of the 10% Charitable Gambling Tax.Any reduction in available funds will result in a proportional reduction of the award amount.Agenda Item J2 Attachment 2Packet Page Number 160 of 248 2010 Charitable Gambling Funds Score Sheet Name of Organization Requested Amo nt DL KJ EH JN WR Proposed AdAmerican Red Cross – TC Chapter $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $2,500 $500 $0 $1,300 Ashland Productions $12,000 $500 $2,000 $0 $2,500 $0 $1,000 City of Maplewood Scholarship Fund $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $750 $0 $550 Dispute Resolution Center $3,000 $1,500 $2,000 $0 $750 $1,000 $1,050 Friends of Maplewood Nature $7,200 $2,000 $2,500 $0 $2,500 $4,000 $2,200 Heritage Theatre Company $9,400 $500 $1,400 $0 $500 $0 $480 Maplewood Area Historical Society $16,250 $1,000 $3,500 $0 $4,500 $6,200 $3,040 Maplewood Community Center $10,000 $2,000 $3,000 $8,500 $3,750 $0 $3,450 Maplewood Firefighters Flower Fund $1,000 $500 $500 $1,000 $500 $1,000 $700 Maplewood Police Explorers $8,000 $1,500 $2,000 $8,000 $3,250 $3,150 $3,580 Maplewood Police Reserves $5,000 $3,000 $2,500 $5,000 $2,750 $5,000 $3,650 Poj Koob Yawm Ntxwy (PKYN)$10,000 $3,000 $600 $0 $500 $0 $820 Ramsey County Fair $4,650 $3,500 $2,000 $0 $1,250 $4,650 $2,280 St. Paul Composite Squadron Civilian Air Patrol $2,000 $1,500 $500 $0 $500 $0 $500 St. Paul Educational Foundation, Inc. $5,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0* Walker at Hazel Ridge $6,500 $500 $0 $0 $500 $0 $200 Fund Reserves $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200 TOTAL AMOUNT OF REQUESTS $104,500 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 An estimated $25,000 is available revenue from proceeds of the 10% Charitable Gambling Tax. Any reduction in available funds will result in a proportional reduction of the award amount. * Removed from consideration due to past practice of zeroing out any applicant that gets a zero allocation from four or more members of the City Council. Agenda Item J2 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 161 of 248 2011 Charitable Gambling Funds Score Sheet Name of Organization Requested Amount WR KJ JL MK JN Proposed Award American Red Cross - TC Area Chapter $2,500 $0 $1,000 $2,500 $0 $500 $800 Ashland Productions $5,000 $2,500 $1,000 $0 $0 $1,200 $940 Austin Otto - Boy Scout Troop 461 $6,500 $0 $500 $0 $1,000 $1,200 $540 Dispute Resolution Center $3,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $1,250 $1,050 District 622 ADD/ADHD Support Group $1,600 $0 $0 $1,600 $0 $400 $400 District 622 Fusion Drumline $12,650 $0 $1,500 $3,000 $0 $0 $900 Friends of Maplewood Nature $3,000 $1,500 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $2,500 $2,000 Maple Tree Monastery Childcare Center $3,335 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $800 Maplewood Area Historical Society $16,551 $6,000 $2,500 $2,000 $5,500 $4,000 $4,000 Maplewood Mall - Simon Youth Foundation $5,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $500 $300 Maplewood Police Explorers $8,000 $6,000 $1,500 $1,500 $5,000 $2,200 $3,240 Maplewood Police Reserves $5,000 $3,500 $3,500 $1,500 $5,000 $2,200 $3,140 Maplewood Youth Scholarship Fund $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 $900 $0 $1,100 $1,000 North St. Paul Area Food Shelf $1,000 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $700 Presentation Cub Scout Pack 461 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $350 $270 Ramsey County Fair $4,500 $3,500 $1,500 $0 $4,500 $1,800 $2,260 Saint Paul Composite Squadron Civilian Air Patrol $3,552 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 *$0 St. Paul Ski Club $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 *$0 Tubman Family Alliance $12,000 $0 $2,500 $5,000 $0 $2,000 $1,900 Fund Reserves $0 $2,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $760 TOTAL AMOUNT OF REQUESTS $101,188 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 An estimated $25,000 is available revenue from proceeds of the 10% Charitable Gambling Tax. Any reduction in available funds will result in a proportional reduction of the award amount. * Applicant recieves $0 if applicant did not recieve 2 or more votes for fund sallocations Agenda Item J2 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 162 of 248 2012 Charitable Gambling Requests Name of Organization/Contact Info Reason for Request Amount Requested Amount of Award American Red Cross - TC Area Chapter Lacy Brick (612)604-3289 1201 West River Parkway Minneapolis MN 55454 Funds for lifesaving programs and services – disaster relief, medical response, after-hours crisis counseling, culturally sensitive health and safety presentations, emergency response and job skills trainings, and biomedical needs. $2,500.00 Boy Scout Troop 461 Kevin Otto (651)484-7772 1725 Kennard St. Maplewood MN 55109 Funds to purchase new enclosed trailer used for campouts, summer camps and adventure trips. Trailer is used to transport and store all necessary camping equipment and troop gear. $2,500.00 Dispute Resolution Center Jeanne Zimmer (651)292-6067 91 East Arch St. St. Paul MN 55130 Funds to provide conflict-resolution services in the East Metro area. Provides comprehensive free and low-cost dispute resolution services to the community. $3,000.00 District 622 ADD/ADHD Support Group Sarah Lilja (612)816-0451 2392 Timber Ave. E Maplewood MN 55119 Funds for high quality speakers to come to speak at group meetings. $600.00 District 622 Education Foundation Marylee Abrams (651)484-5560 2878 Meadowlark Lane Maplewood MN 55109 Funds to go towards 2 programs: - Angle Fund provides assistance to public school students who are financially needy. This program helps them to be fully to participate in school. - Innovative Grants are provided to District 622 Teachers to enhance learning opportunities for students beyond what is funded by the school district $2,500.00 Friends of Ramsey County Libraries Susan Gerhz (651)486-2213 4570 Victoria Street Shoreview MN 55126 Purchase free standing panels with interactive literacy-building activities for preschool children using the Ramsey County Library in Maplewood, 3025 Southlawn Drive. $4,500.00 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 163 of 248 Maple Tree Monastery Childcare Center Jennie Schlauch (651)770-0766 2625 Benet Rd. Maplewood MN 55109 Fund for installation of baby swings into infant play area including ADA approved posts, swings and ground cover $3,176.50 Maplewood Area Historical Society Lois Behm (651)770-8941 P.O. Box 9372 No. St. Paul MN 55109 Milk House: Relocate sprinkler heads, outlets and lighting and put in ceiling. Porch: Install new beadboard ceiling and paint, refinish floor. Miscellaneous: gutters on Welcome center and barn entrances; photo cells on external lighting; add lighting and outlets in tin shed and new machine shed; lighting for flag pole. $7,614.00 Maplewood Mall - Simon Youth Foundation Heather Norsten (651)7703863 3001 White Bear Ave. Suite 1072 Maplewood MN 55109 Funds to assist in putting on gift wrapping/coat checks and ability to fundraise through art fairs, golf outings, silent auctions, etc. $500.00 Maplewood Police Explorers David Thomalla (651)249-2602 1830 County Road B E Maplewood MN 55109 Funds will be utilized to subsidize dollars budgeted to send the Maplewood Police Explorers to the annual state conference, a competition in Duluth and national conferences. Funds will help purchase uniforms and needed equipment. $8,000.00 Maplewood Police Reserves Dave Kvam (651)249-2603 1830 County Road B E Maplewood MN 55109 Funds will be used to provide reserve officers with uniforms and equipment they use when volunteering services to the City of Maplewood including: uniform and vehicle items, specialty products and services related to the bike patrol program and maintaining and equipping the supply trailer. $5,000.00 Maplewood Youth Scholarship Fund Audra Robbins (651)249-2125 1830 County Road B E Maplewood MN 55109 Funds used to give recreation youth scholarships that provide a 2/3 reduction in program costs to our participants. Scholarships are given to Maplewood Youth under 18 years of age that demonstrate financial need. $3,000.00 North St. Paul Area Food Shelf Linda Zick (651)770-1309 2538 E Seppala Boulevard No. St. Paul MN 55109 Funds to purchase food for the food shelf. $1,000.00 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 164 of 248 Ramsey County Fair Joe Fox (651)777-6514 1821 Myrtle St. Maplewood MN 55109 Funds to pay for ribbons and premiums for 4H club members and other adults and youth in the open class division. Funds also used for the Farmer for the Day program. Funds will also be used to pay part of the cost of the petting zoo. $3,200.00 Second Chance Animal Rescue Nancy Minion (651)578-9451 2681 Mallard Drive Woodbury MN 55125 Funds to help cover vet expenses for rescued animals. $2,000.00 Tubman Family Alliance Janet Golden (651)789-6750 1725 Monastery Way Maplewood MN 55109 Funds for equipment and supplies to complete a Community Learning Center at Harriet Tubman Center East (former St. Paul’s Monastery). Funds will purchase printer/fax machines, LCD projector, two dropdown screens, and supplies including toner, flashdrives, paper, and higher quality stationary for resumes and cover letters. $3,500.00 Weaver Elementary PTA Cathy Seiford (651)400-0228 2135 Birmingham St. Maplewood MN 55109 Funds to help replace school patrol equipment at the school (40 vests, 17 flags, 17 ponchos) $500.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF REQUESTS $53,090.50 An estimated $30,000 is available revenue from proceeds of the 10% Charitable Gambling Tax. Any reduction in available funds will result in a proportional reduction of the award amount. Agenda Item J2 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 165 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 166 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 167 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 168 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 169 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 170 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 171 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 172 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 173 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 174 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 175 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 176 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 177 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 178 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 179 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 180 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 181 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 182 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 183 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 184 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 185 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 186 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 187 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 188 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 189 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 190 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 191 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 192 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 193 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 194 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 195 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 196 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 197 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 198 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 199 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 200 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 201 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 202 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 203 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 204 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 205 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 206 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 207 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 208 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 209 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 210 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 211 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 212 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 213 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 214 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 215 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 216 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 217 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 218 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 219 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 220 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 221 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 222 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 223 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 224 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 225 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 226 of 248 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 227 of 248 2012 Charitable Gambling Funds Score Sheet Organization Amount Requested WR KJ JL MK JN Proposed Award American Red Cross - TC Area Chapter $2,500.00 Boy Scout Troop 461 $2,500.00 Dispute Resolution Center $3,000.00 District 622 ADD/ADHD Support Group $600.00 District 622 Education Foundation $2,500.00 Friends of Ramsey County Libraries $4,500.00 Maple Tree Monastery Childcare Center $3,176.50 Maplewood Area Historical Society $7,614.00 Maplewood Mall - Simon Youth Foundation $500.00 Maplewood Police Explorers $8,000.00 Maplewood Police Reserves $5,000.00 Maplewood Youth Scholarship Fund $3,000.00 North St. Paul Area Food Shelf $1,000.00 Ramsey County Fair $3,200.00 Second Chance Animal Rescue $2,000.00 Tubman Family Alliance $3,500.00 Weaver Elementary PTA $500.00 Fund Reserves TOTAL AMOUNT OF REQUESTS $53,091 An estimated $30,000 is available revenue from proceeds of the 10% Charitable Gambling Tax. Any reduction in available funds will result in a proportional reduction of the award amount. Agenda Item J2 Attachment 5 Packet Page Number 228 of 248 P:\Agenda Reports\10.10.11\J3 - audit committee formation.doc AGENDA NO. J3 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Manager RE: FORMATION OF AN AUDIT COMMITTEE TO SELECT AN AUDIT FIRM DATE: October 3, 2011 PROPOSAL It is proposed that an audit committee be formed consisting of a council member, the assistant city manager, finance manager and assistant finance manager to prepare a recommendation to the council on selection of an audit firm. BACKGROUND HLB Tautges Redpath has conducted the city's annual audit for the past 5 years. A request for proposals has been sent to several audit firms in September. In October the proposals will be reviewed and representatives from the audit firms may be asked to make oral presentations. Since audit firms technically report to the council and work closely with management and the finance staff, an audit committee with council, management and finance representatives would be useful for reviewing the proposals received. It is anticipated the committee will meet 2 to 4 times during the period 10/24/11 – 11/3/11 during business hours. One meeting will be scheduled for the week of 10/24/11 – 10/27/11 to review proposals and oral presentations will be scheduled for the week of 10/31/11 – 11/3/11. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that an audit committee be formed consisting of a council member, the assistant city manager, finance manager and assistant finance manager to prepare a recommendation to the council on selection of an audit firm. Packet Page Number 229 of 248 AGENDA REPORT TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer / Dep. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: East Metro Public Safety Training Facility, City Project 09-09, Resolution Authorizing Consulting Services and Establishing Project Budget DATE: September 30, 2011 INTRODUCTION The council will consider authorizing consulting services for the next phase in developing the regional safety training facility site located at the intersection of Hwy 120 and Hwy 5. The council will also consider establishing a project budget. BACKGROUND The City has worked a number of years on developing a plan for the use of the property at the Highway 5 and Highway 120 intersection of which the majority is owned by Mn/DOT. Mn/DOT has stated their willingness to convey this site to the City with conditions such as creating wetland credits, providing buffering, and allowing a 5 acre maintenance area for Mn/DOT maintenance operations to continue in this area if the City cannot find another location for their use. Currently the City is working to acquire the property through quit claim deed, which Mn/DOT stated would be the likely mechanism for the property transfer. The City is currently waiting on Mn/DOT permit approval to begin extensive testing of the soils and materials within the site for contamination. The City plans to use the $450,000 Ramsey County ERF grant for remediation purposes on the entire property. That work cannot start until the City has acquired the property, hence the importance of continuing to work with Mn/DOT on that critical path. Also, $3,000,000 was allocated toward the regional fire training facility at this site as part of the State Bonding Bill this year. Fire Chief, Steve Lukin, continues making partnerships with other cities, colleges, and entities that will be part of the regional safety training facility. Mr. Lukin will be working on agreements and joint power agreements over the coming months with the intent of opening the facility for full use in fall of 2013. WORK ORDER A number of steps must be taken including land acquisition, land use designation, environmental reviews, site assessment (Marshlands considerations), facility planning, final design, and construction. The first step in the planning phase will be a series of concept reviews made to the council, commission, and neighbors in order to gain feedback on the project from all stakeholders involved. These meetings are proposed to begin later this year. The attached work order provided by SEH, Inc. essentially takes the project through all of the environmental work, and up to a 30% set of plans, which will detail the site features and how the overall site will function (traffic/buildings/marshlands considerations/utilities/etc). This work is estimated in an amount of $110,000. Once all stakeholders agree on the final report from SEH, Inc. the next step is taking the 30% set of plans through full 100% design and inspection services to have the site operational by fall of 2013. Agenda Item J4 Packet Page Number 230 of 248 BUDGET An overall budget of $3,700,000 is proposed with the following identified as funding sources:  Bonding Bill - $3,000,000  County ERF Grant - $450,000  City EUF Fund - $250,000 The council will consider authorizing consulting services for the next phase in developing the regional fire training facility site located at the intersection of Hwy 120 and Hwy 5. The council will also consider establishing a project budget. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the council adopt the attached resolution authorizing SEH, Inc. services in an amount of $110,000, and also adopt a project budget for the East Metro Public Safety Training Facility Improvements, City Project 09-09. Attachments: 1. Resolution Authorizing Consultant Services and Adopting Project Budget 2. Land Use Permit Timeline 3. SEH Work Order 4. Location Map Agenda Item J4 Packet Page Number 231 of 248 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONSULTING SERVICES AND ADOPTING PROJECT BUDGET WHEREAS, the City has received $3,000,000 and $450,000 from the bonding bill and Ramsey County respectively, and the City intends to move forward with the implementation of the East Metro Public Safety Training Facility Improvements, City Project 09-09. AND WHEREAS, consulting services are needed for the next phase of the improvement project, and SEH, Inc. has provided previous work on this project and has presented a work order to continue project implementation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. The City’s consultant, SEH, Inc. is the designated firm for the next phase of implementation and the City will execute the attached work order estimated in an amount of $110,000 in order to begin said work plan. 2. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the financing plan for the project. A project budget of $3,700,000 shall be established. The proposed financing plan is as follows:  State Bonding Bill - $3,000,000  County ERF Grant - $450,000  City EUF Fund - $250,000 Adopted by the City Council this 10th day of October 2011. Agenda Item J4 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 232 of 248 East Metro Regional Public Safety Training Center/Marshlands Land Use Issues and Timeline September 13, 2011 Land Use Permits Required 1. Comprehensive Land Use Designation – Designate right‐of‐way as Government 2. Right of Way Vacation 3. Zoning – Zone right‐of‐way as Light Industrial or Commercial 4. Conditional Use Permit 5. Possible Variances (Wetlands) Timeline 1. Phase I – Preplanning Phase (Complete by December 12, 2011) a. Concept/Fact Finding i. Neighborhood Meeting? ii. Planning Commission (10/4, 10/18, or 11/1, or 11/15) iii. Community Design Review Board (10/25, 11/22) iv. Environmental and Natural Resources Commission (10/17, 11/21) v. City Council Workshop (October/November/December) b. City Approval of Comprehensive Land Use Designation i. Planning Commission (10/18, 11/1 or 11/15) ii. City Council Meeting (11/14, 11/28 or 12/12) 2. Phase II ‐ Planning Phase (Requires Full Set of Plans by January 1, 2012 to be Complete by March 26, 2012) a. Metropolitan Council Approval of Land Use Designation (January/February) b. City Land Use Permits (PC/ENR/CDRB/BEDS meetings in February/March) c. Final City Council Approval (March 26, 2012) 3. Phase III – Construction Phase Agenda Item J4 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 233 of 248 Agenda Item J4 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 234 of 248 Agenda Item J4 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 235 of 248 East Metro Regional Public Safety Training Facility Page 1 EXHIBIT A – EAST METRO REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING CENTER PHASE I ‐ PRELIMINARY PLANNING & DESIGN WORKPLAN City No. 09‐09 SEH No. 117956 September 2011 PHASE I – PRELIMINARY PLANNING / DESIGN (Preliminary Schedule) The following task outline and descriptions summarize our proposed work in Phase 1 of this project. Based on input from City staff, we have developed a preliminary schedule for the tasks listed in this first phase of work. This preliminary planning and design Phase is scheduled through December 2011. We understand that the project is expected to move into the more detailed design Phase as soon as the facility programming and site layout decisions have been made. Additional detail will be built into the overall project schedule as this phase 1 Workplan progresses. We understand that the City’s goal is for the schedule to provide for a facility/ building opening during the summer to fall of 2013. 1.1 SURVEY / PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS A. Survey (Schedule dependent on MnDOT Permit approval) a. Topographic survey (Sept. 26‐Oct. 4) b. Stockpile survey c. Trees/utilities d. Boundary (iron) locates SEH will complete a topographic survey of the site features and soil stockpiles, delineate areas of trees, locate utilities and structures on the site and along TH 120, and locate the property corners. We will stake boring locations in advance of the AET drilling work. SEH will prepare a Certificate of Survey of the property that includes information in Task 1.1.A, and the wetland delineation boundaries that will be updated in the fall of 2011. See Task I.D for Wetland delineation update. B. Property Transfer (TBD) The City will lead this effort through coordination with MnDOT. SEH will provide support in the form of property surveys and preparation of exhibits needed to facilitate the transfer process. In order to move forward with the preliminary layout and design work, we anticipate that the City will finalize a memorandum of understanding with MnDOT prior to October 15 that identifies the extent of land that MnDOT desires on a short term basis on the site and any other conditions that MnDOT places on the transfer that would impact the preliminary layout of the site. Agenda Item J4 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 236 of 248 East Metro Regional Public Safety Training Facility Page 2 C. Land Use Plan Update (Sept. 2011– Mar. 2012) The property transfer process has not been completed with MnDOT. Therefore, we understand that based on the timing of the transfer and the conditions agreed to as part of the transfer some changes to the site design conditions and layout may result. Any significant changes to the design constraints will be recorded in the Preliminary Report (decision documentation) described in Task 1.7. We understand that City staff will lead the process to update the City’s land use classification for the site, including approval by the Metropolitan Council. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS A. Site investigation prep, boring & trench layout, etc. (Sept. 26‐Oct. 7) B. Site work (Sept. 26‐Oct. 7) a. Test Pits and trenches in all areas of fill including the road base. (Assume City Backhoe and Operator) b. Composite sampling, analysis and characterization of fill and spoil piles on site. c. Spoil pile volume calculations following survey. d. Environmental oversight and potential sampling/analysis of geotechnical borings. C. Laboratory Analyses (Pace Subcontract) (Oct. 10‐28) D. Final Phase II ESA Report Preparation (Oct. 17‐Nov. 4) a. Spoil pile volumes and waste characterization b. Identify options for material use/disposal c. Identify further investigation requirements, if needed E. Further Investigation, if needed (TBD) F. Prepare the Construction Contingency Plan (CCP) and (Oct. 31‐Nov. 18) Negotiate MPCA CCP approval. SEH will conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the site. The ESA will include approximately 10 test pits and 9 hollow stem borings, preparation of a Health and Safety Plan. Soil samples will be collected and may be analyzed for the following potential analytes: GRO, BTEX, DRO, VOCs, SVOCs, RCRA Metals, PCBs and asbestos. If high levels of contamination is detected, TCLP analyses may also be conducted. During field activities, soils will be screened with a Photo‐ionization detector (PID). Any debris and/or notable contamination will be documented following standard protocol. Potential asbestos containing materials (ACM) discovered during field activities will be analyzed for asbestos. A final report presenting the results of the Phase II ESA including tables, figures, analytical reports and boring/ test pit logs will be prepared. The final report will include conclusions and recommendations if appropriate. Agenda Item J4 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 237 of 248 East Metro Regional Public Safety Training Facility Page 3 1.3 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS (Sept. 26‐Oct. 7) A. Field Investigations: a. Boring layout targeted to planned site features b. Using environmental sampling protocol c. Groundwater elevation assessment d. Oversee AET Site drilling work and laboratory analyses B. Analysis and Report Preparation a. Foundation needs for buildings/towers b. Utility recommendations c. Environmental recommendations (stormwater, wetlands, stockpile soils) SEH will prepare a drilling location map in conjunction with the test pits to be completed during the environmental work and provide an estimated 4 hours of on‐site boring program review and test assignment recommendations during the drilling program. See attached AET subcontract for a detailed description of the site drilling program. Geotechnical recommendations will be presented in the preliminary engineering report with specific recommendations for the classroom building, burn towers, stormwater feature(s) and pavement. C. Geotechnical Drilling Program a. AET Subcontract (see attached) 1.4 WETLAND REGULATORY COORDINATION (Sept. 20‐Oct. 15) A. Wetland and Buffer Needs Assessment a. Impacts / Mitigation Requirements b. WCA/RWMWD Coordination SEH will coordinate and participate in a site visit with RWMWD staff and City staff to review the delineations completed in 2005. Following the site visit/meeting, we will prepare a technical memorandum describing the current wetland regulatory requirements that apply to the site. This work will result in an updated wetland delineation for the site. 1.5 ARCHITECTURAL / FACILITIES PROGRAMMING (Sept. 26‐Nov. 18) A. Training Facilities a. Classroom building type, size, location, features b. Basement use (if included) c. Training towers/burn building types, size(s), locations d. Other potential buildings/facilities (e.g., Police space needs, including firing range) e. Pond / water feature Agenda Item J4 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 238 of 248 East Metro Regional Public Safety Training Facility Page 4 B. Other potential site uses/needs: a. MnDOT Needs b. Century College We will coordinate an estimated two (2) meetings with the facility Steering Committee to refine the site features and site layout. The first meeting would serve to develop the list of facilities/features that are to be included in the long‐term site plan and define the site design constraints such as access to TH120, utility locations, extent of land needed for MnDOT and preferred location on the site, general site layout, wetland coordination issues, sustainable design goals, etc. Our scope of work includes participating in a tour of a training facility with members of the facility Steering Committee. 1.6 SITE LAYOUT AND UTILITIES (Sept. 26‐Nov. 18) A. Utility Assessments a. Public: Water, Sanitary b. Private: Electric, Communications, Gas B. Site Access / Traffic a. Number and location(s), Signal Improvements, Turn lanes C. Refinements to site layout a. Preliminary grading plan b. Fencing D. Sustainable Site Design Goals / Features (LEED / Green Globes) a. Geothermal, wind, solar, other E. Environmental site needs a. Fate of stockpile soils b. Spill / Fire retardant prevention or containment F. Marshlands considerations a. Natural features, trails SEH will complete a preliminary assessment of the public and private utilities to be provided at the site and make recommendations of preferred utility connection points. SEH will evaluate the site access needs and intersection/signal design requirements at the TH120/CSAH 5 intersection. We will make contacts with and coordinate access improvements with the City, North St. Paul, Oakdale, MnDOT, Ramsey County and Washington County. The number and location(s) of access points, turn lanes and signal improvements will be defined and a preliminary agreement/understanding of the intersection improvements will be obtained. After completion of the preliminary site investigations, SEH will prepare a refined layout and preliminary grading plan based on the site features list and site constraints. The second meeting of the facility Steering Committee would serve to identify any Agenda Item J4 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 239 of 248 East Metro Regional Public Safety Training Facility Page 5 adjustments to the site features and discuss the preliminary cost estimates relative to the available project budget. The City has indicated the desire to incorporate sustainable design concepts at the site/facility. We will work with City staff and the facility Steering Committee to define the extent of sustainable features that could be incorporated into the site plan and what, if any, additional funding may be available towards implementing these features. For this preliminary phase, this effort will be limited to a meeting between City and SEH staff and one or members of the facility Steering Committee to define the site goals and narrow the list of features that will be considered further during the next phase. 1.7 PRELIMINARY REPORT (Nov. 7‐Dec. 30) A. Develop Draft Report B. Prepare Final Report SEH will prepare a preliminary report documenting the data collected and the site design decisions and constraints developed in Tasks I and II. The draft report will be developed in close coordination with City staff and the facility management team. The draft report will be presented to City Commissions and Council. A final report will be prepared following approval of the proposed project by the Council. The final report will serve as the basis for the subsequent design development and final design phases of the project. The Preliminary Report will provide a recommended Project Phasing Plan and schedule for implementing the planned site improvements. The following general concept for possible bid packages will be refined through further discussions with the project team. 1. Bid Package 1 – Soil Removals and Cleanup 2. Bid Package 2 – Public/Private Utility Improvements 3. Bid Package 3 – Site and Site Access Improvements 4. Bid Package 4 – Buildings /Facilities 1.8 MEETINGS / COORDINATION This project will require a significant effort to coordinate the activities of the Project Design Team and the Facility Management Team. Based on input from City staff, we have included an estimated number of meetings (see list below) for the first phase of work through December 2011. A. Project Design Team (4) B. Facility Management Team / Project Partners (2) C. City Commissions / Council (4) a. Planning Commission (& Neighborhood Concept Review) (Oct.‐Nov.) b. Community Design Review Board (Oct.‐Nov.) c. Environmental and Natural Resources Commission (Oct.‐Nov.) Agenda Item J4 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 240 of 248 East Metro Regional Public Safety Training Facility Page 6 d. City Council Workshop (Nov.‐Dec) D. Facility Tour (Sept.‐Oct.) c. Support site features selection d. Review facility/tower sub contractors 1.9 PROJECT MANAGEMENT (Sept. 12‐Dec. 30) A. Coordinate Meetings / Approvals / Project Updates / Cost Estimates B. Prepare / Update / Maintain Project Financing Plan C. Develop and Maintain Project Schedule and Design Decision Document This task will involve coordination of the design team activities and overall programming of the project. Tasks will include coordinating meetings (agendas, minutes, etc.), updating project schedules and financing plan information and updating project costs estimates as the overall facility plan is refined. We will develop and maintain a design decision document that will contain key project related decisions made by the Project Design Team, Facility Management Team and City Commissions/Council. We will develop and maintain a project schedule for the work assuming construction of the site improvements begins in the spring of 2012. SEH will continue to explore funding opportunities to supplement the funding provided through the State Bonding Bill and the Ramsey County ERF Grant. We will work with City staff to develop an overall project budget and update the budget (construction costs and funding components) as needed. The budget will support decision points on what the priorities are and how best to phase the implementation plan if the wish list is greater than the available funds. 1. ERF Grant – Shann Finwall, City of Maplewood 2. Bonding Bill 3. Partners Support 4. Fire / EMS grants/funding opportunities 5. Sustainability / Green Infrastructure 6. Other funding opportunities Agenda Item J4 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 241 of 248 Task Cost PHASE 1 1.1 SURVEY / PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS $12,000 a Survey $6,634 b Property Transfer - Certificate of Survey $1,632 c Land Use Change (City)$0 d Expenses $1,534 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS $23,000 a Site Prep, boring and pit layouts $2,100 b Site Work (City, SEH and AET)$5,313 c Pace Subcontract - ($4,400 for Lab Analyses)$4,400 d Phase II Report Preparation $6,313 e Additional Investigations (if needed)$0 f Prepare CCP and Review with MPCA $4,254 g Expenses $619 1.3 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS $13,400 a Field Investigations $1,242 b Analysis and Report Preparation $6,059 c AET Subcontract - ($5,500 for Drilling)$5,500 d Expenses $599 1.4 WETLAND REGULATORY COORDINATION $1,600 a Wetland and Buffer Needs Assessment $1,519 b Expenses $81 1.5 ARCHITECTURAL/FACILITIES PROGRAMMING $11,400 a Training Facilities $4,851 b Other site uses (MnDOT, Century College, etc.)$1,763 c Expenses $86 1.6 SITE LAYOUT AND UTILITIES $16,500 a Utilities (Sanitary, Water, communications, etc.)$4,554 b Site Access/Traffic $5,420 c Refinements to Site Layout / Grading Plan $4,576 d Sustainable design goals $425 e Environmental Site needs $270 f Marshlands considerations $273 g Expenses $82 1.7 PRELIMINARY REPORT $6,600 a Prepare Draft Report (Figures, budgets, phasing, etc.)$4,760 b Prepare Final Report following Commission/Council input $1,225 c Expenses $215 1.8 MEETINGS / COORDINATION $15,500 a Project Design Team (4)$8,530 b Facility Steering Committee (2-3)$2,527 c City Commissions / Council (4)$2,759 d Facility Tours (1)$598 e Expenses $187 1.9 PROJECT MANAGEMENT $10,000 a Meeting Coordination / Project Updates / Approvals / Cost Est.$7,138 b Develop / Maintain Project Financing Plan $1,284 c Develop / Maintain Project Schedule $598 d Expenses $80 $110,000TOTAL ESTIMATED LABOR AND EXPENSES EXHIBIT B East Metro Regional Public Safety Training Center Estimated Task Fees - Supplemental Agreement No. 100 City Project No. 09-09 SEH No. MAPLE 117956 Project Task Agenda Item J4 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 242 of 248 Map Document: (S:\KO\M\Mora0\070100\Wetland Permit\GIS)03/19/20073535 VADNAIS CENTER DR. ST. PAUL, MN 55110 PHONE: (651) 490-2000 FAX: (651) 490-2150 WATTS: 800-325-2055 www.sehinc.com PROJECT: A-MAPLE0602.01 DATE: 03/03/09 Project Location Map USGS Topographic Map Maplewood, Minnesota Figure 1 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500 Feet Area of Interest Hill Murray H.S. Agenda Item J4 Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 243 of 248 AGENDA REPORT TO: James Antonen, City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Director of Public Works Alan Kantrud, City Attorney SUBJECT: Holloway Avenue and Stanich Highlands Area Improvements, City Project 09- 13, Resolution Accepting Assessment Roll and Calling for Re-Assessment Public Hearing for November 14, 2011 DATE: September 26, 2011 INTRODUCTION The City Council will consider the Re-Assessment of three residential properties located within the limits of City Project 09-13 consistent with Minnesota Statute 429.071 Subdivision 2. The City Council will consider accepting the attached assessment roll and holding an Assessment Hearing for the Re- Assessment of subject properties. BACKGROUND This project involved the full street reconstruction (sub grade corrections, new aggregate base, new concrete curb and gutter where none existed before, and new bituminous pavement) of Holloway Avenue and streets in the Stanich Highlands Area (location map attached). The work also included the installation of new storm sewer and replacement of water main. Sanitary sewer main repairs and storm water treatment in the neighborhood are also included in the scope of the project. The Maplewood City Council ordered the preparation of the feasibility study at the June 1, 2009 meeting. On June 22, 2009, the city council accepted the feasibility report, ordered the public hearing, ordered the project, and authorized preparation of plans and specifications. The public hearing notice was published twice and notice was sent to the property owners. The public hearing was conducted at the July 13, 2009 council meeting. On July 27, 2009, the city council approved the plans, authorized to advertise for bids, and ordered the preparation of the assessment roll. Bids were opened on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 with Assessment Hearing and Adoption of the Assessment Roll on September 28, 2009. Construction started in summer of 2009 with construction finalized in 2010. ASSESSMENT DISCUSSION During the assessment hearing process, three property owners objected (1929 Kingston Ave E, 1930 Kingston Ave E, and 1935 Kingston Ave E) and appealed to Ramsey County District Court. The order for judgment was the reassessment as provided in Minn. Stat. 429.071. The following is the specific language from the Statute: 429.071 SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS; REASSESSMENT. Subd. 2.Reassessment. When an assessment is, for any reason whatever, set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction as to any parcel or parcels of land, or in event the council Agenda Item J5 Packet Page Number 244 of 248 finds that the assessment or any part thereof is excessive or determines on advice of the municipal attorney that the assessment or proposed assessment or any part thereof is or may be invalid for any reason, the council may, upon notice and hearing as provided for the original assessment, make a reassessment or a new assessment as to such parcel or parcels. Accordingly, the City now proposes to make reassessment against the three subject parcels. In advance of this report an independent appraiser was hired to conduct a Special Benefits Appraisal for each of the three residential properties. The City received the appraisal documents on August 31, 2011. It should be noted that the proposed assessment against each parcel is $6,990 which is lower than the finding of special benefit for each parcel; which was found to be $7,900. By keeping the proposed reassessment amount at $6,990 it maintains consistency with similar assessments in this neighborhood for single family residential receiving a full street reconstruction with new storm sewer infrastructure. The proposed assessment of $6,990 also conforms to the City’s assessment policy, which states that the lower amount of the set rate or the special benefit shall be used. This ensures that the proposed assessment does not exceed the special benefit. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the council approve the attached resolution accepting the attached assessment roll for 1929 Kingston Ave E, 1930 Kingston Ave E, and 1935 Kingston Ave E, and calling the Assessment Hearing for Re-Assessment of subject properties for November 14, 2011 at 7:00 pm for the Holloway Avenue and Stanich Highlands Area Improvements, City Project 09-13. Attachments: 1. Resolution: Accepting Assessment Roll and Ordering Public Hearing 2. Location Map 3. Assessment Roll Agenda Item J5 Packet Page Number 245 of 248 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL AND ORDERING ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR REASSESSMENT WHEREAS, the clerk and the city engineer have, at the direction of the council, prepared an assessment roll for the re-assessment of three residential properties within the Holloway Avenue and Stanich Highlands Area Improvement Area, City Project 09-13, and the said assessment roll is on file in the office of the city engineer; WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on July 13, 2009 and project was ordered to proceed; and WHEREAS, all benefiting property owners were mailed notice of the assessment amount and date and time of the hearing and the Assessment Hearing was held September 28, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City received objections from the following three residential property owners: 1) Paul Berglund, 1929 Kingston Avenue East 2) Kathleen Susan Haley, 1930 Kingston Avenue East 3) Margaret Ellen Haggerty, 1935 Kingston Avenue East WHEREAS, the appeal by subject properties was heard by Ramsey County District Court and order of judgment calls for Reassessment as provide in Minn. Stat. 429.071; and WHEREAS, the City intends reassess subject properties above accordingly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 14th day of November, 2011, at the city hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed reassessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such reassessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed reassessment to be published in the official newspaper, at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and to mail notices to the owners of all property affected by said reassessment. 3. The notice of hearing shall state the date, time and place of hearing, the general nature of the improvement, the area to be reassessed, that the proposed assessment roll is on file with the clerk and city engineer, and that written or oral objections will be considered. 4. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the reassessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the reassessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City of Maplewood, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire reassessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of the reassessment. Owner may at any time thereafter, pay to the City of Maplewood the entire amount of the reassessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before December 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. Adopted by the City Council this 14th day of November 2011. Agenda Item J5 Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 246 of 248 Agenda Item J5 Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 247 of 248 Holloway Avenue and Stanich Highlands Area Improvements City Project 09‐13Re‐assessmentPARCEL IDOWNERSTREET NUMBERSTREETSTORM ASSESSMENTSTREET ASSESSMENTTOTAL ASSESSMENT142922340034 PAUL W BERGLUND1929 KINGSTON AVE E$990.00 $6,000.00 $6,990.00142922340041 KATHLEEN SUSAN HALEY1930 KINGSTON AVE E$990.00 $6,000.00 $6,990.00142922340033 MARGARET ELLEN HAGGERTY 1935 KINGSTON AVE E$990.00 $6,000.00 $6,990.00STORM ASSESSMENTSTREET ASSESSMENTTOTAL ASSESSMENT TOTALS = $2,970.00 $18,000.00$20,970.00Agenda Item J5 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 248 of 248