Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2005 07-25 City Council Packet
AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, July 25, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 05 -15 i�0 _1I M toZ*] N Q 4 N B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acknowledgement of Maplewood Residents Serving the Counts y 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 Policles and Procedures and Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance. When you address the council, please state your name and address clearly for the record. All comments /questions shall be posed to the Mayor and Council. I then will direct staff, as appropriate, to answer questions or respond to comments." D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes from the Council /Manager Workshop -July 11, 2005 Minutes from the City Council Meeting -July 11, 2005 E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA F. APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS Proclamations- Girl Scout Gold Awards G. CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. If a member of the City Council wishes to discuss an item, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately. Approval of Claims Resolution of Support — Livable Communities Grant Application (Gladstone Area Redevelopment) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Review — Saint Paul Regional Water Services McCarrons Plant (1900 Rice St.) Food Fee Waiver — Walking in Faith Christian Ministries City Manager Salary Adjustment Temp - Seasonal - Casual PT Payrates- Revised 2005 English Street Landscape Improvements, City Project 01 -14 — Acceptance of Project County Road D Realignment West, City Project 02 -08 — Modification of Construction Contract, (Palda Contract), Change Orders 6 and 7 County Road D Realignment West, City Project 02 -08 — Modification of Construction Contract, (T. A. Schifsky Contract), Change Order 1 H. PUBLIC HEARINGS None AWARD OF BIDS T.H. 61, County Road D Court and T. H. 61 East Frontage Road Improvements, City Projects 03 -07, 04 -06 and 04 -25 — Resolution Receiving Bids and Awarding Construction Contract 2005 Bituminous Seal Coat, City Project 05 -21 —Award of Construction Contract UNFINISHED BUSINESS Interstate 94 Improvements (McKnight to Century), City Project 03-12 — Resolution Authorizing Noise Berm Improvements Approval to Purchase 800 MHz Dispatch Equipment Sign Ordinance Amendment — Political Signs (Second Reading) K. NEW BUSINESS 1. Jensen Estates Preliminary Plat (Hoyt Avenue, east McKnight Road) 2. Roselawn Avenue (Rice to I -35E) Traffic Issues — Receive Resident Petition and Consider Study to Monitor Impacts L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS O. ADJOURNMENT Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service 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. Draft -- MINUTES COUNCIL /MANAGER WORKSHOP Monday, July 11, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall 6:00 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Jackie Monahan - Junek, Councilmember Will Rossbach. Councilmember Present Present Present Present Present Others Present: City Manager Fursman Public Works Director AN Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director Assistant City Manager Coleman City Clerk Guilfoile C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Monahan - Junek moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Gladstone Update Bruce Chamberlain, representing Hoision T. Keogeler Group, Inc. gave an overview of the progress made during meetings of various committee groups active in the planning of the Gladstone Redevelopment. 2. Dispatch Joint Powers Agreement with Ramsey County City Manager Fursman reviewed the latest Joint Powers Agreement with Ramsey County for the dispatch consolidation. E. FUTURE TOPICS None F. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Cardinal adjourned the meeting at 6:56 p.m. City Council /Manager Workshop 07 -11 -05 DRAFT -- MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:09 P.M. Monday, July 11, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 05 -13 91 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 10111111111111 :IQ I W90 I FU C F. C Robert Cardinal, Mayor Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Jackie Monahan - Junek, Councilmember Will Rossbach, Councilmember APPROVAL OF MINUTES Present Present Present Present Present 1. Minutes from the City Council Meeting -June 27, 2005 Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the minutes from the June 27, 2005 City Council Meeting as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan -Junek Ayes-All APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the agenda as amended. M1. Petition received by the Mayor M2. National Night Out M3. Democratic Governance M4. Cable Commission N1. Ramsey County Parade Seconded by Councilmember Monahan -Junek Ayes-All APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the consent agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 1. Approval of Claims ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 26.20 Checks # 67262 dated 06/21/05 $ 291,659.65 Checks # 67263 thru # 67322 dated 06/28/05 $ 1,744,337.42 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 06/17/05 thru 06/22/05 $ 927,087.27 Checks # 67323 thru # 67377 dated 07/05/05 $ 124,766.65 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 06/23/05 thru 06/28/05 $ 3,087,877.19 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 495,930.65 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 07/01/05 $ 2,673.00 Payroll Deduction check # 101773 thru # 101775 dated 07/01/05 $ 498,603.65 Total Payroll $ 3,586,480.84 GRAND TOTAL 2. Conditional Use Permit Review - Olivia Gardens PUD (Olivia Court, west of Stillwater Road) Moved to reviewthe conditional use permit (CUP) for Olivia Gardens PUD again in one year (July 2006) or sooner if the owner proposes a major change to the site. 3. Kennard Street Improvements, Project 03- 04— Resolution for Acceptance of Project Adopted the following resolution for the Kennard Street Improvements, (Beam Avenue to County Road D), City Project 03 -04: City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 2 RESOLUTION 05 -07 -099 ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT WHEREAS, the city engineer for the City of Maplewood has determined that the Kennard Street Improvements (Beam Avenue to County Road B), City Project 03 -04, are complete and recommends acceptance of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that City Project 03 -04 is complete and maintenance of these improvements is accepted by the city. Release of any retainage or escrow is hereby authorized. St. Paul Regional Water Services— Resolution Requesting Water Aid for Public Improvement Projects: a. County Road D West (TH 61 to Highridge) —City Project 02 -08 b. Guldens/Venburg Frontage Road —City Project 04 -04 C. County Road D Court —City Project 04 -06 d. Kennard e. Street (Beam to County Rd D) —City Project 03 -04 Adopted the following resolution requesting $189,210 form St. Paul Regional Water Services as reimbursement for project expenses: RESOLUTION 05 -07 -100 REQUESTING WATER AID FROM ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES County Road D West, City Project 02 -08 Guldens/Venburg Frontage Road, City Project 04 -04 County Road D Court, City Project 04 -06 Kennard Street, City Project 03 -04 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, has heretofore ordered the construction of County Road D West, City Project 02 -08, and authorized the finance director to implement a financing plan for the project, and WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, has heretofore ordered the construction of Guldens /Venburg Frontage Road, City Project 04 -04, and authorized the finance director to implement a financing plan for the project, and WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, has heretofore ordered the construction of County Road D Court, City Project 04 -06, and authorized the finance director to implement a financing plan for the project, and WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, has heretofore ordered the construction of Kennard Street, City Project 03 -04, and authorized the finance director to implement a financing plan for the project, and WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, has entered into an Operating Agreement with St. Paul Regional Water Services for the ownership and operation of the water system within the corporate boundaries of the City of Maplewood, the most recent revision titled Amendment No. 2. and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that the City of Maplewood does hereby request of St. Paul Regional Water Services the following reimbursement for project expenses: City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 1. County Road D Water Main Phase 2, CP 04 -04 (Gulden's Utilities) Water Utility Aid for watermain oversizing, 125 -foot assessment corner credits, and assessable footage with no benefit; the total amount of Aid requested for these improvements is $33,550. 2. County Road D Water Main Phase 3, CP 02 -08 (County Road D West) Water Utility Aid for watermain oversizing and 125 -foot assessment corner credits; the total amount of Aid requested for these improvements is $18,740. 3. County Road D Water Main Phase 4, CP 04 -06 (County Road D Court) Water Utility Aid for watermain oversizing, 125 -foot assessment corner credits, and assessable footage with no benefit; the total amount of Aid requested for these improvements is $118,920. 4. Kennard Street (Beam Avenue to County Road D), CP 03 -04 Water Utility Aid for watermain oversizing; the total amount of Aid requested for these improvements is $18,000. 5. Dahl Avenue Street Improvements (Woodhill Development), Project 05-10 - Resolution for Approving Conditions of the Magellan Pipeline Encroachment Agreement Adopted the following resolution Approving the Condition of the Encroachment Agreement and Authorized the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Agreement with Magellan Pipeline: RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONS OF THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE ENCROACMENT AGREEMENT WITH MAGELLAN PIPELINE 05 -07 -101 WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood wishes to construct sanitary sewer, water main and a trail within the Magellan Pipeline easement WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer, water main and trail will be located within the corporate limits of Maplewood, WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood will be granted an approved Encroachment Agreement for the purpose of constructing said sanitary sewer, water main and trail, pending the receipt of a Resolution Approving the Conditions of the Encroachment Agreement and Authorizing the City Mayor and City Manager to sign the Encroachment Agreement with Magellan Pipeline. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESTOA THAT: The City of Maplewood agrees to the terms and provisions of the Magellan Pipeline Encroachment Agreement. The City further assumes all liabilities, obligations or responsibilities described in Encroachment Agreement and pertaining to the construction maintenance, operations and supervision of the sanitary sewer, water main and trail in conjunction with the Dahl Avenue street and utility improvements.. The City of Maplewood authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Encroachment Agreement with Magellan Pipeline. (Drafted by & when filed return to: Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P., P. O. Box 22186, MD 27 -2 (S. Guthrie), Tulsa, Oklahoma 74121 -2186, 918/574- 7350.) City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT This Encroachment Agreement ( "Agreement ") is made and entered into by and between Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, whose address is P.O. Box 22186, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74121 -2186, (hereinafter called "Magellan "), and City of Maplewood, a Minnesota municipality, whose mailing address is 1902 County Road B East, Maplewood, Minnesota 55109, its heirs, successors, assigns and grantees (hereinafter called "City "). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City represents and warrants that City owns the right to construct "ENCROACHMENTS UNDER REVIEW' on all the certain land (hereinafter "Subject Land "), described on attached Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, Magellan is the owner of certain pipelines, pipeline facilities and appurtenances (hereinafter referred to as the "Magellan Facilities ") and easement rights therefor, (hereinafter referred to as the "Easement ", whether or not rights were granted in one or more documents or acquired by operation of law). For purposes of this Agreement only, "Magellan's Easement Tract" shall be considered to be any area within Fifty (50) feet of any Magellan Facilities, unless a different right of way tract width is specifically described in the Easement, in which case such specified width shall define Magellan's Easement Tract. The land referenced in the Easement includes a portion of the Northwest Quarter of the North half of Section 15, T -29 -N, R -22 -W, Ramsey County, Minnesota, pursuant to those certain instruments recorded in the records of said county and state and described as follows: "REVIEWING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS" WHEREAS, for the purposes of this Agreement an "Encroachment" is defined as any use of the land within Magellan's Easement Tract by someone other than Magellan which could interfere with Magellan's Easement rights or could create safety concerns related to Magellan's Facilities as more fully described in Magellan's General Encroachment Requirements as set forth in attached Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. Magellan does not permit or authorize any Encroachments unless specifically approved in a written agreement identifying all "Approved Encroachments "; and WHEREAS, City desires to obtain Magellan's consent for one or more Encroachments on Magellan's Easement Tract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Magellan, subject to the following terms and provisions, hereby consents to the Encroachments listed below as "Approved Encroachments" described and limited pursuant to the following specified plan drawings, which were furnished by City to Magellan ( "Plan Drawings ") and attached hereto as Exhibit "C ": TERMS AND PROVISIONS 1. Approved Encroachments. The Approved Encroachments, as further identified, described and limited in the Plan Drawings as set forth in Exhibit "C" are limited to the following: (a) "ENCROACHMENTS UNDER REVIEW" 2. No Other Encroachments. Except for the Approved Encroachments as defined in the Agreement, City shall not create, erect, place or construct any other Encroachment on, above or below the surface of the ground on Magellan's Easement Tract, or change the grade or elevation of the ground surface within Magellan's Easement Tract or at anytime plant or allowanytrees thereon or cause or permit any of these to be done by others, without the express prior written permission of Magellan. City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 5 Magellan On -Site Representative. Exclusive of Saturday, Sunday, and legal holidays, City shall notify Magellan a minimum of 48 hours in advance of any Encroachment activities on Magellan's Easement Tract so that Magellan may arrange to have a representative present. At Magellan's option and at City's sole cost and expense, Magellan's representative may be on site during all Encroachment activities over or within ten feet (10') of the Magellan Facilities to confirm that no damage occurs to the Magellan Facilities. The presence of Magellan's representative or any verbal instructions given by such representative shall not relieve City of any liability under the Easement or this Agreement, and will not change the terms of the Easement or this Agreement, which may only be changed by written agreement by authorized representatives of City and Magellan. If pipeline, coating, cathodic protection and /or any other repair of Magellan Facilities is required by Magellan or if the safety of the Magellan Facilities is jeopardized, in Magellan's sole judgment, City shall stop all construction activities on Magellan's Easement Tract until said repairs are completed or until any unsafe construction practices are resolved to the satisfaction of Magellan's on -site representative. Written notification of such construction activity shall be made to MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, Coordinator of Operations & Maintenance, Howard White at 2451 West County Road C, St. Paul, MN 55113, Office:(651) 633 -9339, Cell: (612) 759 -9452, Fax: (651) 633 -8217, or such other representative of Magellan, which Magellan may from time to time designate. 4. Protection of Magellan Facilities. City shall protect the Magellan Facilities if excavating and backfilling become necessary within Magellan's Easement Tract. If excavating within 2 feet of any Magellan pipeline or when otherwise deemed necessary by Magellan's on -site representative, City shall perform any necessary digging or excavation operations by hand digging. City shall reimburse Magellan for all costs of having a representative of Magellan on -site during construction activities related to the Approved Encroachments. Breach. If either City or Magellan breaches this Agreement and the non - breaching party commences litigation to enforce any provisions of this Agreement, the reasonable cost of attorneys' fees and expenses will be payable to the non - breaching party bythe breaching party upon demand, for all claims upon which the non - breaching party prevails. Insurance. City shall procure or cause its contractors and subcontractors to procure and maintain in force throughout the entire term of this Agreement insurance coverage described belowwith insurance companies acceptable to Magellan for work performed related to the construction of the Approved Encroachments. All costs and deductible amounts will be for the sole account of the City or its contractors and subcontractors. Prior to commencing any activities related to the construction of the Approved Encroachments, the City must deliver to Magellan certificate(s) of insurance. Non - renewal or cancellation of policies must be effective only after Magellan receives written notice from the insurance company thirty (30) days in advance of such non - renewal or cancellation. The limits set forth below are minimum limits and will not be construed to limit the City's liability: (a) Workers' Compensation insurance complying with the laws of the State or States having jurisdiction over each employee and Employer's Liability insurance with limits of $1,000,000. (b) Commercial or Comprehensive General Liability insurance on an occurrence form with a combined single limit of $5,000,000 each occurrence and project specific annual aggregates of $5,000,000. Coverage must include premises /operations, independent contractors, blanket contractual liability, and products /completed operations coverage, broad form property damage, personal injury, and sudden and accidental pollution; such coverage must be maintained for two (2) years following completion of work activities related to the construction of the Approved Encroachments. Magellan, its affiliated companies, and its and their respective directors, officers, partners, members, shareholders, employees, agents and contractors shall be included as additional insureds. (c) In each of the above policies, the City or its contractors and subcontractors agree to waive and will require its insurers to waive any rights of subrogation or recovery either may have against Magellan and its affiliated companies. City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 (d) Regardless of the insurance requirements above, the insolvency, bankruptcy, or failure of any such insurance company providing insurance for the City or its contractors and subcontractors, or the failure of any such insurance company to pay claims that occur, such requirements, insolvency, bankruptcy or failure will not be held to waive any of the provisions hereof. (e) In the event of a loss or claim arising out of or in connection with the construction of the Approved Encroachments, the City agrees, upon request of Magellan, to submit a certified copy of its insurance policies for inspection by Magellan. (f) The City shall require all of its contractors and subcontractors for work related to the construction of the Approved Encroachments to provide adequate insurance coverage, all to be endorsed with the Waiver of Subrogation wording referenced in Section (c) above; any deficiency in the coverage, policy limits, or endorsements of said contractors and subcontractors, shall be the sole responsibility of the City. Indemnification. City will indemnify, save, and hold harmless Magellan, its affiliated companies, directors, officers, partners, employees, agents and contractors from any and all environmental and non - environmental liabilities, losses, costs, damages, expenses, fees (including reasonable attorneys' fees), fines, penalties, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings (including administrative proceedings), judgments, decrees and orders resulting from City's breach of this Agreement orcaused by or as a result of the construction, use, maintenance, existence or removal of the Approved Encroachments and Other Encroachments located on the Magellan Easement Tract. The presence of Magellan's representative or any instructions given by such representative will not relieve City of any liability under this Agreement, except to the extent that such liability results from Magellan's or its representative's gross negligence or willful misconduct. 8. Damage or Loss. City covenants that: (a) If at any time, in the sole opinion of Magellan, it becomes necessary for Magellan, to cross, occupy, utilize, move or remove all or portions of the Approved Encroachments placed on Magellan's Easement Tract or constructed pursuant to this Agreement, for any purpose, including but not limited to surveying, constructing new facilities, maintaining, inspecting, operating, protecting, repairing, replacing, removing or changing the size of a pipeline(s) and appurtenances on Magellan's Easement Tract and such activities by Magellan result in damage to or destruction of the Approved Encroachments, then repair, replacement or restoration of such Approved Encroachments shall be at the sole cost and responsibility of City. (b) If at any time, any encroachments belonging to or permitted by Citywhich are not authorized bythis or another written agreement ( "Other Encroachments ") are found to be on Magellan's Easement Tract, Magellan may at any time request City to remove such Other Encroachments, and if City refuses or fails to do so within a reasonable time, Magellan's may remove them from Magellan's Easement Tract to a location off of Magellan's Easement Tract at City's expense, unless they are allowed to remain by a written agreement between Magellan and City. Should such removal activities by Magellan result in damage to or destruction of the Other Encroachments, then repair, replacement or restoration of such Other Encroachments shall be at the sole cost and responsibility of City, and such Other Encroachments may not be repaired, replaced or rebuilt on Magellan's Easement Tract without a written agreement between Magellan and City. (c) If during the exercise of the rights granted by the Easement or by this Agreement, the Approved Encroachments and Other Encroachments, if any, are damaged, destroyed or suffer loss of value, City agrees to release Magellan, its affiliates, and its and their respective directors, officers, members, partners, shareholders, employees, agents and contractors from and against any and all liabilities, and damages or losses which may arise as a result of the damage to or loss of use of the Approved Encroachments and Other Encroachments, if any, caused by Magellan, its employees, agents and contractors. City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 9. Magellan Rights. Magellan and City agree that the existence of the Approved Encroachments or this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of Magellan's rights under the Easement. Magellan hereby reserves and City hereby grants and confirms all of Magellan's rights, title and estate as set forth in the Easement. 10. The terms and conditions of this Agreement will constitute covenants running with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successors, assigns and grantees. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. This Agreement shall become effective upon its complete execution by the parties hereto. 11. (Example of a Unique or Specific Provision) Water Diversions. City shall install water diversions at locations specified by Magellan's Coordinator of Maintenance to prevent erosion of the soil from Magellan's Easement Tract. 6. Temporary Gambling— Church of St. Jerome Adopted the following resolution for a Temporary Lawful Gambling Resolution for The Church of St. Jerome for September 18, 2005 at 380 Roselawn Avenue: RESOLUTION 05 -07 -102 BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the temporary permit for lawful gambling is approved for the Church of St. Jerome. 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. 7. Development Agreement Release- Legacy Village Approved the Release of Obligation Under the Master Development Agreement requested by Frank Janes of the Hartford Group as it relates to the Wyngate Townhomes site in Legacy Village. H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 p.m. Solid Waste Ordinance Amendment — Multi - Family Residential Recycling (Second Reading) a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Environmental Health Officer Konewko presented specifics from the report. C. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: Cory Franks, 2391 Larpenteur Avenue, Maplewood d. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following multi - family recycling ordinance amendment with an effective date of January 1, 2006: ORDINANCE 862 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CHAPTER 30 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 30, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 30 -107 OF THE CITY CODE AND ADDING A SECTION RELATING TO REQUIRED RECYCLING SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITH TWO OR MORE DWELLING UNITS Section 30 -107 of the Code of the City of Maplewood is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 30 -107. Program established. The city has established and developed a local recycling program throughout the city. The city's goal is to promote public education and solid waste reduction and recycling. The city shall require all the owners and managers of multiple family dwellings to assure that they provide recycling services to all their residents. 30- 107.1. Required Recycling Services; Multiple Family Dwellings. (1) Definitions. For purposes of this subsection, the following terms have the meanings indicated: (a) "Multiple family dwellings" means a building or a portion thereof containing two or more dwelling units. (b) "Designated recyclables" means the following recyclable materials: aluminum cans; steel cans; glass jars and bottles; paper recyclables; plastic bottles; and corrugated cardboard. (c) "Aluminum cans" means disposable containers fabricated primarily of aluminum, commonly used for soda, beer, juice, water or other beverages. (d) "Steel cans" means all disposable containers fabricated primarily of steel or tin used for food and beverages. (e) "Glass jars and bottles" means unbroken jars and bottles, and containers (lids /caps and pumps removed) which are primarily used for packing and bottling of food and beverages. (f) "Paper" means newspapers; household office paper and mail; boxboard; and magazines /catalogs. No boxboard containers used for food product storage in the refrigerator or freezer are included. (g) 'Plastic bottles" means plastic bottles shaped with a neck, rinsed and with lids, caps, rings and pumps removed. Recyclable plastic bottles shall be identified on the bottom with the SPI plastic codes #1 (PETE) and #2 (HDPE) including bottles containing: liquor; milk; juice; soft drinks; water; certain food; soap and cosmetics. (h) "Corrugated cardboard" means cardboard material with double wall construction and corrugated separation between walls but not plastic coated cardboard. (i) "Collection" means the aggregation of recyclable materials from the place at which it is generated and includes all activities up to the time when it is delivered to a recycling facility. . City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 Q) "Recycling container" for multiple family dwellings means any bin, cart, dumpster or other receptacle for temporary storage and collection of designated recyclables from tenants in multiple - family dwellings prior to collection. Such recycling containers must be separate, explicitly labeled as to recyclables included, and colored differently from other containers for mixed solid waste or trash. (2) Collection Services Required. The owner of a multiple family dwelling shall make available to the occupants of all dwelling units on the premise services for the collection of designated recyclables. The recyclables collection services shall be available on the premises and shall be provided on a regularly scheduled basis of at least twice a month. This collection service shall be for at least four broad types of designated recyclable materials. The collection schedule and recycling containers' capacity shall provide for regular removal or the recyclables such that there is adequate storage capacity available in the recyclable containers to prevent overflowing containers. The owner may use the city's recycling contractor to provide the recycling collection services orthey may independently contract with another licensed hauler and /or recycling contractor to provide the recycling collection services at the owner's expense. (3) Recycling Information Required. The owner of a multiple family dwelling shall provide recycling information to the occupants of each dwelling unit on the property. This information shall notify the occupants of the availability of collection services, describes the procedures required to prepare the designated recyclables for collection, and identifies the dates and times of collection. If the owner elects to use the city's recycling contractor, the city's recycling contractor will supply the owner with the information needed to create this informational fact sheet. (4) Container Requirements. The recycling containers shall be: (a) Sufficient in number and size to meetthe demands for recycling services created bythe occupants; (b) Equipped with self - closing lids; (c) Equipped with standardized labels identifying the type of recyclable material to be deposited in each container and colored differently from other containers for mixed solid waste or trash. (d) Maintained in proper operating condition and reasonably clean and sanitary; (e) Repaired or replaced on a reasonable schedule if stolen or broken. (5) Responsibility for Providing and Maintaining Recycling Containers: (a) If the owner of a multiple family dwelling uses the city's recycling contractor, then the contractor shall provide and maintain adequate recycling containers for demand and needs of the property and its occupants. Or, (b) If the owner uses an independent recycling contractor, the owner shall assure adequate recycling containers are provided and maintained by the independent contractor. (6) Containers Location(s). Recycling containers shall be placed in a location on the premises that permits access for collection purposes but does not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic. All such locations shall comply with the City's zoning and other ordinances. City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 10 (7) Transportation and Disposal. Upon collection by the city's recycling contractor orthe owner's independent hauler, that person shall deliver the designated recyclables to a recyclable material processing center, an end market for sale or reuse, or to an intermediate collection center for later delivery to a processing center or end market. It is unlawful for any person to transport for disposal or to dispose of designated recyclables in a mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility. The contractor or hauler shall transport all designated recyclables in a covered vehicle so the recyclables do not drop or blow onto any public street or private property during transport. (8) Scavenging Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person, other than the city's recycling contractor or owner's independent hauler, to collect, remove, or dispose of designated recyclables after the materials have been placed or deposited for collection in the recycling containers. The owner, owner's employees, owner's independent hauler's employees, or city's recycling contractor's employees may not collect or "scavenge" through recycling in any manner that interferes with the contracted recycling services. (9) Annual Report. Each owner or manager of a multiple family dwelling shall file an annual report with the city by January 31 of each year on a form to be provided by the city recycling coordinator. The report shall contain, at a minimum, the following information: (a) name of owner and building manager and contact information; (b) address of multiple family dwelling; (c) number of dwelling units; (d) description of recycling collection services made available to occupants, including location of containers, dates of collection and whether collection services are provided by owner, owner's employees, or a licensed collector; (e) description of methods used to inform occupants of availability of recycling services; (f) tonnage estimates for each type of material recycled as provided by the city's contractor or owner's independent recycling contractor; (g) name and address of licensed hauler /recycler that provides collection services and where the recyclables were taken for processing. (10) Administrative Penalties. Violation of this chapter shall be charged as an administrative fine as follows: a fine of $200.00 for the first offense; a fine of $300.00 for the second offense at the same location within a 12 month period; a fine of $500.00 for the third offense or additional offenses within a 24 month period at the same location. The owner shall be notified in writing of the violation and if the owner fails to take action within 15 days of receiving the notice of violation, the owner shall be cited forviolation in accordance with the fine schedule. 11) Misdemeanor Prosecution. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the City from seeking prosecution as a misdemeanor for any alleged violation of this chapter. If the City elects to seek misdemeanor prosecution, then no administrative fine will be imposed under subpart (10) above. This ordinance shall be effective on January 1, 2006. The Administrative Penalties piece, Section 30- 107.1, item number 10, shall have an effective starting date of July 1, 2006. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan -Junek Ayes -All Due to time constraints council moved to item K2 City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 11 7:40 p.m. Sign Ordinance Amendment — Political Signs (First Reading) City Manager Fursman presented the report. Shann Finwall, Associate Planner presented specifics from the report. C. Diana Longrie, 1771 Burr Street, Chair, provided the Community Design Review Board report. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: None Councilmember Rossbach signs: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SIGN SECTION OF THE SIGN CODE The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment changes Section 44 -735, subdivision (11.) (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): (1.f) Political campaign sign means any sign which states the name or portrays the picture of an individual seeking election or appointment to a public office or pertaining to a forthcoming public election or referendum or pertaining to or advocating political views or policies. Section 2. This amendment changes Section 44 -891, subdivision (8) (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Section 44 -891. Special purpose and temporary signs in all districts. The city permits the following special purpose and temporary signs in all districts. Such signs shall be exempt from section 44 -807, which pertains to temporary signs, and schedule 2 in subdivision 3 of this division, which pertains to permitted signs by zoning districts. Such signs shall be subject to the following limitations: (8) Political campaign signs: (a) For local elections and referendums, political campaign signs may be posted from August 1'` until ten (10) days following said election or referendum. (b) Political campaign signs shall not exceed sixteen (16) square feet in area and six (6) feet in height. The total area of all political campaign signs shall not exceed sixty -four (64) square feet per property. (c) In a state general election year, the size, number, and duration of political campaign sign displays shall comply with the provisions of Minnesota Statute 211.13.045, and nothing in this chapter shall be construed as applicable except location restrictions. (d) All political campaign signs shall be setback at least five (5) feet from the edge of the nearest street and at least one (1) foot from any sidewalk or trail. Said signs shall not be placed between a street and a sidewalk or trail or at any other location that obstructs driver or pedestrian visibility. The consent of the underlying property owner or the property owner fronting the proposed location of the sign must be obtained before placement of such sign. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect after publishing in the official newspaper. City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 12 Seconded by Juenemann Ayes - Councilmembers Juenemann, Monahan -Junek and Rossbach Nays -Mayor Cardinal and Councilmember Koppen AWARD OF BIDS None 111L 1y1L 1l;1:14111= 11RIIIL I=91.1 Charitable Gambling Requests City Manager Fursman presented the report. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Monahan -Junek moved to accept the following requests as council had indicated in the requests that they turned in: Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All Due to time constraints this item was held until item H2 is heard - move to K2 City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 13 Recommenda- Organization Requests BC MK KJ JMJ WR tions Dispute Resolution Center 5,000 5,000 0 4,000 2,000 0 2,200.: Tubman Family Alliance 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 1,000 0 800 Maplewood Historical Society 27,000 17,000 5,000 12,000 3,000 10,500 9,500 Family Institute for Well Being 7,600 1,000 0 3,200 2,000 3,800 2 000 Century College 5,000 1,000 0 1,600 3,000 0 1,120 Edgerton Community Drama Club 1,000 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 900 Police Explorers 8,000 4,000 8,000 3,500 8,000 5,000 5,700 Webster School PTO 5,000 1,000 4,600 1,000 5,000 3,060 2,932 Hill Murray School 74,500 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 Heritage Theatre Co. 5,840 2,000 5,000 3,900 5,840 5 4,515 Ramsey County Fair 5,500 5,200 5,500 1,500 250 5,500 3590: Fire Explorers 5,000 2,000 5,000 2,500 5,000 5,000 3,900 Police Reserves 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 MCC Room Rentals 25,000 10,000 20,000 12,500 10,000 15,000 13,500 Total* 179,440 57,700 57,100 51,700 49,090 57,700 53,658 Reserve Balance 0 600 6,000 8,610 0 4,042 *Available funds $57,700 Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All Due to time constraints this item was held until item H2 is heard - move to K2 City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 13 TH 5 and TH 120 Vacant MnDOT Property -City Project 03 -20- Presentations and Review of Site Plan Proposals: Independent School Hill- Murray School MnDOT Marsh —Ron District #622 /City of North St. Paul Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Public Works Director Ahl presented specifics from the report. C. The following persons were heard: Greg Hein, representing Independent School District #622 Andy Golfis, representing IDS as their Environmental Specialist Joe Peschges representing Hill- Murray School Craig Rafferty, Architect Rafferty & Rafferty, representing Hill- Murray School Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue, Maplewood Frank Pafko, MnDOT Area Manager and Chief Environmental Officer Scott Duddeck, School Board member representing ISD #622 No action was taken A ten minute break was taken. Ramsey County Joint Powers Agreement- Dispatch Consolidation a. City Manager Fursman presented the report and the specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to "iron out the wrinkles" and approve the joint powers agreement with Ramsey County. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes - Councilmembers Koppen and Rossbach Nays -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann and Monahan -Junek Councilmember Monahan -Junek moved to "pull back" from the county proposal and continue to pursue the 800 MHZ technoloav chanae with the intention of remainina independent. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann and Monahan -Junek Nays - Councilmembers Rossbach and Koppen Mayor Cardinal requested an amendment to the motion, adding: The City of Maplewood should be provided all information, without any being held for any political reasons. Mayor Cardinal withdrew his amendment. Councilmember Juenemann moved to make it clear the funding piece of the consolidation plan proposed was not sufficient, and did not sufficiently address suburban concerns and that fair disclosure of all financial agreements and information must be made to all parties. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann, Monahan -Junek and Rossbach Nay - Councilmember Koppen City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 14 Councilmember Rossbach requested to change his vote due to a misunderstanding of the motion that was on the table. Councilmember Rossbach clarified that after Mayor Cardinal's interpretation of the motion, he was supporting fair disclosure of all financial agreements and information being shared with all parties, not Councilmember Juenemann's motion. City Attorney Kelly stated the clarification of the motion by Mayor Cardinal, being the presiding officer, stands, therefore the vote stands. Mayor Cardinal read the following for the record: As Mayor, my responsibility is to protect the City of Maplewood. After doing some homework, I found several issues that need to be addressed prior to my supporting consolidation of Maplewood city operations and merging with Ramsey County. I am fully supportive and will vote to merge and consolidate with Ramsey County after these issues have been looked at and addressed. Ownership- this issue has always been at the heart of consolidation talks. By all measurements St. Paul accounts for 68 (77 %) to 85% of requests for service County -wide. Will St. Paul lead and direct the new center. Will the County manage the center? Method of Operation — A center of this size will require two stage operations. It must have dedicated call takers and dispatchers. Work volumes require this. St. Paul is the only center in the County that has ever operated this way and has done it for decades. It is of concern that those with the experience in this area will now be under the direction of those that have never done this before. Medical Dispatch — St. Paul offers pre - arrival instructions and patient screening for medical dispatch. St. Paul is the only agency in the County that does this. The concern is that those with the practical experience will now be supervised by those with no experience. The St. Paul Paramedic program operates under the license of Dr. Frascone from Regions Hospital and dispatch technique is part of this umbrella. I do not believe any approach has been made to the Doctor. Dr. Frascone will need to get on board. Fire Dispatch — St. Paul maintains a dedicated Fire /Medical dispatch team. All other PSAPs in the County are single stage and do not do this. This St. Paul model must be continued in any new center or service quality will fall. Police Information Channel — St. Paul maintains a dedicated service channel (Chan 5) and dispatchers for this channel. All other PSAPs in the County staff with personnel with multiple duties. This St. Paul model must be continued in any new center or service quality will fall. County Phone System — The St. Paul PSAP used the county 266 phone system when Griffin became operational. The City had to pay for conversion back to the 291 numbers when it was determined that the Ramsey phone system was not adequate for ECC use. In the words of the County - "we never intended this system to be for 24 hour emergency use ". The new ECC must have an entirely different phone system. Must have new phone system. Policy /Procedure — Currently, the St. Paul Fire and Police Depts. exercise total control over the ECC. It is not known how this will be affected by consolidation. Accountability and responsiveness are areas of great and legitimate concern. What demands might be placed on the system in the future due to budget or other concerns? Will the City be asked for additional dollars if they desire increased, changed, or modified service? Will Maplewood be charged and have to pay extra costs for these additions, or will this also be taxed and levied by the County on City of Maplewood residents? City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 15 Staffing Level — The St. Paul ECC is very short staffed. It is estimated at 18 -20 persons below what is needed. There is concern that this will not be addressed in the new center. Special Needs — Will the City be able to request /insist on the creation of new methods, policies, techniques that it feels are necessary for continued service to its citizens? Can Maplewood simply be told — No, we will not do that? Who controls the future technology (i.e. video, camera access -- on highways or corridors)? Need legal opinion on Ramsey County charter. Question: 911 calls, who is in charge of the entire county? Question: If Sheriff is in charge of all communications, is that what we want? All staffs are presently at 100, the county will need 125 total. Need clerical, supervisors, payroll, and a 4 million budget. Will have $320,000 for 911 fees whoever answers the phone. 800 MHz is already in place. This seems to be a short term fix for a long term problem. Fix these problems and come back for a positive vote. The Mayor also stated "he is fully supportive and will vote to merge and consolidate when all of the issues and questions are ironed out and addressed." Councilmember Monahan -Junek asked City Manager Fursman how Maplewood, a state of the art dispatch center, can help service other suburbs. City Manager Fursman stated that currently we do not have the capacity to take on the suburban functions that the sheriff now has. Maplewood could possibly take on White Bear Lake or another community, but not the entire group. City Manager Fursman would need further information to make comment on pursuing this option. Chief Lukin made council aware of the fact that Maplewood cannot stand on its own with 800 MHz. K. NEW BUSINESS Richie /Anondson Non - Conforming Three and Four - plexes —(1349 and 1359 County Rd C) a. Land Use Plan Change -(R -2 (double dwelling) to R -3(H) (high density multiple family residential) (4 votes) b. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Planner Finwall presented specifics from the report. Fred Richie, property owner 1359 County Road C, Maplewood Craig Anondson, property owner 1349 County Road C, Maplewood At 11:07 p.m. Monahan -Junek moved to extend the meeting until all agenda items were completed. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All Ron Brzinski, 1358 Kohlman Avenue, Maplewood Debra Willing, 1366 Kohlman Avenue, Maplewood Brad Kellerhuis, 1343 County Road C, Maplewood Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following resolution approving the attached comprehensive land use change plan from double dwelling residential to high multiple dwelling residential for the properties located at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East: City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 16 RESOLUTION 05 -07 -103 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Fred Richie and Craig Anondson applied for a change to the city's land use plan from Double Dwelling Residential (R -2) to High Multiple - Dwelling Residential (R -3H). WHEREAS, this change applies to the properties at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On June 6, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements prior to their recommendation. On July 11, 2005, the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above - described change to the land use plan for the following reasons: This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high- density residential use. This includes: a. Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single - family housing, public - assisted housing and low- to moderate - income housing, and rental and owner - occupied housing. b. Disperse low- and moderate - income developments throughout the city, rather than concentrating them in one area or neighborhood. C. Have a balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. d. Have a variety of housing types for ownership and rental for people in all stages of the life- cycle. e. Have a community of well- maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. f. Add to and preserve the affordable housing in the city. g. The properties are located on a collector street, with no additional traffic added to local streets. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -All Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional use permitfor a planned unit development for the properties located at 1349 (3 units) and 1359 (4 units) County Road C East. At change of ownership, they would revert to R(2) Duplexes: Conditional Use Permit Resolution 05 -07 -04 WHEREAS, Fred Richie and Craig Anondson applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to allow three dwelling units to remain on 1349 County Road C and four dwelling units to remain on 1359 County Road C. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the properties at 1349 and 1359 County Road C. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 17 1. On June 6, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission prior to their recommendation. 2. On July 11, 2005, the city council discussed the conditional use permit. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve 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 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 runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The planned unit development allows for three dwelling units to be located at 1349 County Road C and four dwelling units to be located at 1359 County Road C. Any additional dwelling units must be approved by the city council. 2. The planned unit development for three dwelling units to be located 1349 County Road C and four dwelling units to be located at 1359 County Road C will expire once the properties are sold. Once the properties are sold, either consequtively or individually, they will be converted back to double dwelling (R -2) zoning which allows for two dwelling units per property. In order to ensure this is accomplished, the property owners must file appropriate title work indicating such, and provide such notice to any potential buyer and notify the city of the sale. Appropriate title work to be approved by city staff prior to recording. 3. Any exterior modifications including additions and accessory structures which require building permits must be reviewed by the Community Design Review Board. City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 18 The property owners must submit and maintain a landscape /screening /parking plan to the Community Design Review Board for approval. The plan must ensure adequate landscaping /screening and parking is existing or installed. The property owners must have each individual unit inspected by the city's building official and fire marshal to ensure life /safety issues are addressed. 6 The city council shall review this permit in one year. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -All Lark Avenue Right -of -Way Vacation (between Hazel and Van Dyke Streets) a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Planner Finwall presented specifics from the report. C. Lyle and Wanda Pichelman, property owners, addressed the council. Councilmember Monahan -Junek moved to adopt the following resolution approving the proposed vacation of the easterly 300 feet of the unused 60- foot -wide Lark Avenue right -of- way located west of the right -of -way line of Hazel Street. This will include ensuring the shed is five feet off the property line, or to remove the shed completely: STREET VACATION RESOLUTION 05 -07 -105 WHEREAS, Lyle Pichelman and Wanda Pichelman applied for the vacation of the following- described right -of -way: The easterly 300 feet of the unused 60- foot -wide Lark Avenue right -of -way located west of the right -of -way line of Hazel Street. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On June 20, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposed vacation. 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. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the vacation. On July 11, 2005, the city council reviewed this proposal. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: S 75 feet of E '/2 (subject to roads) of Lot 2, Block 3, Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul 2255 Hazel Street North, Maplewood, Minnesota PIN: 11- 29 -22 -33 -0026 E '/2 of (subject to roads) Lot 1, Block 14, Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul 2241 Hazel Street North, Maplewood, Minnesota PIN: 11- 29 -22 -33 -0029 City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described right -of -way vacation for the following reasons: It is in the public interest. The applicant and abutting property owners have no plans to build a street and develop their properties at this location. The adjacent properties have street access. The vacation of the right -of -way will allow a resident to expand and improve their home. This vacation is subject to the following conditions: The city retaining a 300 - foot -long by 10- foot -wide drainage and utility easement down the center of the vacated Lark Avenue right -of -way located west of the right -of -way line of Hazel Street. The property owners at 2255 Hazel Street removing the existing shed located along the north property line if it is found that the shed does not meet the city's required 5 -foot setback to the property line. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All Lot Width and Setback Variances (1774 McMenemy Street) City Manager Fursman presented the report. Planner Finwall presented specifics from the report. Jeff Kissell, representing Kissell Construction Tom Dahlquist, property owner, 1774 McMenemy Street, Maplewood Jay Swanson, 1780 McMenemy Street, Maplewood Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving the two variance requests for the creation of the new lot for a single dwelling north of the house at 1774 McMenemy Street. These include having a 73.5- foot -wide lot (a 1.5 foot variance) and a seven foot setback form the existina house (a three foot variance): VARIANCE RESOLUTION 05 -07 -106 WHEREAS, Jeff Kissell and Tom Dahlquist applied to the city for approval of two variances from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, the variances apply to the proposed single dwelling lot north of the house at 1774 McMenemy Street. The proposed legal description of the property (Parcel B) is: The north 73.50 feet of the south 162 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, Except the east 90.00 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter. Subject to the rights of the public in that part used for McMenemy Street. (Part of PIN 17- 29 -22 -32 -0030) WHEREAS, Section 44 -106 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires that lots for single dwellings have a minimum lot width of 75 feet and Section 44- 108(a) of the City Code requires a side yard setback of at least ten feet to a dwelling. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 73.5- foot -wide lot and a side yard setback of seven feet to an existing dwelling. City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 20 WHEREAS, these require a variance of 1.5 feet and 3 feet respectively. WHEREAS, the history of these variances is as follows: On June 20, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the variances. 2. The City Council held a public meeting about this request on July 11, 2005. The council considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. The city council approved the variance requests. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above - described variance for the following reasons: 1. The problem requiring the variances in this circumstance is a problem that the current owner did not cause. 2. The variances and the creation of a new lot with a new single dwelling in this location will not change the character of the area. 3. The variances would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the city had approved a similar request for the same property in 1978. 4. The reduced lot width and building setback also would not be visually noticeable. Approval of these variances is subject to the following conditions: 1. The house and garage on the new lot shall have at least a ten foot setback from the north property line. 2. The city engineer shall approve a grading and drainage plan before the city approves a lot split for the creation of the new lot. 3. The builder shall provide a six -foot tall privacy fence and eight- foot -tall coniferous trees (black hills spruce or Austrian Pines) along the north property line. The final design and location of the fence and trees shall be subject to the approval of city staff and the contractor shall install these before the city grants an occupancy permit for the new house. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes -All TH 61 Improvements (Beam to 1 -694) — City Project 03- 07— Resolution Approving Cooperative Agreement with MnDOT City Manager Fursman presented the report. Public Works Director Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving the Cooperative Agreement with MnDOT for funding purposes of three protects: City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 21 RESOLUTION 05 -07 -107 IT IS RESOLVED that the City of Maplewood enter into Mn /DOT Agreement No. 87866 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes: To provide for payment by the State to the City of the State's share of the costs of the roadway improvement and acceleration and turn lane construction and other associated construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 61 from 524 feet north of Beam Avenue to 773 feet south of the Trunk Highway No. 694 eastbound off ramp within the corporate City limits under State Project No. 6222 -150 and City Project No's. 03 -07, 04 -06 and 04 -25. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -All County Road D Realignment (Southlawn to TH 61) —City Project 02 -07— Approve Revisions to Realignment Agreement with BNSF Railroad, Minnesota Commercial Railroad, Xcel Energy, Ramsey County Board and Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Public Works Director AN presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the revised Realignment Agreement with Ramsey County, Northern Sates Power Company, d /b /a Xcel Energy, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Minnesota Commercial Railroad and Ramsey County: EXHIBITA XCEL ENERGY PERMANENT TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT AGREEMENT EASEMENT The undersigned, hereinafter called "Grantor ", in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration to Grantor in hand paid by Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, d /b /a Xcel Energy, hereinafter called "NSP ", does hereby grant unto NSP, its successors and assigns, the perpetual right, privilege and easement to construct, operate, maintain, use, rebuild, or remove electric lines with all towers, structures, poles, foundations, crossarms, cables, wires, guys, supports, counterpoises, fixtures, and devices appurtenant to said lines through, over, under and across the following described lands (hereinafter called "Premises ") situated in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, to -wit: That part of the 150 -foot wide BNSF Railway Company right -of -way located in the West Half of the Southeast Quarter and the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 30, Range 22, and the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 29, Range 22, which lies southerly of the southerly line of the 66 -foot wide right -of -way of Buerkle Road as described in that certain Perpetual Easement filed in the Office of the Ramsey County Recorder on December 22, 1982 as Document Number 2164739, and which lies northerly of a line drawn perpendicular with center line of said Railway right -of -way from a point thereon distant 183.00 feet northeasterly from the intersection of said center line with the southerly line of said Northwest Quarter of Section 3. Except for the right of access and temporary construction area, said easement shall be limited to those parts of the Premises (hereinafter called "the Easement Area ") described as follows: City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 22 Parcel 1: The easterly 25 feet of the Premises described above which lies northerly of a line drawn perpendicular with the easterly line of said Railway right -of -way from a point thereon distant 35.00 feet northeasterly from the intersection of said easterly line with the northerly right -of -way line of Trunk Highway 393 -694 as described in that certain Final Certificate filed in the Office of the Ramsey County Recorder on November 4, 1966 as Document Number 1687969. Parcel 2: The part of the Premises which lies within 30.00 feet of the following described line: Beginning at a point on aline drawn perpendicular with the easterly line of said Railway right -of -way from a point thereon distant 35.00 feet northeasterly from the intersection of said easterly line with the northerly right -of -way line of Trunk Highway 393 -694 as described in that certain Final Certificate filed in the Office of the Ramsey County Recorder on November 4, 1966 as Document Number 1687969, distant 30.00 feet westerly of the intersection of said line with the easterly line of said Railway right -of -way, thence southwesterly parallel with the easterly line of said Railway right -of -way a distance of 1085 feet to a "Point A", thence deflect left to a point on the westerly line of said Railway right -of -way located 320.00 feet south of the north line of said Section 3, as measured along the westerly line of said Railway right -of -way and there terminating. The sidelines of the described strip of land are to be lengthened or shorted to meet at the point of turning, and to meet said perpendicular line and the westerly line of said Railway right -of -way. Parcel 3: That part of the Premises that lies within 10.00 feet each side of the following described line: Beginning at the above - described 'Point A ", thence southwesterly parallel with the east line of said Railway right -of -way a distance of 85.00 feet and there terminating. Pa roe 14: That part of the Premises lying between lines parallel with and located respectively 500 feet and 750 feet south of the north line of said Section 3. The rights granted herein may be exercised at any time subsequent to the execution of this document. The grant of easement herein contained shall also include the right to enter upon the Premises, to survey for and locate said lines and shall also include the right to trim or remove from said Easement Area any structures, trees (including tall or leaning trees located within the Premises adjacent to the Easement Area, which may endanger said lines by reason of falling thereon) or objects, except fences, which will materially interfere with or endanger said lines. Any such entry by Grantee under the provisions of this paragraph shall not materially interfere with or disrupt in any way any public transit or transportation system, including but not limited to any rail transit system, which exists upon the premises at the time of entry, and unless an emergency, Grantee shall notify Grantor prior to such entry. Except as otherwise provided herein for the construction, operation, repair and maintenance of facilities and structures necessary for public transit, transportation and recreational trails, Grantor, its successors and assigns, agrees not to erect any buildings, structures or other objects, permanent or temporary, except fences, or to plant any trees within the Easement area, without the prior express written approval from NSP, nor to perform any act which will interfere with or materially endanger said lines. The grant of easement herein contained shall also include the right of NSP to have reasonable access which does not materially interfere with Grantor's use of the Premises to said Easement Area across the Premises. The grant of easement herein contained shall also include the right of reasonable temporary use by NSP of Premises adjacent to said Easement Area during construction, repair or replacement of said transmission lines, for additional construction area. In regard to Parcel 1, this easement also grants a right of access to NSP across said parcel in order to load and unload transformers and other electrical equipment onto the railroad located west of, parallel with and adjacent to said parcel. City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 23 Said electric lines and supporting structures from time to time may be reconstructed or relocated on said Easement Area with changed dimensions and to operate at different voltages provided that any change in location or structure does not materially interfere with existing or future use of the premises by Grantor for public transit or transportation purposes, including but not limited to rail transit. Grantee must notify Grantor before relocating or reconstructing the electric lines and structures to determine that the improvements do not materially interfere with Grantor's facilities or rights granted herein. The grant herein contained shall also include the right of NSP to permit the attachment of wires of others to the structures supporting said lines, except that such wires shall not materially interfere with Grantor's use of the Easement Area. Grantor reserves the right to dedicate and have or permit to be improved, maintained, and used for the purposes of streets, curbs and gutters, sewers, water and underground utilities (hereinafter called "improvements "), the portion of said Easement Area not occupied by the structures supporting NSP's electric system, provided that said improvements do not impair the structural or electrical integrity of or ability to maintain said electric system or materially alter the existing ground elevations; and provided further that all such improvements shall not result in a ground or other clearance of less than the minimum requirements specified by the National Electrical Safety Code. Grantor, its agents or assigns must submit plans of improvements or other installations within the Easement Area for review by NSP prior to installation of the improvements to determine that the improvements do not materially interfere with NSP's facilities or rights granted herein. Grantor reserves to itself, its successors or assigns, the right to enter upon and use the Easement Area for the purposes of planning, surveying, designing, constructing, installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, improving, or modifying a system or systems of public transit or transportation, including but not limited to rail transit, public highways, pedestrian paths, or bike paths, provided that such entrance upon or use of the easement area does not materially interfere with, obstruct, or impair Grantee's use of the Easement Area for the purposes stated herein. NSP shall pay for all damages to landscaping, roads and driveways, fences, livestock, crops, fields and other property caused by the construction or maintenance of said lines. Claims on account of such damages may be referred to NSP's nearest office. Grantor covenants with NSP, its successors and assigns, that Grantor is the owner of the above described premises and has the right to sell and convey an easement in the manner and form herein. Grantor agrees to execute and deliver to NSP, at NSP's cost without additional compensation, any additional documents needed to correct the legal description of the Easement Area described herein, so that it describes the Easement Area within the Premises that was originally intended to be granted herein and which at a minimum provides conductor clearance meeting the requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code. Where approval from one beneficiary of this Easement to another is herein required, said approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any party seeking approval from another shall submit its request or plans to the other in writing. A party receiving such request shall, within thirty days, grant approval of the request or deny approval by submitting to the other a written explanation for the denial. Notwithstanding any other provision of this grant of easement, Grantee, and its successors or assigns may not, without the express written consent of Grantor, its successors or assigns, place, locate, or erect any towers, structures, poles, cross -arms, cables, wires, guys, supports, counterpoises, fixtures, or devices on or within thirty (30) feet of the centerline of the Premises. Grantor may condition the express written consent mentioned above on the allocation of cost for removal, relocation or modification of any structures placed within thirty (30) feet of the centerline of the Premises, as Grantor, its successors or assigns determines appropriate. City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 24 This provision does not preclude Grantee, its successors or assigns from installing, replacing or repairing overhead wires across the Premises, including the portion of the Premises located on or within thirty (30) feet of the centerline of the Premises. Nothing in this paragraph shall require Grantee, its successors or assigns to relocate, reconstruct, or remove structures that exist within the Easement Area on the date this Easement is granted; nor shall this paragraph require Grantee, its successors or assigns to relocate, reconstruct, or remove any structures that are being relocated pursuant to the County Road D Realignment Agreement. Grantee, its successors and assigns shall retain the same right to repair, reconstruct or replace the existing facilities locate on or within thirty (30) feet of the centerline of the Premises, and the facilities that are being relocated pursuant to the County Road D Realignment Agreement, as it has under this easement to repair, reconstruct, or replace its facilities that are located within the Easement Area, but outside thirty (30) feet of the centerline of the Premises. It is mutually understood and agreed that this instrument covers all the agreements and stipulations between the parties and that no representation or statements, verbal orwritten, have been made modifying, adding to or changing the terms hereof. This instrument is exempt from the Minnesota Deed Tax. COUNTY ROAD D REALIGNMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement, dated this _ day of July, 2005, is between the County of Ramsey, a political subdivision in the State of Minnesota (hereinafter "County "), the City of Maplewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter "City "), Northern States Power Company, d /b /a Xcel Energy (hereinafter "Xcel Energy "), BNSF Railway Company (hereinafter "BNSF), Minnesota Commercial Railway Company (hereinafter "Minnesota Commercial'), and Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority, a political subdivision in the State of Minnesota (hereinafter "Regional Rail'). WHEREAS, BNSF owns a railroad right -of -way corridor (the Corridor) from a point approximately fifty feet north of Beam Avenue in the City to the south right -of -way line of Buerkle Avenue in the City of White Bear Lake, which Corridor BNSF has leased to Minnesota Commercial for operational purposes, and WHEREAS, the City is undertaking a project known as the County Road D Realignment Project, City Project Number 02 -07 ('Project'); WHEREAS, the Project will cross the Corridor south of Interstate 694 (1694); WHEREAS, the Project will require the removal of a portion of the existing railroad track located in the area south of Interstate 694 owned by BNSF and leased by Minnesota Commercial; WHEREAS, the portion of the existing railroad track to be removed currently serves only the electric substation ( "Kohlman Lake Substation ") owned by Xcel Energy along the west side of the railroad south of County Road D. The Kohlman Lake Substation requires rail access for the delivery of transformer units in the event of a need for the installation of additional transformers or the replacement of failed transformers; WHEREAS, Xcel Energy is willing to abandon its use of the railroad track if an alternative roadway access can be established for the hauling of transformers and other equipment to the Kohlman Lake Substation, and if BNSF will grant it permanent easements for the operation of certain of its transmission facilities; WHEREAS, a haul route for the transformers for Xcel Energy was approved by a Joint Powers Agreement dated June 25, 2004 ( "Haul Route ") WHEREAS, Xcel Energy has agreed to utilize this Haul Route and is no longer in need of the railroad track; City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 25 WHEREAS, BNSF and Minnesota Commercial are willing to convey to the City all of their rights, title and interest in the easterly twenty -five (25) feet of a portion of the Corridor north of 1 694 ( "North Trail Property "); WHEREAS, the City is willing to purchase from BNSF and Minnesota Commercial the North Trail Property: WHEREAS, once the City has purchased the North Trail Property from BNSF and Minnesota Commercial, the City and County have agreed to negotiate a separate agreement in good faith for the sale of the North Trail Property to the County: WHEREAS, Regional Rail has stated that it may have an interest in the future purchase of a portion of the Corridor ( "South Corridor") for the purpose of preserving the Corridor for future public transit and transportation, including but not limited to rail transit, light rail transit (LRT) and other transit modes; however, it is not ready to purchase the South Corridor at this time; WHEREAS, the City has agreed to purchase the South Corridor to help facilitate the various actions described in this Agreement, and the City and Regional Rail have agreed to negotiate a separate agreement in good faith for the possible future sale of the South Corridor to Regional Rail; WHEREAS, BNSF is willing to sell the South Corridor to the City, and is willing to grant Xcel Energy a permanent easement for its electrical transmission lines all on the terms set forth in this Agreement; NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: SECTION I, RAMSEY COUNTY. A. Representations and Warranties by the County. The County represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents identified herein, that its governing body has reviewed this Agreement and has passed a resolution that authorizes County officials to execute this Agreement and the related documents on behalf of the County, and that the officials who did or will execute the Agreement and the related documents have the power and authority to execute the Agreement, and that the officials who did or will execute the Agreement and the related documents on behalf of the County have the authority to bind the County; It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and It will cooperate with all reasonable requests by the other parties related to this Agreement, to the extent authorized by law. City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 26 B. Obligations of the County in this Agreement. The County shall perform the following: The County agrees to negotiate in good faith with the City for the purchase of the North Trail Property. The County shall enter into a separate agreement with the City detailing the purchase price and terms for this acquisition. The purchase agreement shall require that the County pay the City the appraised value of up to a maximum of $3.30 per square foot (estimated square feet to be acquired is 26,100 square feet = $86,130.00). The purchase agreement shall be entered into within 60 days of the execution of this Agreement. The County's purchase obligation shall be contingent upon the City's purchase of the South Corridor from BNSF and Minnesota Commercial pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; the City's subsequent grant to the County of a permanent easement for trail purposes over the South Corridor; and the approval by the County of any easements granted by BNSF or the City to Xcel. The County shall reimburse the City for any expenses incurred in obtaining a title insurance policy, title correction work, environmental testing expenses and any environmental corrections associated with the City's purchase of the North Trail Property from BNSF. If the County and City are unable to reach a mutually acceptable purchase agreement for the North Trail Property, this agreement shall terminate as to the County and shall be of no further force or effect. The County shall not be obligated to purchase the North Trail Property unless and until it has secured sufficient permanent rights in the South Corridor to construct a public recreational trail which will connect the North Trail Property to the existing Bruce Vento Trail which lies south of the South Corridor at its southern terminus. The County agrees to enter into a separate Cooperative Agreement with the City to allow the City to construct a public recreational trail, including grading, clearing & grubbing, bituminous pavement, bridge improvements, and restoration work from Beam Avenue to Buerkle Road ( "Bruce Vento Trail Extension "). The County shall pay the City from its State grant for development of the Bruce Vento Trail Extension the actual cost incurred by the City for construction (including design and engineering) of the improvements, estimated to be $232,000 based on unit price bids received by the City, subject to the State of Minnesota extending the grant contract until December 31, 2005. The Cooperative Agreement shall be executed within 60 days of the execution of this Agreement. The County agrees to purchase an easement from the City for the portion of the Bruce Vento Trail Extension located within the South Corridor. The value of the easement shall be determined through an independent appraisal. The County shall use its State and Metropolitan Council acquisition grants to purchase this easement with a total amount not -to- exceed $263,870.00. The closing shall occur within 30 days of the City's purchase of the South Corridor from BNSF. This easement must be reviewed and approved by Regional Rail. If Regional Rail refuses to approve the easement, the County and City may nevertheless enter into the easement, but Regional Rail may, in its discretion, terminate its obligations under this Agreement. City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 27 The County acknowledges that BNSF shall grant Xcel Energy a permanent transmission line easement over the North Trail Property and portions of the South Corridor prior to the sale of the property to the County and that this easement shall contain a clause that the trail is a permitted use within the easement area and is subordinate to the transmission lines. A copy of the Xcel Energy permanent transmission line easement agreement is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A. The County agrees to secure a permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) for the construction and maintenance of a portion of the Bruce Vento Trail Extension over the 1 -694 BNSF railroad bridge and adjacent MNDOT road right of way. The permit shall be secured within 60 days of the execution of this Agreement. 11. SECTION 11. REGIONAL RAIL. A. Representations and Warranties by Regional Rail. Regional Rail represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents identified herein, that its governing body has reviewed this Agreement and has passed a resolution that authorizes Regional Rail officials to execute this Agreement and the related documents on behalf of Regional Rail, and that the officials who did or will execute the Agreement and the related documents have the power and authority to execute the Agreement, and that the officials who did or will execute the Agreement and the related documents on behalf of Regional Rail have the authority to bind Regional Rail; It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and It will cooperate with all reasonable requests by the other parties related to this Agreement, to the extent authorized by law. B. Obligations of Regional Rail in this Agreement. Regional Rail shall perform the following: Regional Rail agrees to negotiate in good faith with the City for the future acquisition of the South Corridor. Regional Rail shall enter into a separate agreement with the City detailing the purchase price and terms for this acquisition. Regional Rail shall purchase the South Corridor from the City before June 30, 2006, or the City may pursue the sale of the South Corridor to other parties. Nothing in this Agreement shall obligate Regional Rail to enter into a purchase agreement for the South Corridor or accept any particular terms or conditions for such agreement. Any such purchase agreement shall be a free standing agreement and none of the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed incorporated into such agreement unless specifically agreed to in the purchase agreement. Regional Rail agrees that BNSF shall grant Xcel Energy permanent transmission line easements over the South Corridor prior to the sale of the property to the City. A copy of the Xcel Energy permanent transmission line easement agreement is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A. City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 28 III. SECTION III, CITY OF MAPLEWOOD. A. Representations and Warranties by the City. The City represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents identified herein, that its governing body has reviewed this Agreement and has passed a resolution that authorizes City officials to execute this Agreement and the related documents on behalf of the City, and that the officials who did or will execute the Agreement and the related documents have the power and authority to execute the Agreement, and that the officials who did or will execute the Agreement and the related documents on behalf of the City have the authority to bind the City; It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and It will cooperate with all requests by the other parties related to this Agreement. B. Obligations of the City in this Agreement. The City shall perform the following: Enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the County agreeing to construct the Bruce Vento Trail Extension as described above. The Cooperative Agreement shall be executed by both parties within 60 days of the execution of this Agreement. Trail construction shall be completed by the City no later than November 18, 2005. The County shall pay the City from its State grant for development of the Bruce Vento Regional Trail Extension the actual cost incurred by the City for construction (including design and engineering) of the improvements, estimated to be $232,000 based on unit price bids received by the City, subject to the State of Minnesota extending the grant contract until December 31, 2005. Pay $59,000 to BNSF for Xcel Energy easements within the South Corridor and the North Trail Property as described in the attached Xcel Energy permanent transmission line easement agreement (Exhibit A). The City agrees that BNSF shall grant Xcel Energy these permanent transmission line easements over the South Corridor immediately prior to the sale of the property to the City. The City agrees to enter into a Purchase Agreement with BNSF to purchase the South Corridor after abandonment of rail service. The South Corridor is legally described as follows: All that part of the 150 -foot wide BNSF Railway Company right -of -way located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies northerly of a line drawn perpendicular with the center line of said Railway right -of -way from a point thereon distant 183.00 feet northeasterly from the intersection of said center line with the southerly line of said Northwest Quarter. and: All that part of the 150 -foot wide BNSF Railway Company right -of -way located in the South Half of the South Half of Section 34, Township 30, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies southerly of a line drawn perpendicular with the easterly right -of -way line of said Railway right -of -way from a point thereon distant 35.00 feet northeasterly from the intersection of said easterly right -of -way line with the northerly right -of -way line of Trunk Highway 393 -694 as described in that City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 29 certain Final Certificate and filed in the Office of the Ramsey County Recorder on November 4, 1966 as Document Number 1687969. The Purchase Agreement shall require that the City pay BNSF $1,152,370.00 for the South Corridor. The City shall be responsible for any expenses associated with obtaining a title insurance policy, title corrections work and any environmental testing and /or environmental corrections on the property. Closing shall occur within 30 days of the abandonment of railroad service over the South Corridor. The City agrees to enter into a purchase agreement with BNSF and Minnesota Commercial to purchase their respective rights, title, and interest in the North Trail Property. The North Trail Property is legally described as follows: All that part of the easterly 25.00 feet of the 150 -foot wide BNSF Railway Company right -of -way located in the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 30, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies northerly of a line drawn perpendicular with the easterly line of said Railway right - of -way from a point thereon distant 35.00 feet northeasterly from the intersection of said easterly line with the northerly right -of -way line of Trunk Highway 393 -694 as described in that certain Final Certificate filed in the Office of the Ramsey County Recorder on November 4, 1966 as Document Number 1687969, and which lies southerly of the southerly line of the 66 -foot wide right -of -way of Buerkle Road as described in that certain Perpetual Easement filed in the Office of the Ramsey County Recorder on December 22, 1982 as Document Number 2164739; The purchase agreement shall require that the City pay BNSF the appraised value of $3.30 per square foot (estimated square feet to be acquired is 26,100 square feet = $86,130.00). The purchase agreement shall be entered into within 60 days of the execution of this Agreement. The City shall be responsible for expenses incurred in obtaining a title insurance policy, title correction work, environmental testing expenses and any environmental corrections associated with the purchase of the North Trail Property from BNSF. Pay costs associated with the relocation of Xcel Energy Power Line 0885 to a point acceptable to Xcel Energy. The City and Xcel Energy shall execute a separate agreement detailing the scope and cost for this work. Enter into a Construction and Maintenance Agreement with BNSF and Minnesota Commercial relating to the construction, operation, and maintenance of County Road D and the Bruce Vento Trail Extension. The Construction and Maintenance Agreement shall be executed by the City and BNSF no later than July 15, 2005. The City shall pay $103,700.00 to BNSF pursuant to the Construction and Maintenance Agreement. Remove the spur track as a part of the Project as shown on Exhibit B attached to this Agreement. Removal of existing ties and rails for the spur track shall be limited to track outside of the existing fence surrounding the Kohlman Lake Substation. The railroad bridge at existing County Road D shall also be removed by the City at a time determined by the City. The City shall be responsible for the costs incurred for these removals. Responsibility for salvaging and /or disposing of the existing ties and rails within the South Corridor shall be in accordance with the Construction and Maintenance Agreement. City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 30 Complete construction of the Project no later than November 30, 2005. Agree to grant an easement to Ramsey County for the construction and maintenance of the Bruce Vento Trail Extension within the South Corridor. The cost for the easement shall be determined by an independent appraiser; however, it shall not exceed a total cost of $263,870.00 and shall be reduced to reflect the value of any easement acquired by Xcel Energy under the terms of this Agreement. 10. Agree to negotiate in good faith with Regional Rail for the future sale of the South Corridor. The City shall enter into a separate agreement with Regional Rail detailing the purchase price and terms for this acquisition. The City may pursue the sale of the South Corridor to other parties if Regional Rail does not complete the purchase of the South Corridor from the City before June 30, 2006. IV. SECTION IV, XCEL ENERGY. A. Representations and Warranties by Xcel Energy. Xcel Energy represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents previously listed herein, and the officials of Xcel Energy who did or will execute the same for and on behalf of Xcel Energy have the power and the authority to do so and to bind Xcel Energy; It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and It will cooperate with all requests by the other parties related to this Agreement. B. Obligations of Xcel Energy in this Agreement. Xcel Energy shall perform the following: Enter into an Alternative Loading Service Agreement with Minnesota Commercial within 60 days of the execution of this agreement to reassign rail access rights to a point north of the South Corridor. Notify Minnesota Commercial and BNSF in writing within 10 days of the execution of this Agreement that it no longer needs the railroad spur to the Kohlman Lake Substation site and that it consents to the abandonment of the railroad service over the South Corridor. This notification must confirm to Minnesota Commercial and BNSF that the proposed South Corridor limits are acceptable to Xcel Energy. Enter into a permanent easement agreement with BNSF for its transmission lines within the South Corridor and the North Trail Property no later than December 31, 2005. The permanent easement agreement is detailed in attached Exhibit A. The City shall pay BNSF $59,000 in consideration for the granting of these easements to Xcel Energy. Xcel Energy understands and agrees that these easements are an accommodation for the Project improvements and do not establish a precedent for future negotiations with BNSF, Regional Rail or the County. Agree to grant the City and Ramsey County any necessary rights and permits at no cost needed for construction, operation and maintenance of the Bruce Vento Trail Extension. City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 31 V. SECTION V, BNSF. A. Representations and Warranties by BNSF. BNSF represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents previously listed herein, and the officials of BNSF who did or will execute the same for and on behalf of BNSF have the power and the authority to do so and to bind BNSF; It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and It will cooperate with all requests by the other parties related to this Agreement. B. Obligations of BNSF in this Agreement. BNSF shall perform the following: Agree to the expedited rail line abandonment process, to begin immediately and to be filed by August 31, 2005. 2. Execute the above - described Construction and Maintenance Agreement with the City and Minnesota Commercial no later than July 15, 2005. The City shall pay BNSF $103,700.00 as consideration for the Construction and Maintenance Agreement. 3. Enter into a Purchase Agreement with the City to sell the South Corridor to the City for the appraised value of $1,152,370.00. Closing shall be completed no later than December 31, 2005. 4. Enter into a purchase agreement with the City to sell the North Trail Property. Closing shall be completed no later than December 31, 2005. 5. Agree to grant transmission line easements within the South Corridor and the North Trail Property to Xcel Energy as detailed in attached Exhibit A for the total price of $59,000 to be paid by the City. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, BNSF's obligations to sell the South Corridor and the North Trail Property to the City shall be interdependent with BNSF's obligations to grant transmission line easements to Xcel Energy in respect of the South Corridor and the North Trail Property. The closing of the sales of the South Corridor and the North Trail Property shall occur simultaneously with the delivery of said transmission line easements, such that the transmission line easements shall be granted immediately prior to the sale of the South Corridor and the North Trail Property to the City. BNSF shall have no obligation to deliver the transmission line easements to Xcel unless and until the City shall tender to BNSF the purchase prices for the transmission line easements, the South Corridor, and the North Trail Property and shall have evidenced its willingness to accept delivery of the deeds from BNSF for the South Corridor and the North Trail Property. The delivery of the transmission line easements by BNSF to Xcel Energy shall be conditional and may be revoked by BNSF if the City fails or refuses to close the purchases of the South Corridor and the North Trail Property. VI. SECTION VI. MINNESOTA COMMERCIAL. A. Representations and Warranties by Minnesota Commercial. Minnesota Commercial represents and warrants to the parties that: City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 32 It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents previously listed herein, and the officials of Minnesota Commercial who did or will execute the same for and on behalf of Minnesota Commercial have the power and the authority to do so and to bind Minnesota Commercial; It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and It will cooperate with all requests by the other parties related to this Agreement. B. Obligations of Minnesota Commercial in this Agreement. Minnesota Commercial shall perform the following: 1. Agree to the expedited rail line abandonment process, to begin immediately and be filed no later than August 31, 2005. 2. Execute the above - described Construction and Maintenance Agreement with the City and BNSF no later than July 15, 2005. 3. Execute in cooperation with the BNSF, a purchase agreement with the City for the North Trail Property within 30 days of the abandonment of the South Corridor. Closing shall be completed by December 31, 2005. 4. Execute in cooperation BNSF, a purchase agreement with the City to sell the South Corridor. The Purchase Agreement shall require that the City pay BNSF $1,152,370.00 for the South Corridor. Closing shall occur no later than December 31, 2005. 5. Enter into an Alternative Loading Service Agreement with Xcel Energy within 60 days of the execution of this Agreement to reassign rail access rights to a point north of the South Corridor. VII. GENERAL PROVISIONS. A. Severability. If any term of this Agreement is found to be void or invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining terms of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect. B. Arbitration. It is agreed by the parties that any differences, disputes or claims which arise under and pursuant to this Agreement or as to the performance thereof by the parties hereto shall be submitted for arbitration to a board of arbitrators consisting of three (3) persons, one selected by the party interested in the other side of the dispute, and a third person mutually selected and agreed upon by the first two arbitrators. This arbitration provision does not extend to any dispute, difference, claim or obligation that may arise pursuant to any of the agreements referenced herein, including but not limited to the Xcel Energy Permanent Transmission Line Easement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A. Any party shall notify the other party in writing, served by U.S. Mail, certified or registered, postage prepaid, of a dispute, stating the nature of the claim or dispute and the name and address of the selected arbitrator. The other party shall serve notice of its selected arbitrator and opposition or other interest in the claim or dispute. The two arbitrators shall select a third disinterested arbitrator within fifteen (15) days after the response notice stated above. Arbitration shall be commenced within forty -five (45) days of the original notice pursuant to the previous paragraphs hereof, and all proceedings shall be governed by the City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 33 Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 572. The decision of any two arbitrators shall be binding and conclusive with respect to all claims and disputes submitted in such arbitration proceedings. If a party does not respond to an arbitration notice, then the party first serving the arbitration notice under the previous paragraph shall be entitled by Motion to petition a court of competent jurisdiction for its order selecting and appointing an arbitrator for said defaulting party. Any such determination by the Court shall be final, binding and conclusive as to all parties in interest. Expenses for the arbitration shall be divided equally among the parties. C. Nothing in this agreement shall obligate the County or Regional Rail to acquire any property from any other party unless and until they are respectively satisfied that any easements or other rights granted to any other party will not materially impair the use or uses for which they will acquire the property. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann, Koppen and Monahan -Junek Nay - Council member Rossbach Councilmember Rossbach expressed his nay vote had no reflection on County Road D but his opinion is that Ramsey County Regional Rail should be making the purchase, not Maplewood. County Road D Realignment West (Surcharge Contract), Project 02- 07— Resolution for Modification of Existing Construction Contract, Change Orders 2 & 3 City Manager Fursman presented the report. Public Works Director AN presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution directing the modification the existing construction contract, Change Order No's. 2 & 3, (Soil, Stabilization Contract - Frattalone): RESOLUTION 05 -07 -108 DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (SOIL STABILIZATION CONTRACT) WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered the construction of County Road D Realignment East (T.H. 61 to Southlawn Dr.) City Project 02 -07, 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 Improvement Project 02 -07, Change Order Nos. 2 & 3 (Soil Stabilization — Frattalone Contact). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing contract by executing said Change Order Nos. 2 & 3 in the amount of $283,787.12. The revised contract amount is $1,459,419.92. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes -All 1 I.11rt•1:a:JN *11NI 0 rrell IIQ0111 None City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 34 ILYi L1 [NIN :j �NN4L1 rrel11115CL1W The Mayor presented a petition that asks for noise and pollution relief affecting residents of Roselawn Avenue (35 E to Rice Street) and neighboring streets. Mayor asked staff to research and place required action on a future agenda. National Night Out - Councilmember Juenemann noted August 2"' is National Night Out and encouraged block parties to contact Mike Graff in the Parks and Recreation Department or Sergeant Doblar in the police department for city assistance in setting up. Democratic Governance - Councilmember Rossbach asked for a motion from the council to authorize staff to begin an education process on Democratic Governance. Councilmember Rossbach moved to bring in a speaker on the pros and cons of democratic governance. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Nays - Councilmember Koppen, Monahan - Junek and Rossbach Cable Commission -Mayor Cardinal announced the cable commission meeting has been moved to July 21' N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS City Manager Fursman announced on Thursday, July 14` the council will be in the Ramsey County Fair parade and that there will be an Open House at the new Ramsey County Court House the same evening. O. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Juenemann moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:02 a.m. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All City Council Meeting 07 -11 -05 35 Agenda Item F1 Proclamation Whereas, the Girl Scout Gold Award is the highest award in Girl Scouting; Whereas, to achieve this high honor, Girl Scouts must meet three prerequisites in the areas of leadership, skill development and career exploration; Whereas, Girl Scouts must also perform a significant leadership project that meets an important community need; Whereas, Chantel Boyer fulfilled these requirements by collecting and organizing clothing, toys, books, and toiletries and personally delivered the items to Children's Haven International, a children's home in Reynosa, Mexico; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mayor Bob Cardinal, do hereby congratulate Chantel Boyer, for her hard work, dedication, and commitment in earning the Girl Scout Gold Award. July 25, 2005 Mayor Bob Cardinal City of Maplewood, Minnesota Proclamation Whereas, the Girl Scout Gold Award is the highest award in Girl Scouting; Whereas, to achieve this high honor, Girl Scouts must meet three prerequisites in the areas of leadership, skill development and career exploration; Whereas, Girl Scouts must also perform a significant leadership project that meets an important community need; Whereas, Jennifer Oie fulfilled these requirements by collecting and organizing clothing, toys, books, and toiletries and personally delivered the items to Children's Haven International, a children's home in Reynosa, Mexico; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mayor Bob Cardinal, do hereby congratulate Jennifer Oie, for her hard work, dedication, and commitment in earning the Girl Scout Gold Award. July 25, 2005 Mayor Bob Cardinal City of Maplewood, Minnesota Proclamation Whereas, the Girl Scout Gold Award is the highest award in Girl Scouting; Whereas, to achieve this high honor, Girl Scouts must meet three prerequisites in the areas of leadership, skill development and career exploration; Whereas, Girl Scouts must also perform a significant leadership project that meets an important community need; Whereas, Katherine Elicerio fulfilled these requirements by coordinating and recruiting volunteers, which included 30 youth volunteers to organize and host two separate events; an India Market Place Bazaar and a bake sale which supported the REACH Orphanage in India; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mayor Bob Cardinal, do hereby congratulate Katherine Elicerio, for her hard work, dedication, and commitment in earning the Girl Scout Gold Award. July 25, 2005 Mayor Bob Cardinal City of Maplewood, Minnesota AGENDA NO. G -1 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Finance Director RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: July 25, 2005 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. ACCOUNTSPAYABLE: $ 1,000.00 Checks # 67378 dated 7/6/05 $ 250,065.19 Checks # 67379 thru # 67432 dated 7/12/05 $ 2,814,428.99 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 06/20/05 thru 07/07/05 $ 9,463.77 Checks # 67433 thru #67434 dated 07/12/05 thru 07/14/05 $ 395,107.32 Checks # 67435 thru #67482 dated 07/19/05 $ 129,329.89 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 07/08/05 thru 07/14/05 $ 3,599,395.16 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 565,436.33 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 07/15/05 $ 2,676.75 Payroll Deduction check # 101965 thru # 101967 dated 07/15/05 $ 568,113.08 Total Payroll $ 4,167,508.24 GRAND TOTAL 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 ds attachments cAMy Documents \Excel \Miscellaneous \05- AprClms 07 -08 and 07 -15 Check Register City of Maplewood vchlist 07/08/2005 Check Date Vendor EMBEDDED SYSTEMS, INC. 67378 7/06/2005 03375 ASHBY, MARK 67379 7/12/2005 03421 3RD LAIR SKATEPARK 67380 7/12/2005 00008 AM E M 67381 7/12/2005 02074 AHL, R CHARLES 67382 7/12/2005 00100 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC 67383 7/12/2005 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC 67384 7/12/2005 00174 BELDE, STAN 67385 7/12/2005 03424 BEYER, MEGAN 67386 7/12/2005 03020 BRADLEY R BEHNKE GOLF MGMT LLC 67387 7/12/2005 00211 BRAUN INTERTEC CORP. 67388 7/12/2005 01922 BREHEIM, ROGER 67389 7/12/2005 00279 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO. 67390 7/12/2005 00384 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS 67391 7/12/2005 00358 DGM INC. 67392 7/12/2005 00462 EMBEDDED SYSTEMS, INC. 67393 7/12/2005 01602 ENGRAVING SHOP, THE 67394 7/12/2005 01401 FIRST STUDENT INC 67395 7/12/2005 00526 FOREST LAKE CONTRACTING INC 67396 7/12/2005 03303 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 67397 7/12/2005 02113 FURSMAN, RICHARD 67398 7/12/2005 02873 GARDEN & ASSOCIATES INC 67399 7/12/2005 00668 HIEBERT, STEVEN 67400 7/12/2005 004831DEACOM MID AMERICA 67401 67402 67403 67404 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 00721 INDEPENDENT SPORTS NETWORK 02795 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR 02931 JUKER, RICHARD J & FRANCES L 01894 KELLY & FAWCETT PA 67405 67406 67407 67408 67409 67410 67411 67412 67413 67414 67415 67416 67417 67418 67419 67420 67421 67422 67423 67424 67425 67426 67427 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/200 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 7/12/2005 00807 KOEHNEN, MARY 02336 M ATAYLOR INC 00908 M R P A 01095 MODERN FENCE & CONST INC 00001 ONETIME VENDOR 00001 ONETIME VENDOR 00001 ONETIME VENDOR 00001 ONETIME VENDOR 01300 PRIEBE, WILLIAM M 00396 PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPT OF 01331 RABBETT, KEVIN 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV 01340 REGIONS HOSPITAL 01360 REINHART FOODSERVICE 03427 RICHTER, NANCY 01418 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 02930 SCHMIDT, DEB 03398 SHAMROCK GROUP 03425 SHELTERTECH CORPORATION 01455 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 01504 ST PAUL, CITY OF 01550 SUMMIT INSPECTIONS 01572 SYSTEMS SUPPLY, INC. Page: Description /Account 1,000.00 LEASE POLICE IMPOUND LOT -JULY SKATEBOARD INSTRUCTION 7/26 -7/30 SKATEBOARD INSTRUCTION 8/9 -8/13 AMEM CONF REGISTRATION REIMB FOR MILEAGE - JUN 25- MINITORV STORED VOICE PAGERS ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES K -9 MAINTENANCE - JUL REIMB VEH ALLOW & MILEAGE 6/3 -6/16 GOLF INSTRUCTION 6/14 -6/17 PROJ 02 -08 PROF SRVS THRU 6/17 REIMB FOR CELL PHONE - JUL CONCRETE POUR ON WBA CURE & SEAL TO TREAT CONCRETE COPIER LEASE TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE TOW VEHICLE TOW VEHICLE REPAIR RADIO ENGRAVED PLAQUES BUS FEE TO LAKE 6/22 PROJ 03 -39 HAZELWOOD ST PYMT #1 REIMB FOR INTERNET & MILEAGE 1/1 -6/30 REIMB FOR TUITION & BOOKS INTERPRETATION SERVICE REIMB FOR MEALS 6/26 -6/28 K -9 MAINTENANCE - JUL FURNISH & INSTALL PHONE TELEPHONE REPAIR& PROGRAMMING TELEPHONE REPAIR& PROGRAMMING SOFTBALL UMPIRING SERVICES ADIC SCALAR 24 TAPE LIBRARY PETER PIRSCH FIRE TRUCK- 3RD PYMT PROSECUTION SERVICES - JUN LEGAL SERVICES - JUN REIMB FOR TRAINING - 6/27 FITNESS CONSULTANT SRVS - 1ST QTR PUBLIC ART BUS TOUR REGISTRATION CHAIN LINK PANEL REF IVAN HEATON - MEMBERSHIP REF ROGER OVERSON - MEMBERSHIP REF WARD SWANSON - PARKS FROG REF SHANNON YARITZ - CANCEL CLASS REIMB FOR WATER FILTERS INTOXILYZER RECERTIFICATION REIMB FUEL & CONF FEE 6/18 -6/22 NATIVE PLANTS PHARMACY SUPPLIES - MAY MERCH FOR RESALE REIMB FOR MILEAGE 6/27 CAMP SUPPLIES CAMP SUPPLIES PROGRAM SUPPLIES REIMB FOR MILEAGE 6/30 MERCH FOR RESALE ASBESTOS INSPECTION REIMB FOR TUITION & BOOKS PARAMEDIC PROGRAM SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS INK CARTRIDGES PRINTER CARTRIDGES Amount 1,000.00 1,408.00 1,408.00 300.00 79.38 10,090.88 502.40 35.00 41.20 1,160.00 869.50 15.00 1,056.48 34.41 326.54 286.38 208.13 90.53 90.53 90.53 249.78 50.00 238.20 159,121.86 300.63 2,713.21 135.00 19.07 35.00 697.10 944.18 316.25 4,731.37 9,064.22 7,000.00 9,825.00 15,310.44 8.50 1,550.00 105.00 772.13 286.25 50.00 50.00 20.00 46.84 45.00 249.00 894.60 1,026.33 412.13 8.50 22.51 134.46 483.34 24.37 113.00 740.00 1,698.03 204.34 4,127.60 273.96 168.53 2 Check Register City of Maplewood vchlist 07/08/2005 Page: 2 Check Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 67428 7/12/2005 01574 T.A. SCH I FSKY & SONS, INC VARIOUS BITUMINOUS MATERIALS 459.08 67429 7/12/2005 02652 TETZLAFF, JUDY REIMB FOR TUITION & BOOKS 1,034.97 67430 7/12/2005 01656 TRUMOR CO. INC JOB POSTINGS ON INTERNET SERVICE 185.00 67431 7/12/2005 03426 WHELEHAN, ROBERT REIMB FOR EMT REGISTRY TEST 20.00 67432 7/12/2005 01190 XCEL ENERGY MONTHLY UTILITIES 767.56 MONTHLY UTILITIES 5,239.96 55 Checks in this report Total Checks: 251,065.19 3 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Pavee 06/28/05 06/29/05 06/30/05 07/01/05 07/01/05 06/30/05 07/01/05 07/01/05 07/01/05 07/01/05 07/01/05 07/01/05 07/05/05 07/06/05 07/01/05 07/07/05 07/07/05 06/29/05 06/30/05 07/01/05 07/01/05 07/01/05 07/01/05 07/01/05 07/05/05 07/05/05 07/05/05 07/05/05 07/05/05 07/06/05 07/07/05 07/07/05 07/07/05 07/07/05 MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer ICMA (Vantagepointe) ICMA (Vantagepointe) MN Dept of Natural Resources Orchard Trust MN State Treasurer U.S. Treasurer P.E.R.A. MN State Treasurer LELS Union MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer Federal Reserve Bank Wells Fargo JP Morgan Chase TOTAL Description Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Deferred Compensation Retiree Health Savings Plan DNR electronic licenses Deferred Compensation Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Federal Payroll Tax P.E.R.A. State Payroll Tax Union Dues Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Savings Bonds Investment purchase Investment purchase Amount 23,408.07 24,461.81 38,593.80 9,256.10 27,340.85 839.00 24,894.00 24,646.75 96,898.69 52,797.90 18,662.26 1,705.57 24,996.55 16,098.03 200.00 1,167,600.00 1,262,029.61 2,814,428.99 53 vchlist Check Register Page: 1 07/15/2005 City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 67433 7/12/2005 03417 MCFARLAND, P.C., THOMAS F PROJ 02 -07 ATTORNEY SERVICES 9,263.77 67434 7/14/2005 01345 RAMSEY COUNTY ADVANCE TICKET PURCHASE FOR 200.00 67435 7/19/2005 01809 AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES NCR INC CONCRETE 290.61 CONCRETE 714.80 67436 7/19/2005 00072 ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC REPAIR THEATER LIGHTS 2,980.00 67437 7/19/2005 00157 BARR ENGINEERING CO PRIORY PRESERVE DESIGN THRU 1,739.26 67438 7/19/2005 00210 BRAUER & ASSOCIATES, LTD LEGACY PARK DESIGN SRVS 18,136.12 67439 7/19/2005 02606 BRUCE MOGREN INC REFUND PLANNING ESC 6,729.73 67440 7/19/2005 00230 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. BASE MATERIALS FOR WBA 700.94 67441 7/19/2005 00240 C.S.C. CREDIT SERVICES APPLICANT BACKGROUND 50.00 67442 7/19/2005 00279 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO. CONCRETE POUR ON WBA 1,056.48 67443 7/19/2005 00283 CENTURY COLLEGE FIRE FIGHTER TUITION 5,419.05 67444 7/19/2005 00340 CRAMER BUILDING SERVICES BLDG AUTOMATION SYS -90% 14,720.00 67445 7/19/2005 00413 DON MARTY'S LANDSCAPING REMOVE & REPLACE BUSHES 2,000.00 67446 7/19/2005 02707 FIRE -GUARD SPRINKLER SRV INC FIRE SPRINKLER SERVICE 280.00 67447 7/19/2005 01401 FIRST STUDENT INC BUS FEES 172.05 67448 7/19/2005 00526 FOREST LAKE CONTRACTING INC PROJ 03 -04 KENNARD ST - FINAL 5,430.00 67449 7/19/2005 00531 FRA -DOR BLACK DIRT & RECYCLE BLACK DIRT 51.92 67450 7/19/2005 00547 G.L. BERG & ASSOCIATES ENT DEP FOR ENTERTAINER ALEX 320.00 DEP FOR ENTERTAINER 4- 400.00 DEP FOR ENTERTAINER TONIC- 600.00 67451 7/19/2005 01965 HEALTH PARTNERS REF AMB PYMT - AGUIZZETTI 1,121.00 67452 7/19/2005 02818 HOFFMAN & MCNAMARA CO STERLING OAKS PARK SITE IMPRV 102,000.00 67453 7/19/2005 00687 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC PROJ 04 -15 GLADSTONE PROJECT 12,034.50 PROJ 04 -15 GLADSTONE PROJECT 905.25 TREE TRIMMING 319.50 67454 7/19/2005 02830 JAROSCH, JON REIMB VEH ALLOW & MILEAGE 94.95 67455 7/19/2005 00789 KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE CO UNLEADED MID -GRADE (89 13,221.00 67456 7/19/2005 03429 LAUREN MCCULLOUGH WELL SEAL WELL 1,000.00 67457 7/19/2005 00982 METRO FIRE INC RUBBER HIP BOOTS 236.96 67458 7/19/2005 00986 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MONTHLY SAC - JUN 60,291.00 67459 7/19/2005 00901 MN GFOA CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 400.00 67460 7/19/2005 01028 MN STATE TREASURER STAX MONTHLY SURTAX - JUN 4,731.45 67461 7/19/2005 01173 NORTH METRO AUTOMOTIVE OIL CHANGE 20.00 67462 7/19/2005 01914 OLSON, ELIZABETH A YOUTH SOFTBALL CLINIC 210.00 67463 7/19/2005 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF SANDY JUREK - SWIM 39.00 67464 7/19/2005 01225 OSWALD HOSE & ADAPTERS COUPLING ATTACHMENT 10.50 67465 7/19/2005 01289 PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC INSTALL NATIVE PRAIRIE - 2,400.00 67466 7/19/2005 02227 RABINE, JANET REIMB FOR PANTS 51.55 67467 7/19/2005 01345 RAMSEY COUNTY REGISTER NOTARY COMMISSION 100.00 67468 7/19/2005 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV PLANTS 38.34 67469 7/19/2005 01360 REINHART FOODSERVICE MERCH FOR RESALE 405.52 67470 7/19/2005 01393 RUMPCA COMPANIES INC MULCH 452.63 67471 7/19/2005 02118 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL REIMB FOR TUITION & BOOKS 652.03 67472 7/19/2005 03398 SHAMROCK GROUP MERCH FOR RESALE 177.00 67473 7/19/2005 01504 ST PAUL, CITY OF WATER/HYDRANT USE - 1ST & 2ND 807.84 67474 7/19/2005 01557 SUPERIOR FORD 2005 CROWN VICTORIA SQUAD 20,174.00 2005 CROWN VICTORIA SQUAD 20,174.00 67475 7/19/2005 01567 SVENDSEN, RUSTIN REIMB FOR COAT REPAIR 35.00 67476 7/19/2005 01572 SYSTEMS SUPPLY, INC. TONER CARTRIDGE & RIBBONS 196.11 5 vchlist Check Register Page: 2 07/15/2005 City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 67477 7/19/2005 01574 T.A. SCH IFSKY & SONS, INC VARIOUS BITUMINOUS MATERIALS 581.30 PROJ 02 -08 CTY RD D PYMT 2 88,112.88 67478 7/19/2005 01578 T.R.F. SUPPLY CO. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE 481.11 67479 7/19/2005 01580 TSE, INC. JANITORIAL SRVS 5/15 -6/11 878.63 67480 7/19/2005 01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P. COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSP 391.31 67481 7/19/2005 03428 WEGLEITNER, JOHN YOUTH SOFTBALL UMPIRE 12.00 67482 7/19/2005 01789 WOODBURY, CITY OF EMT CLASS 560.00 50 Checks in this report Total checks : 404,571.09 m CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Pavee Description Amount 07/07/05 07/08/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 25,591.55 07/05/05 07/08/05 ARC Administration DCRP & Flex plan payments 1,676.03 07/08/05 07/11/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 12,559.57 07/08/05 07/11/05 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 868.50 07/11/05 07/12/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 20,092.34 07/12/05 07/13/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 18,522.09 07/13/05 07/14/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 9,077.44 07/08/05 07/14/05 Elan Financial Services* Purchasing card items 40,942.37 TOTAL 129,329.89 *Detailed listings of Elan purchasing card items are attached 7 Transaction Review 7/11 /2005 For Transactions posted between 06/25/2005 to 07/08/2005 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 06/29/2005 SPRINT PCS- 996 -SP IVR 35.00 BRUCE K ANDERSON 07/08/2005 PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS 1,878.66 BRUCE K ANDERSON 06/30/2005 BATTERIES PLUS 131.29 SCOTTANDREWS 07/08/2005 LAW ENFORCEMENT TARGETS 140.58 SCOTTANDREWS 06/28/2005 MN PHOTO 7.49 JOHN BANICK 06/30/2005 COMO PARK ANIMAL HOSPT 60.56 JOHN BANICK 06/30/2005 COMO PARK ANIMAL HOSPT 821.70 JOHN BANICK 07/01/2005 GRAFIX SHOPPE 720.00 JOHN BANICK 07/04/2005 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 1,039.67 JOHN BANICK 07/08/2005 MN PHOTO 112.46 JOHN BANICK 07/08/2005 SHRED -IT 116.55 JOHN BANICK 06/27/2005 AQUA LOGIC INC 876.52 JIM BEHAN 06/27/2005 TRI -DIM FILTER CORP 424.10 JIM BEHAN 06/27/2005 TRI -DIM FILTER CORP 20.07 JIM BEHAN 06/30/2005 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER 693.05 JIM BEHAN 07/04/2005 MINNESOTA ELEVATOR INC 274.01 JIM BEHAN 07/04/2005 MINNESOTA ELEVATOR INC 292.37 JIM BEHAN 07/04/2005 CRAMER BLDG SERVICES INC 242.00 JIM BEHAN 07/04/2005 CRAMER BLDG SERVICES INC 1, 115.46 JIM BEHAN 07/07/2005 WW GRAINGER 500 57.08 JIM BEHAN 07/07/2005 VIKING ELECTRIC -DIST CNTR 968.92 JIM BEHAN 07/08/2005 TARGET 00011858 63.79 JIM BEHAN 06/27/2005 TARGET 00011858 9.46 JOSEPH BERGERON 07/05/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 36.00 JOSEPH BERGERON 07/01/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 31.91 ROGER BREHEIM 07/01/2005 ADVANCE SHORING COMPAN 84.04 TROY BRINK 07/06/2005 MENARDS 3059 35.93 TROY BRINK 07/07/2005 ADVANCE SHORING COMPAN 73.81 TROY BRINK 06/28/2005 TARGET 00011858 9.55 HEIDI CAREY 06/30/2005 SOUTHWEST JOURNAL 250.00 HEIDI CAREY 07/01/2005 DEX EAST - LOCKBOX 3 0. 10 HEIDI CAREY 07/06/2005 VERIZON DIRECTORIES 40.50 HEIDI CAREY 07/04/2005 NEXTEL WRLESSSVCS 508.97 CHRISTOPHER CAVETT 07/07/2005 ICMA INTERNET 470.00 MELINDA COLEMAN 06/27/2005 TIME WARNER CABLE 109.79 LINDA CROSSON 07/04/2005 GE CAPITAL 149.10 LINDA CROSSON 07/07/2005 WMS WASTE MGMT WMEZPAY 839.26 LINDA CROSSON 06/28/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 36.17 ROBERTA DARST 06/28/2005 PIONEER PRESS SUBSCRIPTI 50.05 ROBERTA DARST 06/29/2005 RAINBOW FOODS 00088617 14.82 ROBERT J DOLLERSCHELL 07/07/2005 BREEZY POINT RESORT/RES -C 480.00 ROBERT J DOLLERSCHELL 06/30/2005 MENARDS 3059 68.39 DOUG EDGE 07/08/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 13.65 DOUG EDGE 07/01/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 22.17 ANDREW ENGSTROM 07/07/2005 LAKE SUPERIOR COLLEGE 325.00 ANDREW ENGSTROM 06/28/2005 IBIZA 17.80 DANIEL FAUST 06/29/2005 YELLOW CHECKER CAB 21.90 DANIEL F FAUST 07/01/2005 MARRIOTT 337J4 S ANTON RC 753.02 DANIEL F FAUST 07/01/2005 MARRIOTT 337J4 SAN RC F/B 15.69 DANIEL F FAUST 07/08/2005 STREAMLINE DESIGN INC 165.00 GREG FINN 06/29/2005 ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC 200.00 DAVID FISHER 06/30/2005 BENNIGANS 23.83 DAVID FISHER 06/30/2005 PAYPAL SPRINGSTED 20.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS 0 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 06/27/2005 RADIO SHACK 00161455 39.37 NICK FRANZEN 07/04/2005 PERKINS 00010512 18.28 RICHARD FURSMAN 07/04/2005 SPRINTPCS AUTOPYMT RCI 126.78 RICHARD FURSMAN 07/04/2005 RED WING SHOE STORE 150.45 DAVID GERMAIN 06/28/2005 MN PHOTO 9.67 CLARENCE GERVAIS 06/29/2005 XPEDX 499.49 JEAN GLASS 07/04/2005 XPEDX -391.49 JEAN GLASS 07/01/2005 ORIENTAL TRADING CO 95.03 MIKE GRAF 07/04/2005 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 48.87 MIKE GRAF 07/04/2005 RAINBOW FOODS 00088617 75.00 MIKE GRAF 07/04/2005 FACTORY CARD OUTLET #284 15.11 MIKE GRAF 07/04/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 15.94 MIKE GRAF 07/04/2005 JOANN ETC #1970 24.92 MIKE GRAF 07/06/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 17.91 MIKE GRAF 06/27/2005 BLUE RIBBON BAIT & TACKL 13.63 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 06/30/2005 LANDSCAPE ALTERNATIVES IN 33.99 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 06/30/2005 NBS/POS 394.00 KAREN E GUILFOILE 06/30/2005 GET PHYSICAL SOFTWARE LLC 95.95 KAREN E GUILFOILE 07/01/2005 PBD ICMA PUBLICATIONS 100.97 KAREN E GUILFOILE 07/01/2005 FASTENAL CO MO TO 26.24 MARK HAAG 07/04/2005 XPEDX 391.49 LORI HANSEN 07/04/2005 METRO SALES INC Of OF 01 1,389.41 LORI HANSEN 06/29/2005 DATABAZAAR.COM 87.10 LORI HANSON 06/30/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 238.33 LORI HANSON 07/01/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 97.12 LORI HANSON 07/08/2005 REED BUS INTO ACCT REC 842.34 LORI HANSON 06/30/2005 BEST PROGRAMS INC 1,058.58 STEVE HURLEY 07/04/2005 ADT SECURITY SERVICES 157.28 STEVE HURLEY 07/04/2005 CABLING SERVICES CORPORAT 112.37 STEVE HURLEY 07/04/2005 RICHARDS MARKET INC 2.66 SCOTT JACOBSON 07/01/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 8.82 DAVID JAHN 07/01/2005 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT 61.63 DAVID JAHN 07/04/2005 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT -24.48 DAVID JAHN 07/08/2005 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 1,230.37 DAVID JAHN 06/30/2005 DAYS INNS MOOREHEAD 149.75 KEVIN JOHNSON 06/28/2005 SHERWIN WILLIAMS #3127 17.20 DON JONES 06/30/2005 GOODYEAR AUTO SRV CT 6920 44.00 FLINT KARIS 07/08/2005 OFFICE MAX 00002204 31.94 FLINT KARIS 06/28/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 15.86 MARY B KOEHNEN 07/06/2005 T J T- SHIRTS 33.00 MARY B KOEHNEN 07/04/2005 VERIZON WRLS I2KW 45.15 SHERYL L LE 06/28/2005 CHECKER #182800018283 42.34 MICHAEL LIDBERG 07/04/2005 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIP -MN 5.31 MICHAEL LIDBERG 06/27/2005 TARGET 00011858 298.19 DENNIS LINDORFF 06/29/2005 MENARDS 3022 57.18 DENNIS LINDORFF 07/08/2005 MENARDS 3022 43.39 DENNIS LINDORFF 06/29/2005 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT 892.87 STEVE LUKIN 07/04/2005 BUFFALO WILD WINGS 33.29 STEVE LUKIN 07/08/2005 CHAMPPS MAPLEWOOD 21.96 STEVE LUKIN 06/27/2005 MTI DISTRIBUTING, INC. -PL 100.00 MARK MARUSKA 06/30/2005 DAVIS /SUN TURF /ST. PAUL 466.47 MARK MARUSKA 07/04/2005 JOHNSON RADIO COMM 109.20 MARK MARUSKA 07/05/2005 AMERICAN IRRIGATION 67.10 MARK MARUSKA 07/07/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 173.86 MARK MARUSKA 07/07/2005 HUGOS TREE CARE 905.25 MARK MARUSKA 07/07/2005 HUGOS TREE CARE 191.70 MARK MARUSKA 07/06/2005 MENARDS 3059 36.17 GERALD MEYER 0 ' Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 06/30/2005 ARCH WIRELESS 3 9.3 2 ED NADEAU 07/04/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 23.86 ED NADEAU 07/04/2005 OFFICE MAX 00002204 9.57 ED NADEAU 06/27/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 244.13 JEAN NELSON 07/06/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 179.62 AMY NIVEN 06/29/2005 SHERWIN WILLIAMS #3127 106.11 ERICK OSWALD 07/07/2005 APCO INTERNATIONAL 380.00 MARSHA PACOLT 06/29/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 44.07 ROBERT PETERSON 06/27/2005 OFFICE MAX 00002204 122.42 PHILIP F POWELL 06/27/2005 THE PLASTIC FORMING CO 146.51 PHILIP F POWELL 06/29/2005 WORLD FUTURE SOCIETY 7.95 PHILIP F POWELL 06/30/2005 SENTRY SAFETY SUPPL 26.27 PHILIP F POWELL 07/01/2005 CONSOLIDATED PLASTICS CO 133.38 PHILIP F POWELL 07/01/2005 SIRCHIE FINGERPRINT LABS 210.03 PHILIP F POWELL 07/07/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 5.53 PHILIP F POWELL 07/07/2005 FEDEX 257 - 100000037 4.77 PHILIP F POWELL 07/07/2005 FEDEX 305 - 518515862 11.00 PHILIP F POWELL 06/27/2005 TARGET 00011858 84.99 ROBERT PRECHTEL 07/04/2005 TRI -ANIM HEALTH SERVICES 191.96 ROBERT PRECHTEL 06/30/2005 EXCELLCOM 21.29 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 07/01/2005 CINTAS FIRST AID #0431 25.45 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 06/27/2005 MTIDISTRIBUTING, INC. -PL 1,110.44 STEVENPRIEM 06/27/2005 MTIDISTRIBUTING, INC. -PL - 1,110.44 STEVENPRIEM 06/27/2005 MTIDISTRIBUTING, INC. -PL 1,110.44 STEVENPRIEM 06/27/2005 POMPS TIRE SERVICE 80.41 STEVENPRIEM 06/27/2005 SUNRAY BTB 66.88 STEVENPRIEM 06/28/2005 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS 28.27 STEVENPRIEM 06/29/2005 TOUSLEY FORD 127200039 78.86 STEVENPRIEM 06/29/2005 EAT INC 40.74 STEVENPRIEM 06/29/2005 CATCO PARTS & SERV # 1 103.58 STEVEN PRIEM 06/30/2005 TOUSLEY FORD 127200039 5.25 STEVENPRIEM 06/30/2005 BAUER BULT TRE33200023 660.03 STEVENPRIEM 06/30/2005 KATH AUTO PARTS 48.03 STEVENPRIEM 07/01/2005 MTIDISTRIBUTING, INC. -PL 200.00 STEVENPRIEM 07/01/2005 CATCO PARTS & SERV # 1 128.59 STEVEN PRIEM 07/01/2005 PARTS ASSOCIATES INC 46.38 STEVENPRIEM 07/01/2005 BAUER BULT TRE33200023 - 660.03 STEVENPRIEM 07/01/2005 KATH AUTO PARTS NSP 5.20 STEVEN PRIEM 07/01/2005 KATH AUTO PARTS NSP 95.39 STEVEN PRIEM 07/01/2005 KATH AUTO PARTS NSP 34.96 STEVEN PRIEM 07/01/2005 KATH AUTO PARTS 88.38 STEVENPRIEM 07/04/2005 POLAR CHEVROLET 73.66 STEVENPRIEM 07/04/2005 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS 122.76 STEVENPRIEM 07/04/2005 PAM OIL INC 132.51 STEVEN PRIEM 07/04/2005 SUNRAY BTB 19.77 STEVENPRIEM 07/06/2005 KATH AUTO PARTS NSP 205.79 STEVEN PRIEM 07/08/2005 TOUSLEY FORD 127200039 39.45 STEVENPRIEM 07/08/2005 KATH AUTO PARTS NSP 154.87 STEVEN PRIEM 07/08/2005 KATH AUTO PARTS 16.18 STEVENPRIEM 07/04/2005 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS 2,061.83 KEVIN RABBETT 06/30/2005 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 936.28 MICHAEL REILLY 06/27/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 20.06 AUDRA ROBBINS 06/27/2005 WALGREEN 00029363 9.88 AUDRA ROBBINS 06/28/2005 SUPERAMERICA 4340 4.25 AUDRA ROBBINS 06/29/2005 MICHAELS #2744 164.28 AUDRA ROBBINS 06/29/2005 AMERICAN RED CROSOI OF O1 120.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 06/30/2005 RAINBOW FOODS 00088260 28.44 AUDRA ROBBINS 10 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 06/30/2005 ZOBOTA CAFE 372.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 07/01/2005 RAINBOW FOODS 00088526 32.09 AUDRA ROBBINS 07/01/2005 KMART 00071068 17.04 AUDRA ROBBINS 07/04/2005 GOODRICH GOLF DOME 138.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 07/04/2005 MAPLE ISLAND HARDWARE 5.31 AUDRA ROBBINS 07/07/2005 RAINBOW FOODS 00088526 23.69 AUDRA ROBBINS 07/07/2005 TARGET 00006197 12.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 07/08/2005 GAMEWORKS MINN #4209 425.10 AUDRA ROBBINS 07/08/2005 CITY OF SHOREVIEW 272.60 AUDRA ROBBINS 07/08/2005 WALGREEN 00029363 39.02 AUDRA ROBBINS 07/06/2005 THOMAS TOOL AND SU 169.99 ROBERT RUNNING 06/30/2005 MENARDS 3022 76.04 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 07/04/2005 CAPITOL COMMUNICATION 57.47 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 07/04/2005 PETSMART 00004614 12.76 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 07/08/2005 HUBERT COMPANY 63.27 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 06/28/2005 GOODIN COMPANY 1,119.03 SCOTT SCHULTZ 07/01/2005 GOODIN COMPANY 1,205.76 SCOTT SCHULTZ 07/04/2005 T- MOBILE 46.02 SCOTT SCHULTZ 07/01/2005 T- MOBILE 23.89 ANDREA SINDT 07/06/2005 NATIONAL RECYCLING 455.00 ANDREA SINDT 06/27/2005 AMOCO OIL 04836300 42.01 PAULINE STAPLES 06/27/2005 HEJNY RENTAL 80.84 PAULINE STAPLES 06/30/2005 PARTY AMERICA 1018 27.57 PAULINE STAPLES 07/06/2005 AMOCO OIL 04836300 -42.01 PAULINE STAPLES 06/27/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 9.69 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 07/01/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 8.00 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 07/01/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 12.85 RONALD SVENDSEN 07/04/2005 ASPEN MILLS 8005717343 364.30 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 07/07/2005 EAT INC 9.00 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/27/2005 OFFICE MAX 00002204 14.89 LYLE SWANSON 07/01/2005 MINVALCO INC 250.13 LYLE SWANSON 07/01/2005 INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO INC 74.77 LYLE SWANSON 07/08/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 353.45 LYLE SWANSON 07/08/2005 TWIN CITY FILTER SERV. 81.89 LYLE SWANSON 07/04/2005 T- MOBILE 104.60 DOUGLAS J TAUBMAN 07/04/2005 QWESTCOMM TN651 60.47 JUDY TETZLAFF 07/08/2005 HEJNY RENTAL 52.55 TODD TEVLIN 07/06/2005 WALT DISNEY WRLD DLPHN FB 17.62 DAVID J THOMALLA 07/06/2005 WALT DISNEY WRLD DLPHN FB 8.25 DAVID J THOMALLA 07/06/2005 WALT DISNEY WRLD DLPHN FB 10.12 DAVID J THOMALLA 07/04/2005 OFFICE MAX 00002204 7.23 JOSEPH WATERS 07/04/2005 OFFICE MAX 00002204 -7.23 JOSEPH WATERS 06/27/2005 PIONEER PRESS SUBSCRIPTI 31.20 SUSANZWIEG 06/27/2005 SHEBOYGAN COMFORT INN 66.54 SUSAN ZWIEG 07/01/2005 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS 120.07 SUSAN ZWIEG 07/06/2005 KOHL'S #0054 6.34 SUSAN ZWIEG 07/08/2005 BREEZY POINT RESORT/RES -C 480.00 SUSANZWIEG 40,942.37 11 dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME 07/15/05 CARDINAL,ROBERT 07/15/05 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 07/15/05 KOPPEN, MARVIN 07/15/05 MONAHAN- JUNEK, 07/15/05 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 07/15/05 COLEMAN, MELINDA 07/15/05 DARST, ROBERTA 07/15/05 FURSMAN, RICHARD 07/15/05 SWANSON, LYLE 07/15/05 LE, SHERYL 07/15/05 RAMEAUX, THERESE 07/15/05 FAUST, DANIEL 07/15/05 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 07/15/05 ANDERSON, CAROLE 07/15/05 BAUMAN, GAYLE 07/15/05 JACKSON, MARY 07/15/05 KELSEY, CONNIE 07/15/05 TETZLAFF, JUDY 07/15/05 FRY, PATRICIA 07/15/05 GUILFOILE, KAREN 07/15/05 MUNKHOLM, ILA 07/15/05 OSTER, ANDREA 07/15/05 CARLE, JEANETTE 07/15/05 FIGG, SHERRIE 07/15/05 JAGOE, CAROL 07/15/05 JOHNSON, BONNIE 07/15/05 MOY, PAMELA 07/15/05 OLSON, SANDRA 07/15/05 WEAVER, KRISTINE 07/15/05 BANICK, JOHN 07/15/05 CORCORAN, THERESA 07/15/05 POWELL, PHILIP 07/15/05 RICHIE, CAROLE 07/15/05 SPANGLER, EDNA 07/15/05 THOMALLA, DAVID 07/15/05 ABEL, CLINT 07/15/05 ALDRIDGE, MARK 07/15/05 ANDREWS, SCOTT 07/15/05 BAKKE, LONN 07/15/05 BELDE, STANLEY 07/15/05 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 07/15/05 BOHL, JOHN 07/15/05 BUSACK, DANIEL 07/15/05 COFFEY- KEVIN AMOUNT 422.42 371.77 371.77 371.77 371.77 4,058.20 1,673.54 4,638.25 1,677.51 3,958.50 2,353.34 4,128.24 1,442.95 984.73 3,403.12 1,802.95 917.95 1,802.95 1,673.36 2,855.98 130.00 1,763.59 1,684.92 1,070.81 1,616.46 1,068.94 752.51 1,303.08 1,736.55 3,834.90 1,630.15 2,246.22 1,621.08 308.00 4,247.72 2,338.39 2,363.02 2,995.72 2,779.21 2,656.13 2,548.65 2,945.29 2,308.28 2,442.88 12 dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME 07/15/05 CROTTY,KERRY 07/15/05 DOBLAR, RICHARD 07/15/05 DUNN, ALICE 07/15/05 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 07/15/05 HEINZ, STEPHEN 07/15/05 HILBERT, STEVEN 07/15/05 JOHNSON, KEVIN 07/15/05 KALKA, THOMAS 07/15/05 KARIS, FLINT 07/15/05 KONG, TOMMY 07/15/05 KROLL, BRETT 07/15/05 KVAM, DAVID 07/15/05 LARSON, DANIEL 07/15/05 LU, JOHNNIE 07/15/05 MARINO, JASON 07/15/05 MARTIN, JERROLD 07/15/05 MCCARTY, GLEN 07/15/05 METRY, ALESIA 07/15/05 NYE, MICHAEL 07/15/05 OLSON, JULIE 07/15/05 RABBETT,KEVIN 07/15/05 RHUDE, MATTHEW 07/15/05 STEFFEN, SCOTT 07/15/05 STEINER, JOSEPH 07/15/05 SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM 07/15/05 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 07/15/05 WENZEL, JAY 07/15/05 XIONG, KAO 07/15/05 BARTZ, PAUL 07/15/05 BERGERON, JOSEPH 07/15/05 DUGAS,MICHAEL 07/15/05 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 07/15/05 FLOR, TIMOTHY 07/15/05 FRASER, JOHN 07/15/05 LANGNER, SCOTT 07/15/05 PALMA, STEVEN 07/15/05 THEISEN, PAUL 07/15/05 THIENES,PAUL 07/15/05 BECK, PATRICK 07/15/05 BECKER, SHANE 07/15/05 CARLSON, BRIAN 07/15/05 CRAWLEY, BRIAN 07/15/05 DAWSON, RICHARD 07/15/05 DUELLMAN, KIRK 07/15/05 EVERSON, PAUL 07/15/05 FITZGERALD, EDWARD AMOUNT 2,416.69 2,759.26 2,415.42 1,954.91 2,486.11 2,928.86 3,037.61 1,176.76 2,749.92 2,449.58 2,551.42 3,387.46 398.69 2,712.67 2,338.39 2,441.47 2,042.25 2,287.82 1,807.70 2,456.80 3,450.09 1,627.42 3,238.96 660.68 1,584.25 2,725.48 2,450.67 2,338.39 2,463.17 3,251.42 2,738.42 2,458.52 2,586.10 2,600.36 1,913.85 2,637.23 2,436.88 2,760.70 814.80 1,547.81 2,091.64 682.76 2,387.53 2,198.56 2,447.75 783.34 13 dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME 07/15/05 GARZA, BRANDON 07/15/05 GJERTSON, MARK 07/15/05 GOODWIN, JEFFREY 07/15/05 HALWEG, JODI 07/15/05 HEFFERNAN, PATRICK 07/15/05 HEMQUIST, MICHAEL 07/15/05 HJELLE, ERIK 07/15/05 JOHNSON,DOUGLAS 07/15/05 KNAPP, BRETT 07/15/05 LAW, ROBERT 07/15/05 MATTS, JEREMY 07/15/05 NOVAK, JEROME 07/15/05 NOWICKI, PAUL 07/15/05 OPHEIM, JOHN 07/15/05 PARSONS, KURT 07/15/05 PETERSON, MARK 07/15/05 PETERSON, ROBERT 07/15/05 PILLAR, MICHAEL 07/15/05 PRECHTEL, ROBERT 07/15/05 REYNOSO, ANGEL 07/15/05 RIEMENSCHNEIDER, RONALD 07/15/05 SCHOLEN, CHRISTOPHER 07/15/05 STANWAY, ROBERT 07/15/05 SVENDSEN, RONALD 07/15/05 SWARD, WILLIAM 07/15/05 WATERS, JOSEPH 07/15/05 WHELEHAN, ROBERT 07/15/05 GERVAIS -JR, CLARENCE 07/15/05 BAUER, MICHELLE 07/15/05 FLAUGHER, JAYME 07/15/05 HERMANSON, CHAD 07/15/05 HUBIN, KENNARD 07/15/05 KNAPP, BRETT 07/15/05 LAFFERTY, WALTER 07/15/05 LINN, BRYAN 07/15/05 PACOLT, MARSHA 07/15/05 RABINE, JANET 07/15/05 STAHNKE, JULIE 07/15/05 LUKIN, STEVEN 07/15/05 SVENDSEN, AUSTIN 07/15/05 ZWIEG, SUSAN 07/15/05 DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT 07/15/05 AHL, R. CHARLES 07/15/05 BREHEIM, ROGER 07/15/05 GROHS, JUDITH 07/15/05 NIVEN, AMY AMOUNT 873.36 1,230.04 530.64 2,101.72 1,347.72 1,940.88 1,777.00 2,275.42 1,869.38 835.08 329.40 2,352.95 1,405.23 2,348.92 2,234.84 1,122.79 2,365.44 722.40 2,465.63 1,215.20 1,057.20 778.80 636.00 3,061.76 883.20 2,349.52 1,327.20 2,757.93 2,740.68 2,380.68 1,543.75 1784.24 1,693.51 2,032.47 2,559.45 2,339.34 2,475.12 2,152.12 3,731.90 2,991.94 1,745.35 282.07 4,329.30 1,826.77 1,752.28 1,187.82 14 dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME 07/15/05 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 07/15/05 BRINK, TROY 07/15/05 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 07/15/05 EDGE, DOUGLAS 07/15/05 ELIAS, BRANDON 07/15/05 JONES, DONALD 07/15/05 MEYER, GERALD 07/15/05 NAGEL, BRYAN 07/15/05 OSWALD, ERICK 07/15/05 RUNNING, ROBERT 07/15/05 TEVLIN, TODD 07/15/05 BEYER, MEGAN 07/15/05 CAVETT, CHRISTOPHER 07/15/05 DUCHARME, JOHN 07/15/05 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 07/15/05 ISAKSON, CHAD 07/15/05 JACOBSON, SCOTT 07/15/05 KNUTSON, LOIS 07/15/05 LABEREE, ERIN 07/15/05 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 07/15/05 PECK, DENNIS 07/15/05 PRIEBE, WILLIAM 07/15/05 VERMEERSCH, CHARLES 07/15/05 ANDERSON, BRUCE 07/15/05 CAREY, HEIDI 07/15/05 HALL, KATHLEEN 07/15/05 GERVAIS, DAVID 07/15/05 LUND, ERIC 07/15/05 MARUSKA, MARK 07/15/05 NAUGHTON, JOHN 07/15/05 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 07/15/05 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 07/15/05 HAYMAN, JANET 07/15/05 HUTCHINSON, ANN 07/15/05 NELSON, JEAN 07/15/05 SEEGER, GERALD 07/15/05 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 07/15/05 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 07/15/05 KROLL, LISA 07/15/05 LIVINGSTON, JOYCE 07/15/05 SINDT, ANDREA 07/15/05 THOMPSON, DEBRA 07/15/05 YOUNG, TAMELA 07/15/05 FINWALL, SHANN 07/15/05 ROBERTS, KENNETH 07/15/05 CARVER, NICHOLAS AMOUNT 2,604.66 1,655.75 1,852.15 1,955.35 800.00 1,822.15 1,906.19 2,276.71 2,002.06 1,731.75 1,703.75 752.00 3,270.46 2,323.66 1,710.55 938.46 1,837.85 1,002.61 2,274.95 2,494.30 2,330.59 2,624.59 2,210.15 4,024.42 1,991.75 1,749.97 702.00 592.00 2,649.16 1,703.75 1,824.46 1,421.88 1,393.58 2,240.46 1,137.69 577.10 2,040.97 3,014.19 1,173.56 891.48 1,586.15 704.46 1,474.95 2,232.55 2,479.54 2,743.92 15 dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME 07/15/05 FISHER, DAVID 07/15/05 RICE, MICHAEL 07/15/05 SWAN, DAVID 07/15/05 SWETT, PAUL 07/15/05 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 07/15/05 ANZALDI, KALI 07/15/05 WORK, ALICIA 07/15/05 WORK, BRANDON 07/15/05 FINN, GREGORY 07/15/05 GOODRICH, CHAD 07/15/05 GRAF, MICHAEL 07/15/05 KELLY, LISA 07/15/05 KYRK, ASHLEY 07/15/05 OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN 07/15/05 ROBB INS, AUDRA 07/15/05 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 07/15/05 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS 07/15/05 ZIELINSKI, JOSEPH 07/15/05 GERMAIN, DAVID 07/15/05 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 07/15/05 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 07/15/05 ANZALDI, MANDY 07/15/05 COLLINS, ASHLEY 07/15/05 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 07/15/05 CROSSON, LINDA 07/15/05 EVANS, CHRISTINE 07/15/05 MILES, LAURA 07/15/05 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 07/15/05 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 07/15/05 SCHULZE, BRIAN 07/15/05 STAPLES, PAULINE 07/15/05 ZIELINSKI, JUDY 07/15/05 ABRAHAMSON, DANIEL 07/15/05 BRENEMAN, NEIL 07/15/05 CORNER, AMY 07/15/05 EDSON, JAMIE 07/15/05 ERICKSON - CLARK, CAROL 07/15/05 EVANS, KRISTIN 07/15/05 FONTAINE, KIM 07/15/05 GREDVIG, ANDERS 07/15/05 GUZIK, JENNIFER 07/15/05 HALEY, BROOKE 07/15/05 HORWATH, RONALD 07/15/05 IRISH, KARL 07/15/05 KERSCHNER, JOLENE 07/15/05 KOEHNEN, AMY AMOUNT 3,244.09 1,927.59 2,021.51 510.00 2,600.55 672.76 77.75 692.50 2,192.66 490.00 1,923.70 916.62 30.00 786.00 2,097.08 99.00 2,797.48 42.00 1,831.39 2,114.45 2,021.95 1,233.97 52.00 64.00 2,586.54 648.43 111.65 440.40 2,007.26 834.81 2,898.01 188.15 224.00 594.45 22.40 190.00 90.40 21.00 726.36 382.54 401.33 357.20 1,978.42 680.90 884.25 48.30 16 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 07/15/05 KOEHNEN, MARY 1,529.58 07/15/05 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 597.63 07/15/05 MATHEWS, LEAH 91.00 07/15/05 NELSON, SIERRA 252.63 07/15/05 OVERBY, ANNA 57.90 07/15/05 POTTRATZ,DIANE 60.75 07/15/05 PROESCH, ANDY 573.58 07/15/05 SCHULTZ, MATTHEW 84.50 07/15/05 SMITH, ANN 248.44 07/15/05 TUPY, HEIDE 141.40 07/15/05 TUPY, MARCUS 215.25 07/15/05 WERNER, REBECCA 218.50 07/15/05 GROPPOLI, LINDA 228.00 07/15/05 HANSON, ELIZABETH 33.00 07/15/05 BEHAN, JAMES 1,702.83 07/15/05 LONETTI, JAMES 1,007.82 07/15/05 PATTERSON, ALBERT 1,399.40 07/15/05 PRINS, KELLY 1,152.87 07/15/05 RE ILLY, MICHAEL 1,580.55 07/15/05 WALSH, AMANDA 86.45 07/15/05 AICHELE, CRAIG 1,889.36 07/15/05 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,049.35 07/15/05 WOEHRLE, MATTHEW 1,542.95 07/15/05 BERGO, CHAD 2,255.30 07/15/05 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 1,976.79 07/15/05 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 1,512.86 07/15/05 HURLEY, STEPHEN 3,245.74 101786 07/15/05 INGVOLDSTAD, CURTIS 100.00 101787 07/15/05 WORKMAN, ROBERT 62.50 101788 07/15/05 JAHN, DAVID 1,620.27 101789 07/15/05 MORIN, TROY 157.25 101790 07/15/05 MITCHELL, KELLY 203.50 101791 07/15/05 MATHEYS, ALANA 1,980.07 101792 07/15/05 HANSEN, LORI 1,955.22 101793 07/15/05 PALANK, MARY 1,720.66 101794 07/15/05 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 1,819.05 101795 07/15/05 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 3,290.44 101796 07/15/05 WELCHLIN, CABOT 2,582.12 101797 07/15/05 ACOSTA, MARK 1,125.75 101798 07/15/05 AMBORN, JASON 1,241.17 101799 07/15/05 ANDERSON, BRIAN 1,644.82 101800 07/15/05 BAHL, DAVID 1,637.23 101801 07/15/05 BAUMAN, ANDREW 890.24 101802 07/15/05 BECK,YANCEY 212.40 101803 07/15/05 BOURQUIN, RON 1,902.27 101804 07/15/05 BUCHE, JOETTE 1,844.33 17 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 101805 07/15/05 CAPISTRANT, JOHN 1,201.46 101806 07/15/05 CARLSON, CAMERON 992.40 101807 07/15/05 CAVE, GEORGE 354.09 101808 07/15/05 CROMETT, MARK 1,568.94 101809 07/15/05 DIETZ, EDWARD 1,651.32 101810 07/15/05 DITTEL, MICHAEL 1,197.95 101811 07/15/05 DUELLMAN, AMY 922.18 101812 07/15/05 DUELLMAN, JOSEPH 460.99 101813 07/15/05 FASULO, WALTER 18.00 101814 07/15/05 FETTERS, JEFFREY 964.29 101815 07/15/05 GERARD, JAMIE 1,919.81 101816 07/15/05 HAKSETH, NATHAN 1,451.65 101817 07/15/05 HALE, JOSEPH 2,684.46 101818 07/15/05 HERLUND, RICK 1,627.20 101819 07/15/05 HUTCHINSON, JAMES 975.98 101820 07/15/05 KALKA, THOMAS 2,337.05 101821 07/15/05 KANE,ROBERT 2,190.86 101822 07/15/05 KARNOWSKI, SANDRA 2,370.08 101823 07/15/05 KOEHN, CORY 800.79 101824 07/15/05 KONDER, RONALD 1,530.01 101825 07/15/05 KORTUS, WILLIAM 103.74 101826 07/15/05 KUMMER, CORINNE 1,861.78 101827 07/15/05 LIDBERG, MICHAEL 1,583.78 101828 07/15/05 LINN, BRYAN 783.89 101829 07/15/05 LOCHEN, MICHAEL 1,755.32 101830 07/15/05 MALLORY, GORDON 1,844.56 101831 07/15/05 MARTY, MARK 4,392.41 101832 07/15/05 MCGOVERN, JOHN 997.69 101833 07/15/05 MELANDER, JON 2,315.17 101834 07/15/05 MELLEN, RICHARD 1,427.17 101835 07/15/05 MILLER, NICHOLAS 1,161.75 101836 07/15/05 MONK, JOHN 590.15 101837 07/15/05 NALIPINSKI, STEPHEN 1,329.72 101838 07/15/05 NOLAN, PAUL 1,176.27 101839 07/15/05 RICE, DANIEL 1,047.98 101840 07/15/05 RIDER, JEFFREY 2,051.67 101841 07/15/05 ROBERTSON, STEVEN 783.05 101842 07/15/05 ROMANIK, JAMES 1,691.58 101843 07/15/05 SACKETT, JAMES 901.05 101844 07/15/05 SCHADT, JEFFREY 1,011.66 101845 07/15/05 SCHULTZ, THOMAS 632.73 101846 07/15/05 SINGER, SCOTT 443.54 101847 07/15/05 SKOK, STEPHEN 1,140.79 101848 07/15/05 SMITH, RICHARD 504.41 101849 07/15/05 SOLHEID, DALE 811.92 101850 07/15/05 STELLA, JAMES 1,140.59 18 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 101851 07/15/05 STENE, MARK 1,041.11 101852 07/15/05 WEIDELL, CLIFFORD 207.36 101853 07/15/05 WHITE, JOEL 1,037.40 101854 07/15/05 FREBERG, RONALD 1,859.48 101855 07/15/05 HOEPPNER, STEVEN 700.00 101856 07/15/05 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 996.20 101857 07/15/05 EDSON, DAVID 1,859.48 101858 07/15/05 GORE, MICHAEL 896.00 101859 07/15/05 HALEY, ROLAND 1,859.48 101860 07/15/05 HINNENKAMP, GARY 1,830.79 101861 07/15/05 LINDORFF, DENNIS 1,826.77 101862 07/15/05 LUND, MARK 704.00 101863 07/15/05 NOVAK, MICHAEL 1,787.75 101864 07/15/05 GERNES, CAROLE 118.25 101865 07/15/05 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 284.38 101866 07/15/05 GITZLAFF, ANDREW 350.00 101867 07/15/05 BALLESTRAZZE, THAD 756.00 101868 07/15/05 BUSMAN, CHRISTINA 414.00 101869 07/15/05 DALBEE, JILL 55.00 101870 07/15/05 DAMIANI, ROBERT 120.00 101871 07/15/05 FREYBERGER, RACHEL 56.00 101872 07/15/05 GEBHARD, MADELINE 650.81 101873 07/15/05 GOODRICH, DANIELLE 55.00 101874 07/15/05 GRAF, ASHLEY 72.00 101875 07/15/05 HAGSTROM, KEVIN 140.00 101876 07/15/05 HAGSTROM, LINDSEY 107.50 101877 07/15/05 HANSON TOPETE, MARY 160.00 101878 07/15/05 HECHT, HEATHER 85.00 101879 07/15/05 KOHLMAN, JENNIFER 65.00 101880 07/15/05 KYRK, HALEY 96.00 101881 07/15/05 LOPEZ, ANN 312.00 101882 07/15/05 PERZICHILLI, LEAH 48.00 101883 07/15/05 REULING, BRITTANY 65.00 101884 07/15/05 ROBB INS, EMERALD 209.00 101885 07/15/05 SALAS, MERCEDES 90.00 101886 07/15/05 UNGAR, KRISTOPHER 126.00 101887 07/15/05 URBANIAK, MALLORY 30.00 101888 07/15/05 HAAG,MARK 1,775.55 101889 07/15/05 NADEAU, EDWARD 2,930.14 101890 07/15/05 GLASS, JEAN 1,797.14 101891 07/15/05 HER, CHONG 61.60 101892 07/15/05 NAGEL, BROOKE 388.85 101893 07/15/05 TOLBERT, FRANCINE 603.75 101894 07/15/05 UNGER,MARGARET 578.58 101895 07/15/05 VELASQUEZ, ANGELA 331.00 101896 07/15/05 ANDERSON, CALEB 97.85 19 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 101897 07/15/05 ANDERSON, JOSHUA 338.00 101898 07/15/05 ANDERSON, JUSTIN 221.00 101899 07/15/05 ARNEVIK, ERICA 52.50 101900 07/15/05 BOTHWELL, KRISTIN 505.67 101901 07/15/05 BRENEMAN, SEAN 316.00 101902 07/15/05 BUCKLEY, BRITTANY 32.50 101903 07/15/05 COSTA, JOSEPH 386.40 101904 07/15/05 DEMPSEY, BETH 139.80 101905 07/15/05 DUNN, RYAN 780.14 101906 07/15/05 FALKENSTEIN, MONICA 285.60 101907 07/15/05 GESKERMANN, MARK 123.50 101908 07/15/05 GRANT, MELISSA 272.25 101909 07/15/05 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 168.15 101910 07/15/05 HEWN, REBECCA 96.00 101911 07/15/05 HERZOG, ELIZABETH 71.50 101912 07/15/05 HOLMGREN, LEAH 187.50 101913 07/15/05 HOULE, DENISE 44.60 101914 07/15/05 JOHNSON, STETSON 600.25 101915 07/15/05 JOYER, MARTI 249.98 101916 07/15/05 KOZA, KAREN 152.65 101917 07/15/05 LAUMER, MELISSA 20.25 101918 07/15/05 LEMAY, KATHERINE 265.05 101919 07/15/05 LUTZ, CHRISTINA 186.25 101920 07/15/05 MCCANN, NATALIE 52.75 101921 07/15/05 MCMAHON, MELISSA 96.91 101922 07/15/05 MILLS, ANNE 182.70 101923 07/15/05 PEHOSKI, JOEL 290.67 101924 07/15/05 PETERSON, ANNA 362.25 101925 07/15/05 RICHTER, NANCY 51.00 101926 07/15/05 ROGNESS, TRYGGVE 172.96 101927 07/15/05 ROSTRON, ROBERT 183.63 101928 07/15/05 RYDEEN, ARIEL 486.90 101929 07/15/05 SCHAEFER, ANDREA 81.00 101930 07/15/05 SCHMIDT, EMILY 202.01 101931 07/15/05 SCHOENECKER, SAMANTHA 208.00 101932 07/15/05 SCHOMMER, SUMMERS 81.00 101933 07/15/05 SCHRAMM, BRITTANY 201.50 101934 07/15/05 SCHREINER, MICHELLE 372.29 101935 07/15/05 SMITLEY, SHARON 335.30 101936 07/15/05 STAHNKE, AMY 222.63 101937 07/15/05 TRUE, ANDREW 533.70 101938 07/15/05 WARNER, CAROLYN 71.85 101939 07/15/05 WEDES, CARYL 116.75 101940 07/15/05 WHITE, NICOLE 786.41 101941 07/15/05 WOODMAN, ALICE 222.45 101942 07/15/05 BOSLEY, CAROL 297.00 20 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 101943 07/15/05 BREITBACH, GARY 2,005.50 101944 07/15/05 DOBBS, SYDNEY 72.00 101945 07/15/05 HAGSTROM, EMILY 22.75 101946 07/15/05 LEWIS, AMY 159.25 101947 07/15/05 PARAYNO, GUAI 286.25 101948 07/15/05 STODGHILL, AMANDA 39.00 101949 07/15/05 VAN HALE, PAULA 109.20 101950 07/15/05 ANDERSON, MATT 133.35 101951 07/15/05 BALDWIN, JANA 133.00 101952 07/15/05 DOUGLASS, TOM 1,675.00 101953 07/15/05 HER, PHENG 232.90 101954 07/15/05 UGRADY, VICTORIA 28.26 101955 07/15/05 OLSON, CHRISTINE 81.46 101956 07/15/05 SCHOENECKER, LEIGH 85.73 101957 07/15/05 SIMPSON, JOSEPH 182.75 101958 07/15/05 SIMPSON, KIMBERLYN 180.71 101959 07/15/05 THEESFELD, CALEB 27.80 101960 07/15/05 VAIL, LUCILLE 26.20 101961 07/15/05 VANG, HUE 92.08 101962 07/15/05 VANG,KAY 86.45 101963 07/15/05 VANG, TIM 265.23 101964 07/15/05 VUE,LORPAO 60.33 565,436.33 21 Agenda Item G.2 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Resolution of Support for the Livable Communities Demonstration Account Development Grant LOCATION: Gladstone Neighborhood - Frost Avenue and English Street DATE: July 18, 2005 INTRODUCTION City staff is requesting that the city council adopt the attached resolution. This resolution is required by the Metropolitan Council as part of the city's application for a demonstration grant through the Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) Program. This program was established by the Livable Communities Act (MN Statutes Chapter 473.25(b)) and provides funds for development or redevelopment projects that connect development with transit, intensify land uses, connect housing and employment, provide a mix of housing affordability, and provide infrastructure to connect communities and attract investment. The city is requesting a grant in the amount of $2,650,000 in order to help fund the proposed capital improvements in the Gladstone Redevelopment project area including: 1) a bridge along Frost Avenue which will create a green corridor for the Gladstone Savanna, the Gateway Trail, and the regional park; 2) storm water related improvements; 3) environmental cleanup of various properties within the project area; 4) streetscaping and burial of overhead power lines along Frost Avenue and English Street. There are no requirements by the Metropolitan Council for the city to match these funds. BACKGROUND November 2003 the City of Maplewood received an $8,000 LCDA grant from the Metropolitan Council in order to hire a planning consultant to develop a redevelopment concept plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood. During the 2004/2005 city council goal setting sessions, the city council placed the redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood as a high - priority goal. In 2004 city staff and a planning consultant, Architecture and Town Planning, began a strategic planning study for the Gladstone Neighborhood which included a series of meetings with the Gladstone stakeholders. December 2004 the city council hired a master planner, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc., and appointed a 20- person task force to help guide the Gladstone Redevelopment planning process. The planning process should be complete by September 2005. DISCUSSION Gladstone Strategic Planning Timeline City staff and the planning consultants will host the last scheduled Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment public workshop on August 11, 2005. During this workshop the public will learn about the task force's progress in developing the plan, and the task force, planning consultants, and city staff will obtain public guidance on the planning concepts. Results of the task force meetings and workshops will be compiled into a final plan for review by the city council. The strategic planning process should be complete by September 2005. LCDA Grant Funds The Metropolitan Council has available LCDA grant funds of $8.31 million this year for communities seeking funding for development or redevelopment projects that meet the goals of the 2030 Regional Development Framework as follows: Accommodate regional growth while using regional systems and land efficiently. Increase transportation choices. Appropriately mix land uses. Increase the variety of housing types and costs. Leverage private investment. Invest Council resources to facilitate reinvestment: infill, adaptive reuse, redevelopment. Redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood will meet all six of these goals. In addition to meeting these goals, the Metropolitan Council expressed support for the redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood in 2003 with the granting of $8,000 to the City of Maplewood for the initial planning study. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution showing the city council's intent to comply with the Livable Communities Demonstration Account Program contract requirements for the requested $2,650,000 development grant for capital improvements in the Gladstone Neighborhood. p:com_dvpt \Gladstone \2005 Livable Communities \Resolution Memorandum Attachment: 1. Gladstone Neighborhood Site Plan 2. Livable Communities Demonstration Resolution Attachment 1 Gladstone Neighborhood Site Plan Attachment 2 RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS WHEREAS the City of Maplewood is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 2005 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to apply for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds; and WHEREAS the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the Demonstration Account's purposes and criteria and is consistent with and promotes the purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan Council's adopted metropolitan development guide; and WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement; and WHEREAS the City agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the grant application submitted on June 30, 2005; and WHEREAS the City acknowledges Livable Communities Demonstration Account grants are intended to fund projects or project components that can serve as models, examples or prototypes for development or redevelopment projects elsewhere in the region, and therefore represents that the proposed project or key components of the proposed project can be replicated in other metropolitan -area communities; and WHEREAS only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Account during each funding cycle and the Metropolitan Council has determined it is appropriate to allocate those scarce grant funds only to eligible projects that would not occur "but for" the availability of Demonstration Account grant funding. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due consideration, the governing body of the City: 1. Finds that it is in the best interests of the City's development goals and priorities for the proposed project to occur at this particular time. 2. Finds that the project component(s) for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is sought: (a) will not occur solely through private or other public investment within the reasonably foreseeable future; and (b) will not occur within two years after a grant award unless Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is made available for this project at this time. 3. Authorizes its planning and engineering departments to submit on behalf of the City an application for Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds for the project components identified in the application, and to execute such agreements as may be necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City. Adopted this _ day of 2005. Mayor City Clerk MEMORANDUM Agenda #G3 TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review PROJECT: St. Paul Regional Water Services (McCarron's Treatment Plant) LOCATION: 1900 Rice Street DATE: July 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) for the St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) facilities at 1900 Rice Street is due for review. The CUP allowed for the expansion of the facility which includes three new buildings: (1) a two -story 36,000- square -foot office building with 240 parking spaces, (2) a one -story 11,230 - square -foot meter shop and warehouse, and (3) a one -story 17,350- square -foot vehicle maintenance and storage building with associated parking and landscaping features. In addition, a future plan to build a cold vehicle storage building was included on the plans. (See the maps on pages three — five). BACKGROUND December 15, 1988: The city council approved a CUP for SPRWS to construct a clear -water pond west of Sylvan Street and north of Larpenteur Avenue. June 10, 1996: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the expansion of the solids dewatering facility. August 11, 1997: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the construction of two building additions and a new building at the water treatment plant. December 10, 2001: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the expansion and renovation of the water treatment plant. June 23, 2003: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the construction of three new buildings on the water services campus. (See the council minutes starting on page six.) On July 12, 2004, the city council reviewed the CUP and agreed to review it again in one year. DISCUSSION The St. Paul Regional Water Service's three newest buildings and the associated parking lots and driveways are now complete. Most of the required landscaping, including the trout stream and buffer restoration, (with native trees and grasses) within the campus is near completion. SPRWS has not yet begun work on the cold vehicle storage. Kou Vang, the project engineer for SPRWS, outlines the status of all the site work in his letter on page 11. Because the applicant has not yet finished the project construction and all of the associated site work and landscaping, the city should review this conditional use permit again in one year. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for the St. Paul Regional Water Services' campus at 1900 Rice Street again in one year. P:sec 18Gst Paul water utility cup review - 2005 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. June 23, 2003, City Council Minutes 5. July 13, 2005 letter from Kou Vang Attachment 1 LITTLE CANADA I m o , a Pace AVE. SAINT i LOCATION MAP 3 N - -. z . r _ y w ,w m o , a Pace AVE. SAINT i LOCATION MAP 3 N N I y 4 �G) W raQ ^h Q C9 ei P 4a �ib� 1 S,p®c m x � uj O uj IT I I S< ryr Si M :. to it �+ F is t / 't s L a r t s s t uj W C) qy AT {b IL9B itf PAIL 91 U) o CROWN P LAZA * `• CENTE m c,; m PROPERTY L IN E p t ZONI V NJ M S< 9 b lu F is t / 't s L a r t s s t uj • 1 ` I ' LLJ U) CROWN P LAZA * `• CENTE , SHOPPING 7 LARPENTEUR AVENUE. Div _ SAINT c,; m PROPERTY L IN E p t ZONI V NJ Atvachient a r r a Attachment 4 MINUTES M_A1`LF4YOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:30 P.M., June 23, 2003 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No, 03-13 H. 1`17BLIC HEARINGS 8;55 p.m. St. Paul Regional Water Services -McCarron's Water Treatment Plant a, City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. C. Commissioner Fischer presented the Planning Commission Report. cl. Boardmember Olson presented the Design Review Board Report. e. Jim Butler, architect for the project provided further specifics. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a stream setback variance at the St. Paul Water Regional Water Service at the McCarron's Water Treatment Plant: RESOLUTION 03-06417 STREAM SETBACK VARLkNCE WHEREAS, David Wagner, of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services, asked the city to approve a stream setback variance from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to the water utility property at 1900 Rice Street. The legal description is: SECTION 18, TOWNSHLP 29, RANGE 22 IN THE VIIJ-AGE OF MAPLEWOOD RE'VISED DESCRIPTION NtNIEBER 175 A SPECIFIC PART OF SEC 18, TN 29, R 22, (PIN 18-29-22-3 1- 0042) WBEREAS, Section 36-196(h) of the wetland protection ordinance requires a 60-foot-wide stream buffer area next to streams. WITEREAS, the applicant is proposing a X40- foot -wide stream buffer. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: I. On June 2, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. 2. The city council held a public hearing on June 23, 2003. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The City Council. Nlteung 06-23-03 council gave everyone at Lie hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance for the following reasons: 1. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The 60-foot-wide stream buffer requirement would make development of this site difficult. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, since the applicant would greatly improve a portion of the stream buffer over its present state and the proposed development plans will treat storm water from the site with rainwater gardens, bio-retention basins and other best management practices. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Dedicating a 40-foot-wide stream protection buffer easement along the west property line of the site adjacent to the future cold storage building and creating a buffer along the entire length of the stream contained or borderm- 0 their property. The buffer shall be 50 feet wide in all possible areas. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city issues a building permit. Submitting a revised landscape plan for the restoration of all the stream-protection buffer on the west side of the site, 0 all the day- lighted including - y-lighted parts of Trout Brook, This plan shall show 1 extensive use of native plantings and gasses and shall be subject to city staff and watershed district approval, 3. Installing city approved signs at the edge of the stream-protection buffer that prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving .a conditional use permit revision for the addition of four building a new parking lot and associated site plan changes far the St. Paul Regional Water Services iMcCarron's Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street North: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION 03-06-118 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Water Utility has requested a revision to their conditional use pen-nit to add four new buildings, parking and landscaping to plant facilities at the St. Paul Water Utility McCarron's Water Treatment Plant. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1900 Rice Street North- The legal description is: SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22 IN THE V ILI—AGE OF NIAPLEWOOD REVISED CiLy Council Meednx 06-23-03 DESCRIPTION NUMBER 175 A SPECIFIC PART OF SEC 18, TN 29, R 22. (PIN 18-29-22-31 0042) WEEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: L On June 2, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On June 23 2003, 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 council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission, NOW, TITEREFORF, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: I. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 1 The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 1 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, tdare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 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. T The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 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 minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions; L All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the pernuE shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline City Council Meeting 06-23-03 for one year. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes-All Councilmember Kopper moved to adopt the design plans for the St: Paul Regional Water Services McCarron's Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street North: Approve the plans (date-stamped April 24, 2003) for the proposed office building, meter shop and vehicle maintenance buildings (with the associated parking and landscaping) at the St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarron's Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street North. This approval does not include the future cold vehicle storage building shown on the plans along the west side of the site. The city bases this approval on findings required by the code. The property owner or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this project. 2. Provide the following for city staff approval before the city issues a grading or building permit: a. Building material and color samples of the plaster, metal panels, roofs, trim, and garage doors. b. A revised landscape/screenin- plan that shows the following: 0 z (1) The spruce trees proposed for the south and east sides of the parking lot and the property revised from 6 feet in height to 8 feet in height. (2) The planting of more coniferous trees along the south and east sides of the proposed parking lot to help screen the parking lot from the houses to the south and east, (3) Landscaping details for the stream buffer area and for the proposed rainwater gardens. If the basin area will only be seeded, the area must be vegetated with native grasses and forties. The mix design must be approved by the city before the contractor does the seeding. (4) An in-ground irrigation system (including sprinkler heads) for the areas that would have sod. The city does not require irrigation for areas with native grasses or for the rainwater gardens. Detailed grading, drainage, paving, utility and erosion control plan for approval by C - the Assistant City Engineer, These plans shall meet all the requirements of the Assistant City Engineer. & A detailed photometric plan for all proposed outdoor lighting showing the location, style, height and design of the proposed light fixtures. All freestandin shall M not be taller than 25 feet, and the illumination from any outdoor light must not exceed 0.4-foot candles at all property lines. City Cout6l Nl .tEng. 06-23-03 e. Plans for any trash-dumpster enclosures. The gates for such enclosures shall be 100 percent opaque, and the materials and colors of the -enclosure shall be compatible with those of the new buildings. These plans shall be subject to staff approval. f, Proof of recording of a 40-foot-wide stream protection buffer -easement along the west W C, property line. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record: this easement before the city issues a building permit. g. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete and install all required exterior improvements, including the approved landscaping and any dumpster enclosures before occupying the buildings. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or Welfare. Is, The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June I if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer, All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes-All IN City Council Meeting 06-23-03 BOARD WATER ! President. Patrick Harris o Vice President,- John Zanmitler Convni- Mrmer.S: Matt Anfang 4 Bob. Cardinal ♦ Gregory Kleindl ♦ Debbie Montgomery • .Dave Thune July 13, 1-005 JUL 9 k " Mr, Ken Roberts City of Maplewood RECEIVED 830 Fast County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 RE: Conditional Use Permit Update — McCarrons Water Treatment Plant Dear Mr. Roberts: This is a status update on the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirements, which were reviewed and approved by the Maplewood City Council on June 23, 2001 The CUT required dedication of a 40 -foot wide stream protection buffer easement along the west property line. Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) has dedicated a 40 -foot wide stream protection buffer easement as required in the CUP. Regarding construction of the stream protection buffers, there are two distinct areas of the site where the buffers were installed, one adjacent to the Rice Street entrance road and one adjacent to the Future cold storage building. Each of these was constructed under separate construction contracts. The area adjacent to the fixture cold storage building has received native plantings and grasses, portions of the area have taken shape, while others will need to be re- secdcd. We are currently ~corking with our landscape contractor to re -seed these area.;. Igo Not Disturb signs have been pasted airing the edge of the stream- protection buffer. The other 40 -foot wide stream protection buffer, which is adjacent to the Rice Street entrance road should be completed within a month. This landscaping work is being constructed as part of the Rice Street entrance road and Bridge project SPRWS will update you as soon as the protection buffer is .seeded and Do Not Disturb signs are posted, If you need further infurtnation or have any questions, please contact trig at 651-266-6266. ou Vattg Project Engineer RV /ind copy: Dave Wagner SAINT PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES Stephen P. Schneider, General Manager 1900 Rice St, Saint Paul MN 55113 -6810 * TTY: 651- 266 -6244 Suint Paul Regional Water Services provides r ialdv mcuer wrrtces to the JIoaowtrg cider Arden Hills-Falcon Re3in ts-Lauderdale Little Canada 4lendota Heights- RosevineSaint Paul West St. Paul AA- aLti1 -EE0 Employer I I pOrued on aacVGed paper Agenda Item G4 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk RE: Food License Fee Waiver DATE: July 19, 2005 Background: Walking in Faith Christian Ministries, 2385 Ariel Street North is having an outreach for the purpose of introducing the church to neighborhood families. The event will be held on August 27, 2005 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in the church parking lot. They will be having games and activities along with providing food to all visitors. Walking in Faith Christian Ministries staff has met with Environmental Health Officer Dwayne Konewko regarding safely serving itinerant food and has also met with Fire Marshall Butch Gervais regarding fires and safety issues. Recommendation: It is requested that council approve the temporary food licenses and grant the fee waiver. Agenda Item G5 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Sherrie Le Human Resource Director RE: City Manager Salary Adjustment DATE: July 18, 2005 One of the bills passed by the Legislature this past session was a change to the salary cap law. The City Manager's salary has essentially been frozen for 3 years because he was at the cap allowed by law. The cap was based on 95% of the governor's salary and is now 110% of the governor's salary with an adjustment each year based on the CPI. These changes go into effect on August 1, 2005. The City Council has previously approved an annual adjustment to the salary ranges for all benefit - earning non -union employees consistent with the annual adjustments provided to the union employees. The annual adjustments were 3% for 2003 and 2004 and (so far) 2% for 2005. The annual adjustment for 2005 will increase to 3% retroactive to 1 -1 -05 if the City receives Homestead Value Credit from the State for 2005. Although the City Council approved the annual adjustments for the City Manager as part of the non -union group for these three years, we were unable to provide the increase to Mr. Fursman's salary because of the salary cap law. Mr. Fursman received just 0.2% in 2003 and nothing in 2004 or 2005 when all other City employees received the full annual increase. Therefore, based on the previous Council approved increases to the non -union salary ranges, and the law change increasing the cap, the City Manager will be receiving the annual adjustments that he missed in 2003, 2004 and 2005 on August 1, 2005. His current hourly pay is $54.94. He missed 2.8% in 2003, 3% in 2004, and either 2% or 3% in 2005 - depending on the Homestead Value Credit. If the employees receive 3% for 2005, Mr. Fursman's hourly pay will increase to $59.86. If not, it will increase to $59.28 /hour. Although Mr. Fursman is not at the salary maximum allowed under the approved salary range, he is not requesting an adjustment within the range at this time. RECOMMENDATION This is provided for informational purposes. City Council acceptance of this report is recommended. Agenda Item G -6 AGENDA REPORT DATE: July 15, 2005 TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Sherrie Le. Human Resource Director RE: 2005 REVISED PAY RATES FOR TEMPORARY /SEASONAL, CASUAL PART - TIME AND PAID - PER -CALL EMPLOYEES Please forward the attached resolution to the City Council for approval. I recommend this resolution be adopted to replace the existing resolution establishing pay rates for temporary, seasonal, casual part -time and paid - per -call employees. The changes made are to the low end of several positions to reflect the new State - approved minimum wage of $6.15 per hour. RECOMMENDATION Adoption of the attached resolution is recommended. tr Attachment RESOLUTION WHEREAS, according to the Minnesota Public Employees Labor Relations act, part -time employees who do not work more than 14 hour per week and temporary/seasonal employees who work in positions that do not exceed 67 days in a calendar year, or 100 days for full -time students, are not public employees and are therefore not eligible for membership in a public employee union. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following pay ranges and job classifications are hereby established for temporary/seasonal and casual part -time (14 hours or fewer /wk) employees effective August 1, 2005, upon Council approval. Accountant $10.00 -30.00 per hour Accounting Technician $9.00 -22.00 per hour Administrative Assistant $9.00 -20.00 per hour Background Investigator $25.00 -35.00 per hour Building Inspector $14.00 -35.00 per hour Building Attendant $6.15 -12.00 per hour Clerk $6.50 -11.00 per hour Clerk- Typist $8.50 -15.00 per hour Customer Service Assistant $6.15 -11.00 per hour CSO $8.00 -16.00 per hour CSO /Paramedic $12.00 -20.00 per hour Data Entry Operator $8.00 -12.00 per hour Dispatcher $15.00 -20.00 per hour Election Judge $6.50 -12.00 per hour Election Judge - Assistant Chair $7.00 -13.00 per hour Election Precinct Chair $7.50 -14.00 per hour Engineering Aide $7.00 -16.00 per hour Engineering Technician $10.00 -16.00 per hour Fire Department Custodian $575 -690 per quarter Firefighter- Paid - Per -Call $8.00- $14.29 per call /run $18.00 per drill Intern $6.50 -20.00 per hour IT Technician $15.00 -20.00 per hour Laborer $6.50 -12.00 per hour Lifeguard $6.15 -14.00 per hour Receptionist $7.50 -11.00 per hour Recreation Instructor /Leader $6.15 -30.00 per hour Recreation Official $6.15 -25.00 per hour Recreation Worker $6.15 -18.00 per hour Secretary $9.00 -21.00 per hour Theater Technician $20.00 -30.00 per hour Vehicle Technician $9.00 -15.00 per hour Video Coordinator' $11.00 -19.00 per hour Video Technician' $10.00 -18.00 per hour Water Safety Instructor (WSI) $7.50 -14.00 per hour WSI & Head Lifeguard Differential $1.00 per hour (Lifeguards or WSIs working as Head Lifeguards; Lifeguards working as WSls) 'Video positions shall be paid a guaranteed minimum flat fee of $50 for 4 hours or less. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager shall have the authority to set the pay rate within the above ranges. Agenda Item G7 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Erin Laberee, Engineer 1 SUBJECT: English Street Landscape Improvements, City Project 01 -14 - Resolution for Acceptance of Project DATE: July 19, 2005 10 millet IIC01 English Street was constructed in 2002. The street and utility construction was completed in 2004 and accepted by the city council at the March 28` 2004 city council meeting. The landscape work was covered under a separate contract and has been completed. The city council will consider approving the attached resolution for acceptance of the project. Background The landscape work is final and complete. A letter for the city's consultant Landscape Architect at SEH is attached regarding final payment and completion of the landscape contract. The total construction cost paid to the contractor, Hoffman & McNamara is $78,264.00. BUDGET IMPACT Final project budget reconciliation will be determined and presented at the next city council meeting for modification of the approved budget. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution for Acceptance of Project. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Letterfrom SEH 3. Location Map Agenda Item G7 RESOLUTION ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT WHEREAS, the city engineer for the City of Maplewood has determined that the English Street Landscape Improvements, City Project 01 -14, are complete and recommends acceptance of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that City Project 01 -14 is complete and maintenance of these improvements is accepted by the city. Release of any retainage or escrow is hereby authorized. Agenda Item G7 19 RE: Maplewood, Minnesota Land scapingArrigation Front-Friglim Roundabout Final Application fro Payntent SFH No. A-MAINT.0201.00 70) City of Maplewood 1930 CLmftLY Road 13 East Maphosoo(LMN 15 y09-2 Please find cralcacd Application, furPsynnon No. 4 (Final) for the referenced project. together with the to documents: • Invoice No. 2702 from floff man & lalcNamara • 1C- 134 - Withholding Affidavits ■ Receipt and Waiver of Mechanic's TAtm Rights ■ Coment of Surety to Firal Paytrant * Cortificate of Liability Insurance A A44A Veronica A, Anderson, LA Project Manager Enclosures 40mOWWWOort, JUL GJ Short Elects Hendricksov, fro- 3MIAOi,, U.- h- 1N SAI 0 %1N. a c e! _ Aot) � eltlF OoM� rov,mo .ASE CK� . oC - I 1 XS5 i 351 44C S SC xi � — ---------- - ------------ — - ------- r-7 RvA � AVE. &L' < VILI ir 1 n —I HWY 36 I N� ..................... .... . . SHENI�LNI AV r COPE CT En AVE D LAURIE I RID x SANG- jqST 72 AVE BURKE AVE CHAMBERS ST .3 e mo LLL)R AVE BELVONT JAVII C ()u ' .1. A L — SKh_L! 0 SKILL MAN VC '9- AV 7) vA Polk RYl AN AV, q LJ __1 z po'k l- < w U7 cl, FROST y AVE, AVEL un 0 d Pork St mm ER Ali z N FR1�_ AVE, T Park O_ I RIP LEY /E , z 0 WOKO Id :7 so LukQ T y S OPT HIA AVIC T CARPE Nr j f±j Ej AV lodo i 0 low PROJECT LOCATION SCALE IN 'EET ENGLISH STREET RECONSTRUCTION FILL 10- VAP'LtIJ201 PHONE Eni) 4so-2=0 MAPLEWOOD, MMESOTA ) DATE 3535 0CNATER k �T PAUL. UN O CENo5110 CITY PROJECT NO. 01-14 Agenda Item G8 Fiw4 U7ilN=1161:41 TO: City Manager FROM: Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D Realignment (West) Improvements (TH 61 to Walter Street), City Project 02 -08: Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Orders 6 & 7 (Palda Contract) DATE: July 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION The city council will consider approving the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract, Change Order Nos. 6 & 7. Background In September 2004, the city council approved the award of a construction contract to Palda & Sons, Inc., which included the construction of utilities and roadway for the entire County Road D West improvement. The County Road D West project did not begin as anticipated due to problems related to both the constructability of the Vadnais Heights sewer and the availability of the Troutland site. Negotiations with the contractor resulted in the elimination of the street construction and Vadnais Heights sanitary sewer portions of the contract. Prior to this, Change Orders 1 -4 have been approved by the city council. Change Order No. 1 resulted in a reduction to said contract by an amount of $710,915.03. Change Order No. 2 was based on the estimate to restore existing County Road D after the utility work. Change Order No. 3 was for the costs of additional detour and traffic control signage that was requested by the engineer to be added after the project was bid. Change Order No. 4 was for costs to add back into the contract a revised sanitary sewer rehabilitation method for the Vadnais Heights sewer. Change Order No. 5 will not be considered by the city council. Change Order No. 5 was the result of an engineering error by the consultant that resulted in 72 feet of water main that had to be re -laid. A hand written correction has been noted on the attached change orders. Staff has confirmed this revision with both URS and Palda. Change Orders 6 and 7 will be corrected as noted prior to obtaining the mayor's approval. The cost of this error will be paid by URS directly with the contractor. The proposed Change Order No. 6 is for the cost of temporary roadway striping that was required to place the existing roadway back into operation after the utility work was completed last fall. This was an anticipated cost that was eliminated with the removal of the roadway items with CO No. 1. The proposed Change Order No. 7 is for the costs related to the restoration of the existing roadway after the utility work last fall. The area had very poor soils and required additional aggregate base material to stabilize the roadway. Agenda Item G8 Budget Impact Approval of this resolution will increase the construction contract by $8,743.72. This project is funded through assessments and state aid bond funding. No tax levy funding is used on this project. No revision to the budget or financing plan is anticipated at this time. This work still falls within the scope of the original project. However, a reconciled analysis of the budget will be done shortly and if necessary revisions to the budget are required, they will be done at that time. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract, Change Order Nos. 6 and 7 (Palda Contract), for the County Road D West Improvements (TH 61 to Walter Street), City Project 02 -08. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Change Order Nos. 6 and 7 (Palda Contract) Agenda Item G8 RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROJECT 02 -08, CHANGE ORDER NOS. 6 AND 7 (Palda Contract) WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 02 -08, County Road D Realignment (West) Improvements (TH 61 to Walter Street), and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 02 -08, Change Order Nos. 6 and 7, (Palda Contract), as an increase to said contract by an amount of $8,743.72, such that the new contract amount is now and hereby established as $729,219.45. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the City of Maplewood to signify and show that the existing contract is hereby modified through said Change Order Nos. 6 and 7, (Palda Contract), as a contract increase in the amount of $8,743.72. The revised contract amount is $729,219.45. No revisions to the project budget are proposed at this time, as these changes fall within the original project scope and budget. Agenda Item G8 ORS Copy Dry copy Contractor Copy CHANGE ORDER NO, 6 ATE _6jjb_ Copy DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Project Name: County Road D Improvements S.A-P. 62-619-025 / t38-020-29 Project No. 02-08 Date: 6121/05 Contractor: PaIda & Sons, Inc. In accordance with the renno of this Cunaa,3, you are hereby arahmied and instructed 10 perform the Work as altered by the Folloaing provisims Pavement markings were applied to the temporary roadway installed along County Road D Descriptions and cost, for the markings are as tabulated below. The MnDOT Estimating Office approved pricing. Ascription MnDOT No. - QuannityiUmn Unit Price Extended Cost 4" Solid Line White - Paint 2564.603 1442 1 LF 0.23 $ 331.66 4" Double Line Yellow - Paint 2504.603 837 1 LF 046 $ 385.02 Mobilization (2 Men x 3.7i 1Ir Pao I/LS $562.50 J_162 50 The total cost for this stoping is $1,279.18 A prime contractor mark-tip of 10% ($127,92) to cover costs brings the total value of this change order to $ 1,407. 10. The value of this extra work Is $1,407.10. Contract Status Original Contract Net Change of prior Approved Change Order No. 1,2 �3& 4 Approved Revised Contract Net Change of Prior Pendony Change Order No, 5 Change this Change Order: Possible Revised Contract: Approval Approval Agreed to by COntraCtOr "I By 7 / Its Cost $1,333,03231 $ (612,557.28) $ 720,475.43 - coo d- 1,407.10 Title Approval Assistant State Aid Engineer (For Funding Approval Only) C.O. #6, Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item G8 111 Conam DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Project Name: County Road D Improvements S_A_P. 62-619-025 / 138-020-29 Project No. 02-08 Contractor: Padda & Sons, Inc. Date: 6121105 le, accordance with the rennsof this Cotima, ybu are Hereby avtltonzW and 1nSftUQtCd (0 PCrfiJTM the Work as AtCred by the following provisions; Stabilizing materials were placed on County Road D and at residential driveways to insure access for residents and emergency vehicles. These materials were placed during utility installation and prior to the construction of the temporary roadway. Material pricing submitted by Palda & Sons, Inc. for this work is acceptable and has been approved by the MnDOT Estimating Office. This change order also includes the cost of constructing the Venhurg i Gulden driveway. MnDOT Estimating approved pricing for the driveway materials and these charges represent full compensation his constructing the driveway. The value of this extra work is $ 7,3-36.62- Contract Status Original Contract Net Change of Prior Approved Change Order No, 1,2,3 & 4 Approved Revised Contract Net Change of Prior Pending Change Order No. 5 & 6 Change this Change Order: Possible Revised Contract: Approval Approe Agreed to by Contractor M - Cost $1,333.032,71 $ (612,55728) 140. $ 7,336.62 Its Title Approval Assistant State Aid Engineer (For Funding Approval Only) I n IV7 1 ,f I Agenda Item G8 C''H NGE ORDER NO. 7 DEPARTIME>NI' OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF M,APLE:t>w'f. OD, [2AMSEY COUNTY. v11ti�1 SC7'I.a Project Name: County Road D Improvements S.A.P. 82 -619 -0251 138- 020 -29 Project Na.: 02-013 Contractor: Palda & Sons, Inc. Date: 6121/[)5 Amount of Change Order No. 7 S 7,336.62 ?t'I.ATERIAL ITEMIZATION Dale Placed 11nI)0T N o Desergpunn Use Unit t1rV� U nit Price 1 xten.sion 10120/04 2211.501 AL—; Base, C.I. V1 C'tv D Stab. Tort 2A 4 1 S 12.54 10/22104 2211501 AV . Base, CT F1 Cry 1) slab. Tien 321 S 1170 S 1,126.14 101?5/04 ?^ 1 1,60 1 Open Graded .'sgg. Base Cry U Stab. Ton 19.6 S ts.74 a ".. 273.0 10128104 2211.4101 Open GE aded V, g. Base C(; TJ Stab. Tan I Lii 5 € 3. ?4 S. 231.1 10!29104 .211.001 Open Chaded .1gg. Base Cry 1) Stab.. Tort :+7.7 `S 1 s.74 h 706.50 i1)- , 30114 '2i i5oi A.gg. Base, (T V[ Rea W' . Ds 'Eon '16.7 i 13.'70 $ 1,324.79 11/24f0l 2211.501 Agg, Hasa ( I. 4'1 VU D1w Ton 412 S 1330 $ 591.84 11/2 -VO4 2331563 Bil. Wear, F pe 31 VG IVw Toni 5&4 544,00 $ 4As I.6() 11121}/04 221 Lill rigg. Base, CL V1 VG 7) /w 'Fon 23.3 $ 13.70 S 3944.56 1210"VO4 "11 501 5rsg. Banc. CL VI VG DAV Coo € 4 $ 13.70 18358 TOTAL $7,3311.62 STATE AID PARTICIPATION f UNI1lARY Stabilization of County Road 17 participates I i in state aid funding. The cost of materials tar stabilizing the roadway is $ 2,360.25 and is eligible for state and funding as tollowst Cairn, location S_A.P._Dlf erentlationFraction Amount County Road D Roadway MW & VH IOVi S.A.P. 62- 619 -027 1 00 $�_3tr4. Subtotal $ 1360.25 State Aid participates 80 -25`fu to drivcw^ay materials for this Project. One driveway, located in Maplewood, iecluired 16.4 tons sal' Aggrctzate 11asc. ( lass VI (S 22- 1.68). 80 3 tons of aggregette t3ase ($ 1,100.11) were used on the five driveways that fall within the Vadnao; I leiehts portion of the project. The hreakdown of stare aid eligihlefunds Ior driveway materials is as follows: Countv Road D Roadavay Maplewood 1005'i S.A.P, 62 -619 -025 0.186 S 41.74 County Road D Roadway Vadnasis l lei ghts 10V'i S.A.P. 62-619 -025 0.616 S677.6 Subtotal $ 714.4(1 Work associated with the Venhurg/ Gulden driveway is not eh fsible for state aid Funding. The amount of Change Order No. 7 eligible for state aid participating funds is $ 3,079.71 C.O. #7, Page 2 of Agenda Item G9 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D Realignment (West) Improvements (TH 61 to Walter Street), City Project 02 -08: Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Order No. 1 (T.A. Schifsky Contract) DATE: July 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION The city council will consider approving the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract, Change Order No. 1, (T.A. Schifsky contract). Background Last September, the City Council approved the award of a construction contract for this project to Palda & Sons, Inc. The project included construction of utilities and roadway for the entire County Road D West improvement. Unfortunately, the County Road D West project did not begin as anticipated due to problems. Palda requested an increase in the bid in excess of $300,000 to have the delays extended into 2005. Negotiations with the contractor resulted in the elimination of the street construction portion of the contract. The eliminated roadway construction was then rebid this spring and a construction contract for the roadway was awarded to T. A. Schifsky & Sons in the amount of $668,162.93. The current Change Order No. 1, (T.A. Schifsky & Sons Contract), is for the addition of subsurface drains, (Draintile) to the project at the request of the engineer. During the spring rains, and the working of the soils, areas of less desirable soil were eliminated. It was decided that the street design would be better served with subsurface drains in these potential wet areas. Budget Impact Approval of this resolution will increase the construction contract by $14, 050.00. This project is funded through assessments and state aid bond funding with no tax levy funding is used on this project. No revision to the budget or financing plan is planned at this time. A reconciled analysis of the budget will be done shortly. If any revisions to the budget are required, they will be done at that time. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract, Change Order No. 1, (T.A. Schifsky Contract), for the County Road D West Improvements (TH 61 to Walter Street), City Project 02 -08. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Change Order No. 1 Agenda Item G9 RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROJECT 02 -08, CHANGE ORDER No. 1 (T.A. Schifsky Contract) WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 02 -08, County Road D Realignment (West) Improvements (TH 61 to Walter Street), and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 02 -08, Change Order No. 1, (T.A. Schifsky Contract), as an increase to said contract by an amount of $14,050.00, such that the new contract amount is now and hereby established as $682,212.93 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the City of Maplewood to signify and show that the existing contract is hereby modified through said Change Order No. 1 as a contract increase in the amount of $14,050.00. The revised contract amount is $$682,212.93. No revisions to the project budget are proposed at this time, as these changes fall within the original project scope and budget. Agenda Item G9 URS Copy Qty Copy Contmctor Copy CHANGE ORDER NO. t lf- A sp Copy DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY,"YUNNESOTA Project Namc County Road D Improvements S.A.P. 62-619-026 if 138-020-30 Project No. City Project 02-08 Contractor: T.A. Schifisky Sa Sons, Inc. In oueurdancc with the cm ins of this Contract. you ar tic rrbv aunuinictl and ins I ruct,d t,, perfirm the IN, A is aherod by nic fo!ksu'IrW PrO•I . I 51,111,i 'the City of 'IvLaplu" ood requested drain tile insist I 4a an at appropriate locations on this project, A contract bid Item for 4" perforated drain pipe was not eorttaancd in the bid proposal for these improvements. The work Includes udes core drilling exmfe' storm Articalres installed last venr under Palca's contract. MnDOT Eiatriaring approved the following pricing .submitted hyT.A. Schifsky & Sons. The value of this extra work is S 14,050.00. M n D(Y(-Nii. 2 2 1 � 01.604 , ContracL Stitt EIS ll)eso ip�a)n Quat 4' Perf. PE Pipe Drain 1 000 LF connect into 1)rainaitne Structure 10 EA Original Contract Net Change of Prior Change Order No. 0 Change this Change Order: Revised Contract (Pending): Approval Approval Aurced to by Contractor, By Date- 7100105 Urn price Extended Ciitst s ( J.w $ 9,90troo S415.00 S 4.150.00 -------------------------- Ford ti l 4,0 o Cost $ 668,16191 S 0J)() $ 14,050,00 S 682,212,93 Its 1 Title Approval Assistant State Aid Enaincer (For FUnding Approval Only) C.O 01. Pace 1 of'_ AGENDA REPORT Agenda Item 11 TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: TH 61 (Beam to 1 -694), County Road D Court, TH 61 East Frontage Road — City Projects 03 -07, 04 -06, 04 -26 — Resolution Receiving Bids and Awarding a Construction Contract DATE: July 19, 2005 IL III i:To]111,191i15CL The city has been working on various roadway improvements along Trunk Highway 61 in cooperation with MnDOT and the local businesses. Access points and driveways are a major concern for traffic movement. All efforts to consolidate the driveways are being made to improve safety and traffic efficiency. Three projects have been designed and are proceeding to the bidding phase. Bids are to be opened on Friday, July 22"' at 10:00 am. A report on those bids will be provided at the council meeting for consideration of award. Background Public hearings were held for three projects (TH 61, County Road D Court, and TH 61 East Frontage Road) along TH 61 on December 13, 2004. The projects were studied and reviewed as separate improvement projects, and separate public hearings were held. The overall goal for the area was to improve traffic flow through the corridor on Trunk Highway 61 (TH 61) between Beam Avenue and Interstate 694. Included in the overall package is the installation of the signal at the intersection with newly - aligned County Road D. The intersection improvements include the addition of turn lanes and merge lanes. A cooperative agreement with MnDOT is part of this project. This is for Project 03 -07, the TH 61 Improvements. The combinations of driveway points along the eastern side of TH 61 between new County Road D and 1 -694 are part of the long -term traffic solution for this area. MnDOT has provided the city with a cooperative agreement award of $540,000 that includes consideration of driveway consolidation. Kline Volvo is interested in providing a frontage road system that serves their property and connects to the Nissan site. Lexus has also agreed to participate in the frontage road that would consolidate three driveways into a single driveway. The frontage road would also provide an area for off - loading new vehicles that is not on the public road system. The frontage road would be a private roadway that would be maintained by the private businesses. The reason for this project being constructed by the city is that access points and median improvements need to be constructed by a public agency according to MnDOT requirements. The city will facilitate the improvements and assess the costs back to the private businesses. This is Project 04 -25, TH 61 East Frontage Road. Finally, MnDOT has requested that the City provide implementation of a merge lane from the westbound 1 -694 exit to southbound TH 61. This merge lane requires the closure of the existing County Road D access point and the creation of County Road D Court. MnDOT is providing additional cooperative agreement funds for the merge lane construction and money toward the construction of the cul -de -sac necessary at County Road D Court. This is Project 04 -06, County Road D Court. Agenda Item 11 Project Approvals The plans and specifications for each project are complete and have been reviewed by MnDOT to meet the cooperative agreement requirement. The work for each project is dependent upon completion and coordination with the other projects, so a final decision has been made to combine the projects for bidding. This should allow for the best prices and easiest coordination of project items. The final bid date was approved for July 22"' by MnDOT. Once the project is awarded, the work will begin immediately and should be completed by November of 2005, with restoration work in 2006. Budget Impact The approved project budgets for each project are: 03 -07, TH 61 Improvements: $1,295,835 04 -06, County Road D Court: $ 653,740 04 -25, TH 61 East Frontage Road: $ 421,000 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGETS $2,370,575 Financing Plan A summary of the financing plan for these 3 projects is as follows: MnDOT Coop Agrmt $1,043,775 Assessments $ 361,695 Vadnais Heights $ 62,042 MSAS funds $ 680,344 Tax Levy (previously authorized with 2 projects) $ 39,700 Ramsey County $ 64,099 St. Paul Regional Water Services $ 118,920 TOTAL FOR ALL PROJECTS $2,370,575 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council award a construction contract for the TH 61 Improvements, the County Road D Court Improvements, and the TH 61 East Frontage Road Improvements based upon the bids to be received on July 22"' Attachments: 1. Project Maps SEGME 3 PROJECT AREA E EE AVE n a � u 0 a .AG � t O G c o & LAID CEM 10 9 SONT LJ PAUL ED cwuew w A WHITE BEAR LAKE -� FILE No. SEGMENT 3 l AMAPLE0402 FIGURE < LOCATION MAP SEH o 23/ No., 423/04 MAPL EWOOD, MN .1 R ARE IRIE EVE t=-Pco N D. a^ ffi dal ER I'LL I o. I'LL re� re. ` s�A. s c � reA�� ; u © a h o um ..v� END s Y a u� . x AV'_ n a ® em u cwn�� ry NORTH SAINT P I N NER RED re§ U' u P L- AV EN All F a a y e AAA reo. rewrew RED ere 3 C EL i RED o Z L A. NE-1 z DR o — 11EIIEN AVE F u a. Ares. r u are. z e u FILE No. SEGMENT 3 l AMAPLE0402 FIGURE < LOCATION MAP SEH o 23/ No., 423/04 MAPL EWOOD, MN .1 R ARE IRIE EVE IT ER I'LL I o. I'LL w ` s�A. uox w AI D N re NORTH N u� o y ©u ® em u cwn�� '� o I N NER RED re§ P L- AV EN FILE No. SEGMENT 3 l AMAPLE0402 FIGURE < LOCATION MAP SEH o 23/ No., 423/04 MAPL EWOOD, MN P , . `I VADNAIS # I TS CT. W K a 3 3 4. ,❑ nom ke COUNT N Kohlmon Palk Ul N w a AVE. s w i 0 EXTANT AVE. / PROJECT LOCATION COUNTY f I 1 s LYI a [�S;T.JOHN `S a 3 1. SUMMIT CL 9LVC. z 2. COUNTRYVIEW CIE w _ J. DULUTH CT- 4. LYDIA AVE. 0 BEAM AVE, E © w a RACATZ 0 0 3 p z N \MarPafa RAMSEY z — CCUNIY ¢ COURT �'A YE�� F ' w KOHLM AN kco AVE. pQ C co � FY o -} �Ii / � K W �. z Lo EDGEHILL RD. w w u U DEMONT 111 AVE �.. H.'V [ P,k BROOKS AVE BROOKS F. p D I AVE. EL EV eN Ty SEX TANT r AVF - -- 2. 0 ROAD 1 NOR AVE. GERVAIS AVE v G GRA m VIKING SHERREN AVE. \ = COP COPC Z LARK g CT 5 FILE NO. PHONE: (651) 490 -2000 AMAPLE0405.00 �- 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR. DATE: ST PAUL,. MN 55114 SEH 6,4,04 Knuckle Head Lake .. AVE COPE AVE. r - u LARK AVF ¢ N.. m ¢ LOCATION MAP COUNTY ROAD D COURT pq.gr TH 61 AT TH 694 N0. 1 MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA r 61 r nan ke COUNTY Park Park Cr) N W aVE. I L,J m C, 'k EXTANT AVE. t PROJECT LOCATION COUNTY 0 r ST. JOHNS BLVD. z 5 JB AVE. z Y � � o m m ❑N Q "'VTz 3 w Markham z N Pond COU Ty e � i couN � <1 r COURT (T r N KOHLMAN AVE. `` a ' ° w KOHLMAN a r+oieiwood w o AVE. r- U g Pori, C7 z ROAD �' C w m ��+ + m� EHOp �7 E i �/ ❑ Q w O OT. w z EDGEHILL RD. v NOR g AVE. o 4 DEMONT w AVE Ha, st m P-A, BROOKS AVE. ff_BR KS EL F SEX TANT AVElciskns z pJ`✓ GERVAIIS N \ ~ COP r w LARK a CL �_ PHONE. (651) 490 -2000 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR. SEH ST. PAUL, MN 55110 AVE, r HIGH RIDGE CT. "' _ "" " a � spnse� GRA E. m Read, DR. / / / - -' \ � OR Pvk Kn tt ucke Head Lake COPE � 1v� AVE_ LA a AV AVE w W LOCATION MAP W N AMAPLE0402.01 TH. 61 EAST FRONTAGE ROAD TH 61 AT TH 694 W DATE: W F MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Q �i G N GQ 2. SUMMIT CT. s 2. COUNTRYVIEW CIR. y F� 3. DULUTH CT. 3 J G o 4. LYDIA AVE. z BEAM r nan ke COUNTY Park Park Cr) N W aVE. I L,J m C, 'k EXTANT AVE. t PROJECT LOCATION COUNTY 0 r ST. JOHNS BLVD. z 5 JB AVE. z Y � � o m m ❑N Q "'VTz 3 w Markham z N Pond COU Ty e � i couN � <1 r COURT (T r N KOHLMAN AVE. `` a ' ° w KOHLMAN a r+oieiwood w o AVE. r- U g Pori, C7 z ROAD �' C w m ��+ + m� EHOp �7 E i �/ ❑ Q w O OT. w z EDGEHILL RD. v NOR g AVE. o 4 DEMONT w AVE Ha, st m P-A, BROOKS AVE. ff_BR KS EL F SEX TANT AVElciskns z pJ`✓ GERVAIIS N \ ~ COP r w LARK a CL �_ PHONE. (651) 490 -2000 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR. SEH ST. PAUL, MN 55110 AVE, r I G "' _ "" " a � �' GRA E. m VIKING DR. / / / - -' \ OR SHERREN AVE Kn tt ucke Head Lake COPE � 1v� AVE_ LA a AV AVE w FILE No. LOCATION MAP AMAPLE0402.01 TH. 61 EAST FRONTAGE ROAD TH 61 AT TH 694 EXHIBIT NO 1 DATE: 11/12/04 MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Agenda Item 12 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Bryan Nagel, Street Superintendent SUBJECT: 2005 Bituminous Seal Coat, City Project 05 -21 — Award of Construction Contract DATE: July 18, 2005 INTRODUCTION The 2005 Public Works Street Maintenance budget includes funds for the annual seal coating program. An award of a construction contract is recommended. Background A budget of $100,000 has been requested annually for the seal coat project. Three bids were received on July 7, 2005, for the 2005 Seal Coat Project. Pearson Brothers submitted the low bid of $112,447.50. The other two bids were Allied Blacktop Co. at $118,717.50 and Bituminous Roadways at $124,971. Pearson Brothers, the low bid, is $12,447.00 over the $100,000 in the budget for the seal coat project. The 2004 seal coat project covered 164,455 square yards at a cost of $91,400. The proposed 2005 project covers 164,968 square yards, an increase of 513 square yards, and a cost increase of approximately $20,047.50. The inflation is directly related to the rising cost of oil. Last year CRS /2 Emulsified Asphalt cost $1.00 per gallon compared to $1.25 this year. The 2005 project estimate is 37,950 gallons. Last year Class A 1/8" trap rock cost $35.00 per ton compared to $39.40 this year. The 2005 project estimate is 1,650 ton. BUDGETIMPACT It is recommended that additional funds be transferred to the seal coat budget so that we can maintain our current program. An additional $12,500 can be transferred from the fees for service section of the Street Maintenance Budget. This line item is an allocation for consultants and services needed for improvement projects. While this adjustment may cause a slight reduction in future investigation of problems, there does not appear to be a major problem with this change. The revision is recommended. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council award the construction contract for the 2005 Bituminous Seal Coat Project, City Project 05 -21, to Pearson Brothers, based on the low bid of $112,447.50. It is also recommended that the city council authorize the Finance Director to transfer $12,500 within the Street Maintenance Budget from Fees for Service into the Capital Outlay Program for Seal Coating. Attachments — 1. Site plans 2. Bid Tabulation Lake % I Vri I1�1. I Iuvi i I. 10. WELW W E N. 11. S. WZELW000 WAY f C w KOI 9((7 RAMS NUR9f FAIF ST. PAUL P ��. RUNG ST. ST. T. z z m ST. y m MAYHILL RD. CENTURY LN . MARY ST. D STERLING EVARI ST. ED ITH ST. r GLE NDON S� Z FERNI DALE a < L Z D Cn m < AVE. t �' 00 x c' SI e 44 m V o ST.m G7 D m < z Ev q ST. W n N � O DEERFIELD Ui -i(A N D nooa)D�> oom�z F9 cW `� m rrI F ODU R W �r � S <EN00 zzD�m D S z QzD m � DENNIS ST. ? ° FARRELL ST. m "CENTURY 0 OAKDALE as � m o 0 a m MAYHILL RD. CENTURY LN . MARY ST. D STERLING EVARI ST. ED ITH ST. r GLE NDON S� Z FERNI DALE a < L Z D Cn m < AVE. t �' 00 x c' SI e 44 m V o ST.m G7 D m < z Ev q ST. W n N � O DEERFIELD Ui -i(A N D nooa)D�> oom�z F9 cW `� m rrI F ODU R W �r � S <EN00 zzD�m D S z QzD m � DENNIS ST. ? ° FARRELL ST. m "CENTURY 0 OAKDALE 0 c� o McKN.T IHI o f� DORLAND RD. n D r 0 O 0 � �7 Z �D m o DORLAND SCHA 0 � c RD. S o y �F � of MA I LNUNG o� LAKEWOOD,z,, CREST CRESTVIEW N oR. T T Q 4 MAR NIE M ST p� STERLING ST. N 0 0 CD K F- _ < � m co cf) .70 LAKEWOOD DR. o'L f RI CRESTVIEW DR. C 0 � ! `' l MARNIE ST. ZE CIR. ��� n m F- ( N EERNDALE ST. 0 O' DAY ST. m McCL ECAND ST. D cli O� STERLING 0 0 Q (� n D J < O - M 0 m m � of MA I LNUNG o� LAKEWOOD,z,, CREST CRESTVIEW N oR. T T Q 4 MAR NIE M ST p� STERLING ST. N 0 0 CD K F- _ < � m co cf) .70 LAKEWOOD DR. o'L f RI CRESTVIEW DR. C 0 � ! `' l MARNIE ST. ZE CIR. ��� n m F- ( N EERNDALE ST. 0 O' DAY ST. m McCL ECAND ST. D cli O� STERLING 0 0 Q Bituminous Seal Coating City Project 05 -21 Bid Date: 7- Jul -05 Allied Blacktop Pearson Bros., Inc. 113itum inous Roadways Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total 2356.505 CRS /2 emulsified asphalt Gal 37,950 1.25 47,437.50 1.25 47,437.50 1.38 52,371.00 2356.507 Class A, 1/8" trap rock chips T 1,650 43.20 71,280.00 39.40 65,010.00 44.00 72,600.00 Total 118,717.50 112,447.50 124,971.00 Agenda Item A AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: Interstate 94 Improvements (McKnight to Century), City File 03 -12 — Resolution Authorizing Noise Berm Improvements DATE: July 19, 2005 IL Ill I :IQ 111L911IQL1I On July 12, 2004, the City granted the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation municipal consent for the 1 -94 Improvement Project. The project involves the addition of a third lane to the freeway in each direction, widening of the bridges over McKnight Road and TH 120, and eliminating the scissors ramp in the northwest quadrant of 1 -94 and McKnight Road (within St. Paul). The City Council authorized an engineering consultant to conduct additional noise monitoring and development options for noise berms within the project area. A plan has been developed to provide some noise mitigation in the area that has MnDOT approval for construction. Authorization to add this project to the Capital Improvement Plan is recommended. Background At the July 12, 2004, Municipal Consent Public Hearing, the major issue of discussion was noise within the Crestview Drive area. It was suggested that additional monitoring of the noise within the area was needed. A Work Group was established to help guide the additional monitoring and to attempt to develop solutions. The Work Group met three times between August and December 2004 to review monitoring data and reach a consensus on the alternatives. The monitoring data is included with this report as Attachment #1. In general, the monitoring confirmed the data used by MnDOT within the EAW study. It also confirmed that various options did not provide major (5+ db) reductions to most homes within the study area. The most benefit was found for houses nearest mitigation efforts. MnDOT, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suggest that most humans have difficulty distinguishing noise differences of 3 db or less. As noted in the alternatives, the options provide 3 db or less attenuation for all test receivers, other than one home nearest the berm. This is consistent with the MnDOT study. The final Work Group meeting was held on December 16, 2004. The Work Group reviewed and debated the noise monitoring information. General consensus was to proceed with Option 3 as noted on Attachment #2: Expand boundary of MnDOT berm construction to connect to existing Noise Wall near Sterling Street. Church may be opposed (City Council decision). This could be completed at no cost as part of street reconstruction program in 2008. It is noted that the Church opposition issue was discussed and a City Attorney opinion on the Church rights is included as an attachment. The general consensus was to find an option to build a berm as high as possible that had little, if any, cost to the residents or the City. City staff continued to work with MnDOT and our consultant, URS, on various options. Attachment #3 indicates the options for berm construction from URS. The berms range in cost from $800,000 to $144,000. It should be noted that within the $605,000 and $144,000 estimate that the cost of common borrow and select granular borrow would likely Agenda Item J1 come significantly less (possibly at $0) if included within the City's street reconstruction program. The final attachment ( #4) is copies of recent resident correspondence and staff notices. Issues and Options The proposed improvement is to add approximately 9 additional feet to the 6 -foot high MnDOT berm and then extend the berm easterly to connect to the existing noise wall. This is the $144,000 option listed in the URS Memo (Attachment #3). There appears to be a general consensus on this plan as a reasonable approach. The issues and potential disagreement are in the following details of construction: Timing: It is proposed by City staff that this work be part of the local street reconstruction program scheduled to begin in 2008. The coordination with this project makes the construction simply a dirt balance project. It is likely that the cost of the work can be incorporated into the street project, with subsequent savings on the street reconstruction, as contractors normally have excess material that must be disposed of. In this case, we are providing a location for the disposal. The cost of engineering the berm would be included in the grading plans for the project. The only added cost of the construction would be the $16,000 for the special erosion control blanket. Our street reconstruction program includes restoration and landscaping which would be included without cost to the berm project. A second option would be to open the area for disposal of current excess materials from on- going projects. It is likely that the Gladstone Redevelopment Project will have significant excess materials. This could likely get the berm constructed in 2006 -2007, although that is contingent upon decisions on the redevelopment issues for Gladstone. Again, supplying a disposal location may help reduce the costs, but in this scenario, it is likely that berm engineering and some hauling costs will likely make this option expense at $80,000. Landscaping would be extra or wait for the street reconstruction project. b. A third option is obviously to initiate an improvement project for the $144,000 construction project. With engineering and administrative costs, this option is likely to cost the City about $185,000. Landscaping would likely add an additional $25,000 to this cost, unless delayed to 2008 -2009. 2. Extension and height of the berm in front of the Church: The church has indicated concern with blocking views of their facility with the berm or wall construction. Patrick Kelly has indicated that the church does not have property rights for views; however, they are a property owner and have expressed this concern. They particularly are concerned that the berm does not appear to provide significant noise reduction and thus does not seem necessary to them. City staff acknowledges the Church's concerns. The staff believes that a consistent height of berm is most appropriate because it provides both a visual barrier and, although slight, helps in reducing neighborhood noise. Final design of the berm will work out sight details for the Church Budget Impact The $16,000 cost would be added to the debt service levy portion of the street reconstruction program. The Brookview Area Streets project is estimated at $2,360,000. The $16,000 is less than 1 % of the total project and may result in cost savings to other areas of the project. No adjustments are necessary if this option is selected. If other options are considered, it is likely that tax levy dollars will be required. This would require a levy increase or cuts in other programs. Agenda Item J1 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution to construct a noise berm as part of the street reconstruction program for the Brookview Area Streets beginning in 2008 and extend the height of the berm as high as possible (approximately 9 additional feet) the entire length from the western end of the existing MnDOT berm near Crestview Drive to the existing noise wall at Sterling Street. Attachments: Resolution #1: URS Noise Monitoring Information #2: Work Group Options #3: Berm Options #4: Resident Correspondence Agenda Item J1 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING NOISE BERM IMPROVEMENTS INTERSTATE 94 IMPROVEMENTS McKNIGHT ROAD TO TRUNK HIGHWAY 120 City Project 03 -12 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation requested and the City of Maplewood granted approval for Municipal Consent for the improvement of Interstate 94 between McKnight Road and Trunk Highway 120 within the corporate boundaries of the City of Maplewood, and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood did conduct a Public Hearing on July 12, 2004 for the purpose of considering said request by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and WHEREAS, said Public Hearing was preceded by mailed notice to all properties with an interest in said improvement, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that additional noise mitigation efforts can be accomplished for approximately an additional $16,000 if completed as part of the planned Brookview Area Streets Project planned to begin in 2008, and WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council has heard all testimony from individuals and residents on this proposed improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, that: The City Engineer is hereby authorized to proceed with a noise mitigation project as part of the Brookview Area Streets project to begin in 2008. 2. The Berm shall be constructed as recommended by the City Engineer to extend at full height from Crestview Drive to the existing wall at Sterling Street. 3. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to add this improvement consideration to the next available update of the Capital Improvements Plan. Adopted this 25 ` day of July 2005. MEMORANDUM Phreshcr Square '60 Third Street Sot¢h Yfhmcapo!is. ,1t \` �j!iJ Phone: (6I _)370 -0700 Par (612) 370 -1 , 7k. To: Mr. Charles Ahl Copy: Karl Keel File: From: John Crawford Date: October 1, 2004 Subject: Noise Monitoring Summary for September 1, 2004 Following our meeting held August 27 2004, noise monitoring was conducted at two locations for 24 hours. The monitoring began at 3:30 on September 1, and ended at 3:30 on September 2, 2004. One monitor malfunctioned, and valid data was not collected. the results showed unusually high noise levels between approx mately 1:30 p.m. and 14:00 p.m. When the monitor was post-calibrated, the meter was tar out of calibration, so the numbers do not have any meaning for this study. lbe other monitor was at 234 Crestview hive. The data appears reasonable, and monitor calibration was within 1 decibel. The following chart shows the noise levels over dre course of 24 hours. Displaying the data for each minute does not show a clear variation over time. "Iherefore, tine data shown i5 a moving 1 o- minute averaee. Tine highest noise levels during the "daytime" hour (7:00 a.m, to 10:04 p.m.) is between approximately 8:04 p.m. and 8:34 p.m. I helughest noise levels during the "nighttime" hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.} is between approximately 10:15 p.m. and 10:45 p.m. If you or any workgroup members have any questions about the information, please feel flee to contact me at 612.373 -6871. 230 Crestview Drive 24 Hour Monitoring Data %« --IIM x } . � ��� �' � � � � ■ ? 2° Ito ?� . . a . :. � » . �� \� --IIM rt1 a d w J d v 2466 Brookview 24 Hour Monitoring Data 70 65 1 all 50 45 8:30 PM 12:30 AM 4:30 AM 8:30 AM 12:30 PM Time of Day — L10 Standard —L50 Standard X10 per. Mov. Avg. (L(10.0)) —10 per. Mov. Avg. (L(50.0)) M Noise Levels: Maplewood Noise Monitoring Results RECEIVER Location 7:30- 8:30 p.m. L10 L50 7:30 -8:30 p.m., with North wind 1-10 L50 24 -Hours 1-10 L50 Test1 1 199 Cr _ 54 Test2 _561 131 Crestview, Back Y _ 53'` 50 Testa _ 131 Cre stvie w, F ront Yard 56 53' — 55 50 f Test4 — - 551I — 53 188 Crestview — 57 — 541 TestS tview 64 230 C 62 _ _ _ _ — 64 60 Test6 -- 2466 Broo — _ 54 51 — - - 55 50 Test? 2481 Bro 53 51 - Test8 { NW Corner of Brookview i Stei 53i 51 — _ Test9 . Park 60' 56 - Notes; The goal of this monitoring was to determine the impact of a wind from the north. A north wind was predicted, and monitoring was conducted. However, the wind shifted to a west wind of 7 mph. TAForecastWaplewood Noise\[ NoiseSummary _12- 16- 04.x1s]Monitoring Results Maplewood Noise Modeling Results Incremental Cha nges compared to Alternative 1 - I Various mitigation options of berms and a noise wall All modeled Comparisons to Alt 1 Alt1 Build with MnDOT's berm RECEIVER RECEIVER Location_ AIt1_ AIt2 _ _AIt3 Alt4 AIt5 AIt6 Test1 199 Crestview L10 L10 61' - 61 L 10 L1 L10 1_10 Test2 131 Crestview, Back Yard _ 55 55 61 54 61 54 611 59 Test3 - 131 Crestview restview, Front Yard ' 1 56 55 55 Tests 54 54 Test4 (188 Crestview _ - _ - 60 59_ . 59A - - 55 59 55 58 55 Test5 _ 1230 Cre stview_ 67 62 ; 61 60, 60 58 Test6 12466 Brookview - - 60 — 59' S8 58 57 60 Test7 2481 Brookv _ 6 : 60 - 59 5 9 59; 57 59 __ Test8 h'W Corner of Brookview! Sterllrn -- _ 59 _ 59 58 58. Test9 - - Park - - 63i 63; 63 63! 58 63, 58 62 Incremental Cha nges compared to Alternative 1 - I i - - - - _ All modeled Comparisons to Alt 1 Alt1 Build with MnDOT's berm RECEIVER - Location ( - - -- - 2 -1 - 3 -1 _ 4 -1 5 -1 Alto 6.1 Test 1 99 Cr 0: 0 0 fl Test2 131 Crestview, Back Yard 0 2 - Test3 _- - 131 Cre Front Yard - 1 1 1 1 1 I - 1 Test4 198 Crestview _ 1 1 Tests 230 Crestview - - 5 2 Test6 2466 Brookvi ew - - - - 1 6 7 2 2 -7 3� - 2 Test? - - ( 2481 Brookview - -2 3 Test8 NW Corner of Brook /Sterling 0' -2 1 2 2 Test9 Park 0 1 1 1 0 0 0, 1 Note: All modeled scenarios are for Year 2028 Alt1 Build with MnDOT's berm Alt2 Build with MnDOT's berm and City's potential short berm (does not extend eastward beyond church) Alt3 Build with MnDOT's berm and City's potential 10 -foot high berm Alto Build with MnDOT's berm and City's potential 20 -foot high wall Alt5 Build with MnDOT's berm and a combination of City's potential berm -wall (Alts 3 and 4 above combined) Alt6 Build with MnDOT's berm, combination of City's potential berm -wall and park berm (Alt 5 + Park berm) T:\ForecastWaplewood Noise\[ NoiseSummary_ 12- 16- 04.x1s]Mod el Res ults_L10_Alts Maplewood Noise Modeling Analysis of various berm height options Note: All modeled scenarios are for Year 2028 AM Build with MnDOT's berm 5' Berm Build with MnDOT's berm and City's potential berm at 5ft height 10' Berm Build with MnDOT's berm and City's potential berm at 10ft height 15' Berm Build with MnDOT's berm and City's potential berm at 15ft height Berm scenario location connects Mn /DOT'S proposed berm and the existing noise wall T:Torecast\Maplewood Noise\[ NoiseSummary _12- 16- 04.X1sjModeIResuJtS_L10 —Alts (2) _ Alt 5 Berm 10' Berm 15' Berm Comparison to Alt 1 RECEIVER 'Location 1-10 L10 — 1-10 — 1-10 5 — Berm -1 110 Berm -1 15' Berm - 1 Test1 199 Crestview 61 61 61 61 0 0 Test2 1 131 Crestview, Back Yard 55 55, 54 54 -1 -1 Testa 131 Crestview, Front Yard 56 — 55 55 55 1 1 1 Test4 188 Cre _ 6 0 59 — 59 1 1 - 1 Tests 12 Crestview — 67 63 _59 61� 60 -4 6 7 Test6 2466 Brookview - — — 60 58 58 57 2 2' 3 Test? 2481 Bro okview_ 61 _ 60 59 59_ -1 -2 -2 Test8 - NW Corner of Brookview 1 Sterling _ 59 58 58 58 1 Test9 - -- - IPark 63, 63 — 631 63 - Oj -1' p 1 0 Note: All modeled scenarios are for Year 2028 AM Build with MnDOT's berm 5' Berm Build with MnDOT's berm and City's potential berm at 5ft height 10' Berm Build with MnDOT's berm and City's potential berm at 10ft height 15' Berm Build with MnDOT's berm and City's potential berm at 15ft height Berm scenario location connects Mn /DOT'S proposed berm and the existing noise wall T:Torecast\Maplewood Noise\[ NoiseSummary _12- 16- 04.X1sjModeIResuJtS_L10 —Alts (2) I -941 McKnight Road to T11120 / Fnvironmental Assessment Worksheet 7'he table below provides a rough comparison of the noise levels of sot-Ile unnnron noise sources. Sound Pressure Noise Source Level (MA) — 140 i —_ 1 30 _ Jet Airc ( at 100 met _ J Rock a R oll Concert -- 11 P Pne Cher 100 — J %Planer 90 C Chainsaw — — 0 — — 70 B Business Office 60 C Convers Speech 5 0 L Library 4 0 B Bedzoom z0 — —. — — — Will sper_ - Sonree: A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota Pollution Control Agency W OR K G RO UP OPTIO December 11 1. Allow MnDOT to proceed with current proposal for berm construction. This provides some noise mitigation and is no cost. Completed in 2005. 2. Expand boundary of MnDOT berm construction toward church boundary. Provide extra 1111 material as available. Minimal to no cost issues depending on material available and will be completed in 2005. 3. Expand boundary of MuDOT berm construction to connect to existing Noise Wall near Sterling Street. Church may be opposed (City Council decision). This could be completed at no cost as part of street reconstruction program in 2008. 4. Construct berm as listed in Options 2 or 3; add a sound wall to be provided by MnDOT in 2007 or 2008. Cost is $125,000 in current cost. Citv not likely to contribute, so cost would be paid by residents. 5. Other options ? ?? ��iac Amt,Dr * Q Kelly & Fawcett, P.A. A T I' O R N E Y S AT L A W 23:;0 PIPER JAFFRA:Y PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, hiN 55101. P%] 'RICK. J. Ki: -.LLY - SONG LO FAWCETT CHAD U. LEMM )NS ROBERT' L FOWLER SAR,UH SONSALLA DAVID L PALM U\DA K. THOMPSON DANIELS LE WST,ZH O(CONNIE)WANG OPCaunsel: GAL L.AGHrR LAW FaM (6 224.d_Si PaosfmPla (651) 2 19 Maplewood Office (1,5 1) 203 0390, 2520 W M. HB ar Ave. Suite C, Map1mood.. MN 5 f 109 E- ,Mail: udmin(?kellyandfaweett.wrn November 30, 2004 Mr. Chuck Ahl, Director of Public Works City of Maplewood 1903 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL RE: Noise Wall Issues - Christ Methodist Church Dear Mr. Ahl: Pursuant to your request, this letter is an opinion on whether Christ Methodist Church would have compensabee rights to visibility and/or light, air and view if a sound wall were constructed. bight, Air and View The Church would not be able to seek compensation for loss of light air or view due to the sound wail because there will be no taking of any of its land and the sound wall/highway is a proper street use. In Minnesota, a property owner abutting a public street possesses implied easements over the public street for light, air and view. However, a property owner is not entitled to compensation for damage to view unless there is at least a partial taking of his or her property (land actually taken and not merely from the impact of a construction project as a whole). As for light and air, Minnesota courts have only compensated property owners when there is interference from improper street uses. If the alteration of an abutting roadway interferes with the view is a proper street use, no taking has occurred. 'Therefore, so long as there is no land actually being taken From the Church for the project and the street use is proper, the Church would not be entitled to compensation for these losses. Visibility The Church would also not be able to seek compensation for loss of visibility due to the sound wall because there is no right to be seen from a highway in Minnesota. Minnesota courts have never field that a property owner has a right to be seen liom an abutting public street. In the case Grossman Investments v State of Minnesota the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that there was no right to be seen from an abutting highway and declined to create such a right. Grossman Investments v. State of Minnesota 5'1 N. W.2d 4 52 (Mini. Ct. App- 1997). Please contact me or Patrick Kelly if you have any other questions concerning this information. Thank you. tl►lai►[ ]ROTANBill Tluesher Square 700 Third Street South Mumeapolis. M 5501 Phone. 16 1211 37() Fax: (6t2) 370 1378 To: Chris Cavett, P.E. Copy: Karl Keel, P.E. File: From: Jennifer C. Desrude, E.I.T Date: April 19, 2005 Subject: Hudson Place Berm Background Information The residents along Hudson Place and Crestview Drive in Maplewood, Minnesota are concerned with the noise corvine from Interstate 94, which runs parallel to Hudson Place. MnDOT has designed a pond for I -94 drainage and a bean to address I -94 noise in the area between the interstate and Hudson Place. The berm that MnDOT designed had a maximum slope of 1(V):3(H) and the top elevation was 986. which is only about 6 feet higher than the street elevation. The City of Maplewood has asked URS to come up with a different grading scenario that will raise the height of the berrn, while maintaining the capacity and location of the MnDOT- designed pond. To increase the height of the berm in the space provided the berrn slopes will need to be steeper than 1(V):3(H). The criteria used for determining a product that will work for this case includes: • The berm should be as steep as possible to get maximum height. • The fill material will be extra fill from other city projects; this material may not be of the highest quality. • The berm will not to be structural in nature. It will not need to hold any weight, other than the weight of itself. • The berm should be able to grow vegetation. Possible Solutions Geowrapped Slopes One specific system which uses g eowrap is the "Sierra System" manufactured by Tensar Earth Technologies. This product is a combination of two types of aeogrids and a facing material, such as turf reinforcement mats (TRM), erosion control grid revcgetation rnats (ECRM), sod, or hydroseeding. Using a system like the Sierra System, allows up to a 70`' slope on the berm and promotes vegetation growth on the berrn. If a 1(V):1(H) slope is used, the maximum height of the berm, at it's tallest would be 24 -feet. See Figure t. Una m RighzroI -Way I /JT Geognds Mechanwatiy SMIRZOd Earth Sbpe f ;;:ue 1: Sier rQ Sys�em_ R ��, Terraced 1ISE IV all Another option would be to use a combination of I(V):2(H) slopes and short Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls. Using the tallest possible berm, from a 1(V):l(H) slope, the MSE ,u nnrFinn , "f theme K-rnr Ivnialrt Ir;at;e dal .. N .,.....,... on approximate height of l0 -feet. The backfill of the MSE wall and the foundation of the wall would require select materials, while the 'interior of the berm could use a variety of till materials. Vegetation would easily -row on the I(V):2(H) slope and additional height would be achieved with the vertical :VISE walls. Figures 2a and 2b, show a similar concept. To avoid using a Mechanically Stabilized Earth Slope, the I (V):1(H) slope shown in the figures would need to be changed to a 1(V):2(H) slope. -t figure 2a Terraced .HSE '.,. .Prop Line. or Right -of -Way I M Tenser 9 Pi-are 2b' Tenaced USE Wall (. Earth - Wall': 1(t).' 1 11 Another possibility is to design the berm using 1(V): 1- 112(H) slopes. After speaking with Brian Linnan, a URS Geotechnicil Engineer in the Overland Park office, it is possible to construct such a berm meeting all the design criteria stated above. The maximum height of this berm will be 20- feet- It is imperative, however, that the berm be carefully constructed including very good compaction with documentation of the compaction. The interior fill used to construct the berm could be a variety of materials. However, the face and base of the berm would need to be constructed with an engineer- specified type of silty sand. In addition, the foundation of the berm would need to be tested prior to construction to determine if it could hold such a berm. The vegetation that would be planted would not be able to be maintained on a 1(V):1- 112(H) slope, so it would need to be maintenance free, as well as deep - rooted. A geotextile fabric or erosion control mat would need to be on the face of the slopes until vegetation was established. Cost Geowrapped Slopes After speaking with a Sales Engineer at Contech, the cost of' the entire system, including materials, till for the berm, and tabor averages out to be approximately S20 per square foot of the projected face of the slope. The Sales Engineer at Contech recommended estimating the cost of the system by using only one face of the berm instead of both faces of the berm. The side of the berm facing 1-94 is longer, therefore, to be conservative this face of the berm was used for this cost estimate. For this berm, the projected face of the slope facing I -94 is about 40,000 square feet. Therefore, the cost of a system like the Sierra System would be about $800,040. Terraced &I.SE Walt Brian Lmnan estimated that VISE Walls would cost between S30 per square foot installed. This �A t+oc)rmi r 3 unit price iuuhuJcoibtcooto[theux]uo(fiUnuutecix|uec4edtocoo^bocttbcwaD. Ikeb/Dowiu& table shows an estrinated cost for constructin.- this option: I(V). 1-112(H) The cost of constructing ol00:l'1/28hbeim would include the cost of the fill. sonic of which vvOoldueed0uhusc}/c|68u)uteriad8udexosinounuun}uuatforLbtSurfauc.Asounoin.-thu1ouu third of the berin would need to be select material. the followin.- table shows the cost for a Item Un it Unit Price Est. Cost Cy S5.00 12,000 S60000 Select Granular Borrow Erosion Control Blanket CY $1 Sy 6 8,000 L$7 -LOO 0 S 1 6MO Total: $144,000 Total: $605j)OO I(V). 1-112(H) The cost of constructing ol00:l'1/28hbeim would include the cost of the fill. sonic of which vvOoldueed0uhusc}/c|68u)uteriad8udexosinounuun}uuatforLbtSurfauc.Asounoin.-thu1ouu third of the berin would need to be select material. the followin.- table shows the cost for a Item V'rzit C'nit Price Est. Qtv I Cost I Common Cy S5.00 12,000 S60000 Select Granular Borrow Erosion Control Blanket CY $1 Sy 6 8,000 L$7 -LOO 0 S 1 6MO Total: $144,000 q 3 Chuck Ahl From: John—Crovvhord@URSCoqp.oum Sent: Monday, April 11.2AO58:47Am To: Chuck AN Cc Kad_Koe|@URSCnrp.rom Subject: RE: |'94Noise;VorkS'oup Chuck, I don't feel that new monitoring wouid provide much useful information, considering z> the little difference that we would find compared no the 7 mph west wind that occurred when we monitored, 2) the differences than occur day to day, 3} and that different moOtoriug data wouldn't change any mitigation options. "vuu aobo Cra*fnrd. P.E. Project Transportation Engineer Vm3 Corporation 700 Third Street aoucb Suite 000 Minneapolis, B0 Ss«`s Phone: 612-373-6871 Fax: 612 -373-6526 E John 0D `� /'�/'v\�\`U|\T�L/1 ^f�^~'/ March 20, 2005 To: Charles Ahl, P.E. — Maplewood Director of Public Works /City Engineer From: 194 'Noise Workgroup Participants & Concerned Neighbors This refers to the "Noise Workgroup" that was set up as a result of the I94 Improvement hearing at the July 12, 2004, council meeting # 04 -14. We do appreciate your holding the three Noise Workgroup meetings but are disappointed in the results at this point. We understood there was to be a 4' meeting in February but it is yet to be scheduled. Our reasons for disappointment are as follows: 1. The berm will only be 6' above the Hudson Place frontage road, instead of the 12' above the Hudson Place frontage road indicated at the hearing (as well as during the first two Noise Workgroup meetings), and the 6' height is only directly in front of Crestview Drive instead of all the way from the frontage road loop access for I94 east to the existing wood noise wall by Sterling Street. We were informed at the December meeting that the berm will be 12' above the 194 roadway, but again, only in front of Crestview Drive. 1 Although the installation of a used wood noise wall was indicated as a possibility as early as your recommendation in Option 2 to the City Council hearing, there was no mention of the $125,000 installation cost to be paid by the residents until the December 16, 2004 Workgroup meeting. Your Option 3 to the hearing stated that MNDOT had indicated they would contribute $32,500 toward a proposed wall. Has MNDOT withdrawn their offer? 3. You presented a set of options to the Workgroup at the December 16, 2004 meeting. The consensus of those present was that Option 3 was the best of those ofTered, which was: "3. Expand boundary of MNDOT berm construction to connect to existing Noise Wall near Sterling Street. Church may be opposed (City Council decision). This could be completed at no cost as part of street reconstruction program in 2008." We are very concerned that the Church has a right to prevent completing the full height berm, only because they want a line of sight from cars to their church front door. They have not given any reasonable reason for their position. Secondly, we had understood from the hearing, up to the December 16 Workgroup meeting, that Maplewood had a lot of fill and was looking for a place to put it. If there is no fill presently available, we feel there needs to be some assurance given that there will be sufficient dirt available from the 2008 Brook-view/Frontage Road reconstruction to complete the berm. 4. While we understood you agreed in the Workgroup meetings that a north (also Northwest or northeast) wind would increase the noise level for the residents on the south side, the consultant was not able to find a date and time to measure the impact. We feel this is a major omission from the objective of the Workgroup. Page 1 of 3 � #14 In summary, we are asking for your help in the following areas: 1. Assure a full berm height of 12' above the I94 roadway all the way from the frontage road loop for I94 east to the existing wood noise wall near Sterling will be constructed now, or give assurance it will be done with the 2008 Brookview /frontage road reconstruction. If there is going to be a decision by the council on the Church's request to limit the berm height to less than 12' above the I94 roadway, as tax paying citizens of Maplewood, we request that we have input to this decision. 2. We also request you pursue the $32,500 that MNDOT offered towards a wood wall, which would bring the cost of the used wall down to about $92,000, and keep this as an option depending on how effective the berm is in controlling noise. Alternatively, these funds could be used for landscaping if the wall is not available or not needed. 3. We ask that you include this report with your final presentation to the City Council. S` 'c3 f G i 9' (''N L " �L .) v r C. Mavor and City Council Page 2 of Page 3 of 3 P t , m `4 March 20, 2005, Letter to: Charles -AN, P.E. — Maplewood Director of Public Works TO: I -94 Noise Workgroup Participants and Concerned Property Owners FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director, City Engineer CC: Mayor and City Council Senator Chuck Wiger Commissioner Victoria Reinhardt Marc Goess, MnDOT Representative City Manager Richard Fursman DA'L'E: April 7, 2005 SLBJECT: Update on Noise Attenuation Process - City File No. 03 -12 We are in receipt of the petition signed by many residents of the area. This memorandum is intended to help clarify the City position, as established by the City Council in the July 2004 Hearing on this matter. Additionally, we believe that the petition provides incorrect and conflicting information from the information presented at the Noise Workgroup Meetings. Please consider the following as we develop solutions for your neighborhood concerns and positions: The height of the Berm (your petition indicates a 6 -foot height; which is the original height of MnDOT's proposed berm at the high point of the roadway at Hudson Place — Crestview Drive). Consider the following: a. Elevation at highest point Hudson PI: 980 feet above sea level b. Elevation of Church: 990 feet above sea level c. Elevation at low point on Hudson PI: 977 feet above sea level d. Elevation - most homes on Crestview: 970 feet above sea level (or less) e. Elevation — high point of noise (I -94): 976 feet above sea level i. This is the critical height for noise attenuation f. Proposed berm on MnDOT Plans: 986 - 988 feet above sea level g. Elevation goal of City - designed Berm: 995 feet above sea level h. Possible goal with geo -berm: 1000 feet above sea level i. This is explained below. i. Conclusion: i. Too many elevation points to say a 6 -foot elevation difference. it. City goal is for 12 -22 foot berm above I -94. in. Most homes will experience a berm of 16 feet to 32 feet above their home elevation, depending upon the final option. The 2 homes on Crestview, closest to Hudson Place, receive the most benefit even with a 10 -foot berm. 2. The used noise wall was a possibility that was considered as an Option (actually 44 on December 16` As reported on December 16 1 ": MnDOT is willing to provide the City with a wall that is to be removed from the Unweave the Weave project at I- 3512'694. The major expense in walls is construction and we estimated the expense of cons ruction, assuming we had all the wall materials, at $125,000. The City Council established that the City will not be contributing to noise mitigation on July 12, 2004 as a condition of proceeding with the Work Group. The wall is not in the best shape. I don't believe this is a feasible option. a. Option #4 from December 16` indicated: A noise wall could be added at a likely cost of $125,000. The City is "not likely to contribute, so cost would be paid by residents." This is consistent with all public improvements within the City. N MfCor-*0 I -94 NOISE WORKGROUP PARTICIPANTS APRIL 7, 2005 PAGE TWO 3. Please consider the following from the December 16 meeting: a. The noise attenuation from all options indicated a maximum of 1 to 2 decibel reduction in noise at all receptacles except the first two houses on Crestview. The first two houses have indicated they don't support the noise wall approach. b. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's noise experts suggest that the average human ear cannot distinguish the difference between noise at 60 decibels and noise at 63 decibels. All options provide less than this reduction, except the first two homes. c. A north wind of 5 -10MPH (must be less than 10 MPH or the wind makes more noise than the noise generator) was proposed for a monitoring condition. The City hired a noise consultant to review the MnDOT information and advise us on noise issues. Ile stated on December 16' that the difference between monitoring at a west wind at 7 MPH, which was done, and a north wind at 10 MPH would not change the results appreciably and is within the accuracy of the monitoring and modeling. We totally disagree with your position as stated on your petition that this is a major omission. 4. Consensus of Work Group and current approach: a. The Work Group reached a consensus to proceed with plans for a berm. The City committed to exploring options to increase the height and length of the berm but that design details needed to be worked out with MnDOT and Ramsey County. b. The Work Group asked for a meeting, possibly as early as February, if there was information to report. It was agreed, that if there is no information: don't meet. e. The City staff has been meeting with MnDOT and Ramsey County officials. Some unique alternatives are being explored and discussed. MnDOT storm water treatment may need to be revised and an improved condition may need to be created for further protection of Battle Creek. No decisions or recommendations have been reached. d. A possible geo -grid may be possible that allows an additional 6 -12 feet of height to be added to the berm and still provide for some MnDOT ponding on the right of way. This is a new process and the feasibility is being explored. The cost may be in the $35,000 - $50,000 category. Financing has not been determined, but MnDOT's contribution for noise mitigation and savings on Maplewood's neighborhood street construction program will be factors to be considered. Your petition suggests that there might not be fill material available. Again, as I assured the Work Group, there is always an excess of material for building berms and that is not a concern. e. Likely next Work Group meeting: We hope to develop some recommendations and solutions that can be implemented within the next 2 -3 years, both as part of MnDOT's project and Maplewood's street project. Until there is something to report, a Work Group meeting is not productive. I hope to meet in May 2005. i, Final Decisions: a. We are moving forward to develop a solution for consideration based upon the issues I have listed above. Each of you will have the opportunity to respond and express your opinions. The City Council is always interested in hearing your positions. b. The City prides itself on listening and considerinn everybody's position and opinion. Your petition suggests that the Church has not provided "..any reasonable reason for their position." While we suggested at all the Work Group meetings that the Church does not have veto power over any solutions, we certainly do not operate by excluding anyone's position. Each will be considered by the City Council prior to makine their final determination. 'thank you for your interest in this issue. We request your patience and trust that we can develop a solution that works for all parties. At q ?din May 16, 2005 To: Charles Ahl, P.E. — Maplewood Director of Public Works /City Engineer From: 194 Noise Work Group Participants & Concerned Neighbors c. Mayor & City Council, Senator Chuck Wiger, Commissioner Victoria Reinhardt, Marc Goess — MnDot Rep., City Manager. This refers to your letter dated April 7, 2005, to the 194 Noise Work Group and Concerned Property Owners ". Our main concern is that construction is already under way on a berm in front of Crestview Drive but it appears the berm will not extend to the east to the existing wood noise wall as strongly expressed as a need in the original petition and the Work Group meetings. Since you now indicate in 4.d. of your letter "Again, as I assured the Work Group, there is always an excess of material for building berms and that is not a concern." , why not complete the berm, all the way to the existing wood noise wall (and including the geo -grid additional 6 -12' height, if possible), during this 2005 construction project? It appears to us that if it is not completed now, before the area is graded and seeded (maybe landscaped as well), it will never be done. The short berm now being constructed should help Crestview some,, but it will not provide any benefit to the Sterling - Brookview area or reduce the noise to Crestview from the northeast. We also want to correct some errors in your letter for the record: 1. Ahl letter paragraph 3.a. reads: "The noise attenuation from all options indicated a maximum of 1 to 2 decibel reduction in noise at all receptacles except the first two houses on Crestview." Our response: Apparently, the noise reduction for a wall or berm depends on which model or interpretation is used. Attachment #1, the report from the URS Consultant (hired by the city),was presented at the October 26 Work Group meeting and shows a 15 decibel reduction for a 12 foot berm. This was based on the FFIWA noise model STAMINA. Also, we invite you to visit the Hudson Place Frontage Road area and walk from where there is the wall to past the end of the wall to hear the difference for yourself. We hear a significant difference. 2. Ahl letter paragraph 3.a. reads: " The first two houses have indicated they don't support the noise wall approach." Our response: Fred and Mitzi McCormick live at 230 Crestview Drive, which is the first house on the east side of Crestview, both signed the March 20, 2005, petition letter. Fred has also been at some of the Work Group meetings and indicated that he cannot converse with anyone in his front yard because of the traffic noise. continued iAPAV,>s-*q P 4 A 3. Ahl letter paragraph 3.b. reads: "The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's noise experts suggest that the average human ear cannot distinguish the difference between noise at 60 decibels and noise at 63 decibels. All options provide less than . reds" -- axOept the first tW0 homes. Our response: See Attachment #2 for research by Bob Oliveira that disagrees with the above statements. Ahl letter paragraph 3_c. reads: " ._..He (the noise consultant hired by the city) stated on December 16`' that the difference between monitoring at a west wind at 7 MPH, which was done, and a north wind at lOMPH would not change the results appreciably and is within the accuracy of the monitoring and modeling. We totally disagree with your position stated on your petition that this is a major omission." Our Response: Measurement of noise with a northerly wind was expressed by the residents as a strong need in all of the Work Group meetings and it was agreed the consultant would measure it accordingly. However, our understanding is the consultant's schedule did not allow him to measure when there was a northerly wind. Again, we invite you to visit the area (including a spot in Battle Creek Park) when there is northerly wind and again when it comes from another direction to hear for yourself. We know there is a difference. Our main question is why can't the berm be completed as part of this 2005 construction project, since you indicate there is plenty of fill dirt available? (Although we are not canvassing the entire area for signatures again, the following are representative) � 14 T ,4 71 7 1 c � 5 w } , L URS u, a� Mee..4 - a Generally, blocking the line of site results in a 5 decibel reduction. Each additional 2 feet generally result in another 1 decibel reduction, up to some maximum height, probably in the range of 20 -25 feet high. Details are always variable depending on surrounding topography, and the type of traffic being mitigated. Noise wills allow for a small amount of noise transmission through them. Earthen berms are somewhat more effective at reducing noise levels due to their mass. Low - height berms (up to approximately 12 feet) are more effective than the same height noise wall. Heights greater than approximately 12 feet result in similar reductions for walls and berms. Mn/DOT has found that the 12 -foot high berm that will be constructed will result in noise levels that are roughly equivalent to a 20 -foot high noise wall. A test model nun was conducted to compare walls and berms. For this test, walls and berms of 12- foot and 20 -foot height were run using the FHWA noise model STAMINA. Height Wall Reduction (compared to no wa Berm Reduction (compared to no wall) j 0 f eet 67 - 67 - —. 12 feet 55 12 52 15 20 feet 53 14 50 17 N }ate . <-���° .?. May 15, 2005 Dear Mr. Ahl, I've done some research on the way decibels should be used when describing hearing and noise. The results are tabulated below: 1 Fmm my roariinn rarnnni7ed texts, hPanno and noise seems to be a subject that is often misquoted by so called "experts ". 2. A few notable items from a reputable source: F. Alton Everest, 2001, "Master Handbook of Acoustics ", McGraw Hill. New York, N.Y. Below I use 1 kHz as an example because it is in the center of the audible range. a. Audibility of Loudness Changes (Chapter 3, pg 61) i. Perceived loudness is a function of the frequency and intensity of sound; for example a 1 kHz sound. 1. at very low levels of sound, 3dB is needed 2. at high levels, the ear can detect a 0.25 dB change. 3. This refutes your claim that our neighbors can detect only 3dB changes in sound. b. Loudness Bandwidth (Chapter 3, pp 56 -58) i. The wider the bandwidth of noise the louder the sound; For example a broad based sound like noise having an equal sound pressure level as a pure tone will sound louder because of the bandwidth effect; 1. At 1 kHz with a 200 Hz bandwidth of noise at the same sound pressure level at 1 kHz with a 160 Hz bandwidth will sound louder because it exceeds the 160 Hz critical band width of the ear at 1 kHz. Noise by definition has wider bandwidths. 2. This refutes your claim that we can detect only 3 dB changes in sound. It really depends on the frequencies of the sound and critical bandwidths. c. Sound Waves in Free Field (Chapter 4, pp 84 -88) i. The concept of sound dissipating by half for every doubling of distance refers only to estimates made for pure spherical propagation of sound. This is not the case when one considers noise from a highway. 1. A more realistic model for sound wave dissipation is a hemispherical model. 2. This model would predict a 4 rather than a 6 decibel reduction in noise for a doubling of distance. 3. This also refutes your assumptions of noise dissipation as it relates to our neighborhood. Mr. Ahl, I also noted as I went through my research in this area that I recognized references to many colleagues I know who are called on as Expert Witnesses. Should we have to go to more involved ways of dealing with our dissatisfaction with the way you are representing facts and our interests, I can easily bring in recognized hearing and noise experts to make these issues clearer. My best, Bob Oliveira, Ph.D., President, Hearing Components 200 Crestview Dr. N.; Maplewood, MN 55119 May 23, 2005 Mr. Mayor and Council Members: My name is Don Disselkamp and I live at 188 Crestview Drive N. To minimize our r;n,P on vnur a_aenda I will summarize the reasons we asked to be here tonight. Our subject is the 194 noise berm and the noise work group meetings. Option 2 of the City Engineer's report, that was approved by your council on July 12, 2004, indicated MnDOT was preparing a design that would establish an 8- 12'high berm. It also indicated it would "achieve a nature noise wall, would provide for plantings along the corridor, and would provide similar noise attenuation to a noise wall ". The option also stated that "MnDOT has indicated that portions of a noise wall currently used along 1694 may become available within 2 years ". When the residents asked the City Engineer if the berm would be 12' above the frontage road, the answer was "yes ". We also understood the berm was to extend from the frontage road loop to 194 east, to the existing noise wall by Sterling. The city engineer also repeatedly stated that Maplewood has excess fill dirt and is looking for a place to put it so "completing the berm will not be a problem ". The residents that have participated in the noise work group meetings feel we have been grossly misled and that the berm presently being constructed will be of little or no value, for the following reasons: 1. In the second work group meeting, on October 26, 2004, the residents saw a contour map that showed the berm to be only 6' above the frontage road instead of the original 12'. After we raised the question, MuDOT and the City Engineer then said it would be 12' above the freeway instead of above the frontage road. 2. In the 3rd work group meeting on December 16, the City Engineer presented 4 options, none of which included completing the berm all the way to the existing wood wall in 2005. These recommendations also indicated the United Methodist Church may be opposed to the berm (because they want a line of sight from the freeway to ti the church front door), and this would require a City Council decision. 3. On April 7, 2005, the City Engineer stated the used noise wall is not a feasible option because of its condition, even considering that it would cost $125,000 to install it, and that would be paid by the residents. 4. Now that a short segment of the berm has been constructed (black dirt is being placed on top) in front of Crestview Drive we can see that it is totally inadequate for any meaningful noise attenuation. I94 slopes upward as it goes west to the McKnight bridge from in front of Sterling. By placing a level on the top of the recently constructed berm and sighting north along the level I could just see the tops of the cars on 194. This was the result both at the Crestview Drive intersection and at the west end of the berm. Since cars are close to 5' high, this means that the top of the existing berm is about 5' above the I94 surface, not 12' at these points. In conclusion we, the residents of the Brookview area, request the Council confirm the berm height will be constructed a minimum of 12' above the 194 road surface elevation all the way from the frontage road loop to I94 east, to the existing wood wall by Sterling as promised to us, and this construction will be completed by November 1, 2005, when the I94 project is to be completed. We feel very strongly that if this not done, once the grading and grass seeding is completed, that will be the end of any additional noise berm work In addition, if the Church objects to this berm height, we request you decide in favor of the taac�ayi cit izens of t_he area _who have t live with this noise rp oblem 2417, that want the ber m built. Approximately 98% of those asked signed each of three petitions for the noise barrier (one to the council and two petitions to the City Engineer). Thank you for this opportunity to be heard. June 30, 2005 Property Owner Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Interstate 94 Noise Berm Improvements, C.P. 03 -12 Public Hearing — 7:00 pm Monday, July 25, 2005 Maplewood City Council Chambers 1830 East County Road B The City of Maplewood has been studying options for adding noise mitigation along the south side of Interstate 94 between Crestview Drive and the existing noise wall at Sterling Street. A Work Group reviewed a number of concepts and issues, including monitoring of existing noise levels within your neighborhood. The noise consultant, hired by the City, concluded that data used by MnDOT for their decisions on the 1 -94 Improvements (under construction now) was reasonable and consistent. The biggest discussion item for the Work Group was construction of a noise berm just north of Crestview Drive connecting to the existing noise wall. Many property owners in the area have signed petitions in favor of the noise mitigation efforts. MnDOT studied the noise issue and determined that noise attenuation (reduction) was not cost - effective and that their rules precluded MnDOT from contributing to noise mitigation efforts. The Maplewood staff has explored a number of options for providing a noise berm along the Crestview to Sterling section. MnDOT provided a berm of approximately 6 feet in height. The Maplewood plan provides for an additional 9 feet of fill material on top of this berm for a total berm of approximately 12 -15 feet in height. The final plan would likely have additional landscaping on top. Noise engineers have testified that berms of 10 -12 feet in height have similar noise attenuation as noise walls of 20 feet in height. The Maplewood City staff will be recommending that the berm project be added to an improvement project planned for your neighborhood beginning in 2008 when your neighborhood streets are planned to be reconstructed. It is possible that the entire project (including planting and restoration) will not be totally complete until 2009. This berm will extend in front of the church along Hudson Place. The church has expressed concern with construction of the berm. This area of construction in front of the church, along with the timing for construction of the berm, will be topics for the public hearing. If you have questions or opinions on this proposed project, you should attend this hearing to express your concerns. You also may e -mail your comments to me at chuck. ahl(5ci. maplewood. mn. us and I will forward them to the City Council. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Charles Ahl, P.E. — Director of Public Works t City Engineer 651 - 249 -2402 i4wi�47:� AGENDA REPORT Agenda #J -2 To: City Manager Richard Fursman From: Chief of Police David Thomalla and Fire Chief Steve Lukin Subject: Approval to Purchase 800 MHz Dispatching Equipment Date: July 20, 2005 INTRODUCTION City Council action is required regarding the purchase of 800 MHz dispatching equipment. BACKGROUND On July 14, 2003, The City Council approved becoming part of the Ramsey County 800 MHz radio system. On May 23, 2005, the Council requested Ramsey County order equipment to accommodate Maplewood Public Safety in a consolidated center. Since that time, discussions of PSAP consolidation have delayed the purchase of needed dispatch equipment for Maplewood to become part of the County -wide system. On July 11, 2005, the City Council voted to keep the Maplewood Dispatch Center independent. Maplewood now needs to order equipment to do the necessary upgrades to the Center to connect to the County and State 800 MHz systems. Due to the delay and the original intent to consolidate with Ramsey County, Metropolitan Emergency Services Board may no longer have capacity on the two network zone controllers to accommodate Maplewood as an independent PSAP. Reallocation of port capacity may be available but will require a working group of engineers and system owners to convene and make recommendations. It is unknown if this would result in additional costs to Maplewood. County Manager David Twa has submitted a letter to Maplewood outlining the costs for the equipment upgrades. Although it does not appear equipment costs have increased since the original estimate, there is now a $14,000 charge for engineering costs. This brings the total minimum amount Maplewood would have to expend to $273,575.51. This expense had been included in the 2005 Capital Improvement Plan. Equipment certificates in the amount of $273,575.51 will be issued to cover this expenditure, and payment will be through increased property taxes in 2006 -2011. This cost is over and above the estimated operating budget for 2006 of $752,760. St. Paul is in the process of purchasing a new CAD (Computer -Aided Dispatch) system that was to be available to users of the consolidated center. It is likely the City would have to purchase its own CAD system at a cost in excess of $2 million or enter into an agreement with St. Paul and Ramsey County, potentially at an additional expense to Maplewood. REQUESTED ACTION 1) Authorize the purchase of the necessary equipment to upgrade the Dispatch Center in Maplewood to utilize the 800 MHz radio system as a stand -alone PSAP. The cost of this purchase will be $273,575.51. There may be additional costs for engineering changes. 2) Authorize staff to seek proposals for a stand -alone CAD system in excess of $2 million. Or Negotiate an agreement with Ramsey County and St. Paul to utilize the new system they will purchase. 3) Give authorization to purchase equipment bonds for the above purchase. 4) Approve the order of Maplewood equipment with that of Ramsey County to avoid any additional expense to Maplewood. DJT & SL July 20, 2005 Mayor Robert Cardinal Council Member Kathleen Juenemann Council Member Marvin Koppen Council Member Jackie Monahan -Junek Council Member Will Rossbach City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mayor Cardinal and Council Members: It is Ramsey County's understanding that the Maplewood City Council voted on July 11` not to approve the Dispatch Joint Powers Agreement with Ramsey County and continue to operate an independent PSAP /dispatch center on the 800 MHz radio system. This decision has the following impacts for both Maplewood and Ramsey County: The County will need to go back to the Radio Board, now the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board, (MESB) and get approval for a revised technical plan for Ramsey County. The final technical plan submitted to the MESB Technical Operations Committee on June V assumed Maplewood was going to approve consolidation. This assumption was based on the City Council's action on May 23'' requesting that Ramsey County order console equipment to accommodate a consolidated center, including Maplewood's operations. 2. Once a change to the technical plan is approved by the MESB, the County will need to change the console order with Motorola. The console equipment list will be the same as that attached to our May 5` letter ($140,023.09), plus additional costs for engineering changes. The exact cost of the change is estimated to be about ten percent of the total amount, or $14,000. The County can order this equipment as part of the County's contract with Motorola or the City can elect to enter into a contract with Motorola directly. 3. The County needs direction from the City as to how to proceed with the microwave connection, which Maplewood will need to connect its PSAP to the County radio system. The County can amend its order with Microwave Networks Inc. (MNI) to add a microwave link to the Maplewood PSAP for $84,662. MNI plans to be in Minnesota in October to set up the Microwave links. If Maplewood delays the decision on the microwave connection, the costs for the MNI contract will go up as additional engineering and mobilization charges will apply. Maplewood may also opt to contract with another vendor for microwave or fiber optic connection. July 20, 2005 City of Maplewood Page Two 4. The City will have to order backup control stations for the dispatch center at a cost of $34,890.42. Control stations are radios that dispatchers can use for communications in the event the console fails or the microwave connection goes down. 5. The City and County will have to negotiate a new agreement that permits Maplewood to connect to the County's radio system as an independent PSAP. The County will begin to work with the 800 MHz System Managers Group and the Technical Operations Committee of the MESB to look at technical plan options. Dakota County, Bloomington, and St. Louis Park received technical plan approval after the Ramsey County plan was approved in June. The net result of these decisions was to fill all remaining port capacity at the two radio network zone controllers. There is no unused capacity for additional dispatch centers to tie into the system. It appears there may be port capacity that can be made available through reallocation of existing ports, but this will require a working group of engineers and system owners to convene and make recommendations to MnDOT, the MESB, and the State Radio Board. At this time Ramsey County is requesting that Maplewood advise the County if the Microwave Networks, Inc. contract should be amended to include the option for the microwave link to the Maplewood PSAP. If you have questions about this request, please feel free to call Connie Catlin, 651- 266 -8011, or Scott Williams, 651 - 266 -8028. Sincerely, David J. Twa Ramsey County Manager cc: Richard Fursman, City Manager Ramsey County Board of Commissioners RAMSEY COUNTY'S RESPONSES TO MAYOR CARDINAL'S LIST OF ISSUES REGARDING PSAP CONSOLIDATION At the July 11th, 2005 Maplewood City Council Meeting, Mayor Cardinal presented a list of issues about the Consolidated PSAP (Pubic Safety Answering Point). The Mayor's concerns are in bold type and the County's responses are in italics. Ownership- this issue has always been at the heart of consolidation talks. By all measurements St. Paul accounts for 68 (77 %) to 85% of requests for service County -wide. Will St. Paul lead and direct the new center. Will the County manage the center? The Consolidated Dispatch Center will be managed by the County under the direction of the County's Radio System Manager. Method of Operation —A center of this size will require two stage operations. It must have dedicated call takers and dispatchers. Work volumes require this. St. Paul is the only center in the County that has ever operated this way and has done it for decades. It is of concern that those with the experience in this area will now be under the direction of those that have never done this before. The Consolidated Dispatch Center will use two -stage dispatching, this is an industry "best practice" for a large center. The Maplewood dispatch agreement calls for two stage operations in section 6.03b. It is true that most dispatchers from the County and Maplewood do not have experience with two stage operation. However, all County and Maplewood dispatchers have experience with answering 911 calls and radio dispatching for police and fire. Maplewood dispatchers have EMS dispatching experience. County dispatchers have experience dispatching for several law enforcement and fire agencies from one center. St. Paul dispatchers do not have experience dispatching multiple agencies (except for Roseville Fire). Employees from each center have valuable experience and skills to bring to the new operation. Medical Dispatch — St. Paul offers pre - arrival instructions and patient screening for medical dispatch. St. Paul is the only agency in the County that does this. The concern is that those with the practical experience will now be supervised by those with no experience. The St. Paul Paramedic program operates under the license of Dr. Frascone from Regions Hospital and dispatch technique is part of this umbrella. I do not believe any approach has been made to the Doctor. Dr. Frascone will need to get on board. Ramsey County is planning to offer medical pre - arrival instructions in the Consolidated Dispatch Center. The Maplewood Fire Chief has discussed this issue with Dr. Frascone and the Doctor's primary concern is that he be involved in the development of the Emergency Medical Dispatch program for the new center. Dr. Frascone is also the Medical Director for the Maplewood and White Bear Lake EMS programs. White Bear Lake also offers medical pre - arrival instructions, and Maplewood was planning to implement pre - arrival but decided to wait until a decision on PSAP consolidation. The pre - arrival instructions will follow a nationally recognized protocol that is widely accepted as "best practices" for a center providing EMS dispatching services. Fire Dispatch — St. Paul maintains a dedicated Fire/Medical dispatch team. All other PSAPs in the County are single stage and do not do this. This St. Paul model must be continued in any new center or service quality will fall. It is the intention of Ramsey County to have dedicated dispatchers who can provide this service. This is covered in section 6.03b of the joint powers agreement: "The Dispatch Center will utilize a two-stage dispatching system whereby telecommunicators will take incoming requests for service and relay them to dedicated dispatchers who will be assigned for police calls as well as those for fire and emergency medical calls. " Police Information Channel — St. Paul maintains a dedicated service channel (Chan 5) and dispatchers for this channel. All other PSAPs in the County staff with personnel with multiple duties. This St. Paul model must be continued in any new center or service quality will fall. Ramsey County agrees and plans to implement a dedicated information channel. County Phone System — The St. Paul PSAP used the county 266 phone system when Griffin became operational. The City had to pay for conversion back to the 291 numbers when it was determined that the Ramsey phone system was not adequate for ECC use. In the words of the County - "we never intended this system to be for 24 hour emergency use ". The new ECC must have an entirely different phone system. Must have new phone system. Ramsey County agrees. A new phone system for handling emergency phone calls in the Consolidated Center has been the plan from the outset and is in the project budget. Policy /Procedure — Currently, the St. Paul Fire and Police Depts. exercise total control over the ECC. It is not known how this will be affected by consolidation. Accountability and responsiveness are areas of great and legitimate concern. The Consolidated Dispatch Center will be under the control of the County. Communities served by the Center will provide input and feedback through the Dispatch Users Group and the Dispatch Policy Committee as defined in the joint powers agreement. Their input will insure that the system is accountable and responsive to the needs of all the communities. What demands might be placed on the system in the future due to budget or other concerns? Will the City be asked for additional dollars if they desire increased, changed, or modified service? Will Maplewood be charged and have to pay extra costs for these additions, or will this also be taxed and levied by the County on City of Maplewood residents? Maplewood's costs are defined in the joint powers agreement. The Agreement provides for Ramsey County to assume 100% of the operational costs over the seven year period. If there are increases required in the operating budget it will be driven by service level improvements /enhancements requested by user agencies. These requests (and the resulting financial impacts) will have to be evaluated by the Dispatch Users Group, Dispatch Policy Committee, County Manager's office, and ultimately approved by the County Board. If approved by the County Board, the additional costs will be levied County wide unless a different funding Agreement is entered into by mutual agreement of the parties. Staffing Level — The St. Paul ECC is very short staffed. It is estimated at 18 -20 persons below what is needed. There is concern that this will not be addressed in the new center. Ramsey County's consultant agrees that the St. Paul ECC is understaffed. The important issue is to ensure adequate staffing in the new Consolidated Dispatch Center. The 800 MHz Dispatch Workgroup is working with the consultant to determine an appropriate staffing plan for the new center using call and CAD data for all of the participating cities. Maplewood's PSAP Manager has a seat on the Dispatch Workgroup and has been an active participant in these discussions. Ramsey County has always stated that the County will ensure adequate staffing levels in the new Consolidated Dispatch Center. Special Needs — Will the City be able to requestlinsist on the creation of new methods, policies, techniques that it feels are necessary for continued service to its citizens? Can Maplewood simply be told — No, we will not do that? Who controls the future technology (i.e. video, camera access -- on highways or corridors)? Maplewood has representation on the Dispatch Users Group and the Dispatch Policy Committee. By joining the consolidated center at the outset, Maplewood will be able to help shape policies and protocols for the new operation. Maplewood has an early termination clause in the JPA that allows it to withdraw from participation prior to the City turning over dispatching operations to the County. This gives Maplewood considerable leverage in the development stage of this operation. Need legal opinion on Ramsey County charter. Question: 911 calls, who is in charge of the entire county? Question: If Sheriff is in charge of all communications, is that what we want? The County Charter does not address this issue. There is no provision in the Charter that says the Sheriff is in charge of 911 communications. All staffs are presently at 100, the countywill need 125 total. Need clerical, supervisors, payroll, and a 4 million budget. Will have $320,000 for 911 fees whoever answers the phone. The final staffing plan will be determined by the number of communities served, the procedures and protocols adopted for use in the center, and the projected call load. The County Board is committed to supporting the consolidated dispatch center with the resources needed to meet the performance standards that will be set in consultation with the Dispatch Policy Committee and Dispatch Users Group. Agenda Item J.3 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Political Campaign Sign Ordinance Amendment Second Reading APPLICANT: City of Maplewood DATE: July 18, 2005 INTRODUCTION City planning staff and the community design review board (CDRB) have been updating the City of Maplewood's sign ordinance. Staff anticipates the completion of a draft sign ordinance for the city council's review by fall of this year. Prior to the city council's review of the entire ordinance and prior to this year's elections, city staff is requesting that the city council review the political campaign sign section of the ordinance. The city has experienced problems in previous elections regulating political sign usage according to the existing ordinance. For this reason, city staff is recommending changes to the existing political campaign sign ordinance to ensure there are consistent and clear regulations for all candidates, the public, and city staff enforcing the code. DISCUSSION Existing Political Campaign Sign Ordinance The city's existing ordinance only restricts the placement and time limits of political campaign signs as follows: Political signs must be placed on private property and not within the right -of -way. Political signs can be installed 30 days before an election and must be removed 10 days after an election. Proposed Changes First Reading During the first reading of the proposed ordinance on July 11, 2005, city staff recommended three changes to the current ordinance as follows: Restrict the size of political campaign signs to 16 square feet in area and 6 feet in height, and restrict the total area for all political campaign signs on one property to 64 square feet. Require that all political campaign signs maintain at least a five -foot setback from the edge of the nearest street and at least a one -foot setback from any sidewalk or trail. The signs should not be placed at any location that interferes with driver or pedestrian visibility. In addition, the consent of the underlying property owner or the property owner fronting the proposed location of the sign must be obtained before placement of such sign. Allow political campaign signs 60 days before an election or after filings for office opens, and removal of signs 7 days after the election. The city council adopted changes 1 and 2 as specified above, but modified change 3 to allow political campaign signs to be installed from August 1 to 10 days following an election, which mirrors the state statute time limits for political campaign signs during state elections. Second Reading Since the first reading of the ordinance Trevor Oliver, attorney with Kelly and Fawcett law firm, has had an opportunity to review the political campaign sign ordinance in more detail and has submitted the attached memorandum (Attachment 1). Following is a summary of Mr. Oliver's legal opinions and recommendations regarding the proposed political campaign sign amendment: Size and Number: Mr. Oliver states that the city can restrict the size of political campaign signs (16 square feet). However, Mr. Oliver recommends that the city not limit the number of political campaign signs as it may restrict a citizen's speech and will not stand up to strict scrutiny on the grounds of safety or aesthetics. Rather than restrict the overall square footage of signs as previously proposed by city staff (64 square feet of political signage per property) Mr. Oliver recommends limiting the number of political campaign signs on one property during an election season (August 1 to 10 days after an election) to one per candidate and one per opinion /ballot issue. This would allow a property owner to have as many signs as they wish as long as they all pertain to different candidates or ballot issues. City staff finds this to be a reasonable alternative which would also be easier to enforce than the overall square footage requirement. Placement: Mr. Oliver finds that the city can regulate setback rules on public safety grounds. Mr. Oliver recommends that the city add language to the proposed setback requirement as follows: RAII political campaign signs shall be setback at least five (5) feet from the edge of the nearest street and at least one (1) foot from any sidewalk or trail. Said signs shall not be placed between a street and a sidewalk or trail or at any other location that obstructs driver or pedestrian visibility. The consent of the underlying property owner, if the underlying land is a public right of way, or the property owner fronting the proposed location of the sign, must be obtained before placement of such sign. In addition, political campaign signs are prohibited on obviously public property and utility poles Noncommercial Opinion Signs: Mr. Oliver discusses noncommercial opinion signs versus political campaign signs in detail. Staff finds this discussion invaluable for the revision to the city's overall sign ordinance, but not needed for the political campaign sign amendment being sought here, except for a change in the political campaign sign definition to include political campaign sign means a temporary sign promoting the candidacy of a person running for a governmental office or promoting a position on an issue to be voted on at a governmental el political views or policies. This change will allow for the distinction between political campaign signs and noncommercial opinion signs separately in the revised sign code. Purpose and Intent Paragraph: Mr. Oliver recommends a purpose and intent paragraph for the revised sign ordinance to include the city's goals in regulating signage in general. Again, staff finds this discussion invaluable for revision to the city's overall sign ordinance, but not necessary for the political campaign sign amendment being sought here. RECOMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 2). This resolution amends the city's sign code pertaining to the size, number, and placement of political signs. P: \com_dvpt \ord \political sign ordinance 7 25 2005 CC Attachments: 1. Attorney's Memorandum 2. Political Campaign Sign Resolution Attachment 1 IMI:IM[a]:L1ki Bill M TO: Patrick Kelly, Shann Finwall FROM: Trevor Oliver RE: City of Maplewood Political Campaign Sign Ordinance Amendment DATE: July 15, 2005 Bottom Line: The best course of action for the City of Maplewood is to amend its sign code along the lines of the ordinance used by New Brighton to regulate 'non- commercial opinion' signs. The 'non- commercial opinion' category has been found to be 'content neutral' in Minnesota courts, which allows the City much greater latitude to regulate things like size and setback. The New Brighton ordinance survived a court challenge in the Minnesota Courts and appears to comply with other Federal Court interpretation of First Amendment requirements regarding political campaign signs. What Can't Be Done: First, the City obviously cannot prohibit political yard signs outright, and cannot prohibit yard signs in general, as the Supreme Court accords special reverence' to political yard signs as a cheap and effective means of individual political expression.' Because of this special place campaign signs hold in First Amendment caselaw, singling out political signs specifically for special regulation also runs afoul of the Constitution. Ordinances on political signs by themselves has been interpreted in many jurisdictions, including the Eighth Circuit, as not 'content neutral,' subjecting the ordinance to higher scrutiny and making it extremely difficult for the City to prevail in any Lawsuit or Temporary Restraining Order action .2 Within any regulatory scheme, limiting the total number of opinion signs (particularly political signs) during an 'election season' is something City should avoid. A limit on the total number of signs is seen as a restriction on a citizen's speech and will not stand up to strict scrutiny on the grounds of safety or aesthetics. Finally, courts have found other ordinances unconstitutional due to restrictions upon zoning districts in which citizens could place political signs. Our ordinance, thankfully, allows campaign /opinion signs in all zoning districts, and this feature of the ordinance should be preserved in any amendment. 1 See City of Laduc v. Gillco 512 U.S. 43 (1994). 2 A rough Wcstlaw starch turncd up 3 TRO casts from the 2004 cicction alonc within the first 20 casts. The courts uniformly found against the citics` ordinanccs, cvcn though not all TROs wcrc gramcd duc to variants in the 'immcdiatc harm' shown by cach party. What the City can do : The City can set an election season, much like is done in state statute Minnesota Statute 211 b.045, which invalidates or overrides any City ordinances regarding size from August 1 to 10 days after the general election. As discussed later, the election season' may be a useful tool to regulate signage year -round without offending First Amendment rights. Also without disturbing the First Amendment, the City can regulate size of signs and have setback rules on public safety grounds, provided these rules apply to all °non- commercial opinion' signs. Similarly, the prohibition of campaign signs and opinion signs on obviously public property and utility poles in the ordinance now should be kept. The owner's consent provision in the proposed amendment is fine, save for a need to clarify the language to state: property owner fronting the proposed location of the sign, if the underlying land is a public right of way must be obtained before placing such a sign.' Proposed course of action: 1. Add a definition of 'non-commercial opinion signs' to § 44 -73:. 'Non- Commercial Opinion Sign. A sign that does not advertise products, goods, businesses, or services and that expresses an opinion or other point of view. This definition includes but is not limited to signs portraying the name, picture or symbol of an individual seeking election or appointment to public office, pertaining to a forthcoming public election or referendum, or pertaining to or advocating political views or policies. Electric, moving, or illuminated signs may not be used as non - commercial opinion signs. m This will take out all arguments that the restrictions and the regulations are content- based' out of the picture and will allow for any opinion to fall under the ordinance in the same way. 2. Expand the purpose and intent paragraph of § 44 -731 to include all of the public policy purposes for which Maplewood seeks to regulate signs. The City is free to state its goals in regulating signage in general, but among these should be order and cleanliness, property value, public safety, attractiveness of the City and to protect the health, safety, welfare, morals, convenience, and comfort of the public. Itemizing the rationales for the ordinance will assist in any court challenge to the regulations by establishing the non 'content based' purposes for regulating all kinds of sings. 3. Incorporate an election season' structure based upon the New Brighton ordinance, which survived a 1994 court challenge. The ordinance should state that 'non-commercial opinion signs' are allowed year round. Outside of a defined election period' the ordinance limits 'non- commercial opinion signs' to one or two per property, subject to all other restrictions the ordinance puts in place regarding size and setback. New Brighton's ordinance in 1994 allowed one sign per property at all times. Within the election period, the ordinance should relax its restriction on number of signs, to comply with First Amendment doctrine. Note that while Minn. Stat. § 211 B.045 suspends all City ordinances restricting size from August 1 until 10 days past Election Day, all other ordinance requirements remain in effect. Using the proposed 60 day before /7 day after period proposed in the ordinance is fine. Imposing an 'election season' limit of signs on any one property to one per candidate and one per opinion /ballot issue is a valid regulation of political speech in the run -up to election. Thus, a property owner may have as many signs as they wish as long as they all pertain to different candidates or ballot issue and comply with setback requirements, but it would violate the ordinance to have multiple signs for the same candidate. This is preferable to the 'total square footage' provision proposed in the Ordinance, as it would a) not apply during State general elections, and b) that overall size restriction restricts the number of signs that could be on a property, which runs the risk of being found invalid if courts find that a citizen is prevented from expressing opinions. 4. Size restrictions may be difficult to enforce, but so long as size restrictions apply to all opinion signs, public safety is a valid basis for the restrictions. 16 square feet per sign should also stand up as that is the permit standard in § 44- 771 for all temporary signs, commercial and non - commercial. It can simply be said that any single sign over 16 square feet must go through the permit process, regardless of content. The setback requirement proposed by the planning commission appears to be fine, though the City may need to prepare to grant variance requests on any property on which signs are not visible when setback is complied with. Finally, it is not an option to simply remove all reference to political campaign signs from the ordinance. The ordinance has a blanket prohibition of all signs that are not expressly permitted by the ordinance, and having a blanket prohibition on political signs is worse than having a problematic specific set of rules. Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SIGN SECTION OF THE SIGN CODE The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment changes Section 44 -735, subdivision (1.f.) (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): (1.f) Political campaign sign means a temporary sign promoting the candidacy of a person running for a governmental office or promoting a position on an issue to be voted on at a Section 2. This amendment changes Section 44 -891, subdivision (8) (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Section 44 -891. Special purpose and temporary signs in all districts. The city permits the following special purpose and temporary signs in all districts. Such signs shall be exempt from section 44 -807, which pertains to temporary signs, and schedule 2 in subdivision 3 of this division, which pertains to permitted signs by zoning districts. Such signs shall be subject to the following limitations: (8) Political campaign signs: (a) For local elections and referendums, political campaign signs may be posted from August 1 until ten (10) days following said election or referendum. (b) Political campaign signs shall not exceed sixteen (16) square feet in area and six (6) feet in height. (c) The number of political campaign signs on one property during an election season is limited to one (1) per candidate and one (1) per opinion /ballot issue. (d) All political campaign signs shall be setback at least five (5) feet from the edge of the nearest street and at least one (1) foot from any sidewalk or trail. Said signs shall not be placed between a street and a sidewalk or trail or at any other location that location, must be obtained before placement of such sign. In addition, political campaign signs are prohibited on obviously public property and utility poles. (e) In a state general election year, the size, number, and duration of political campaign sign displays shall comply with the provisions of Minnesota Statute 211.6.045, and nothing in this chapter shall be construed as applicable except location restrictions. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect after publishing in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on 2005. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Agenda Item K1 ILril =I LVAI ] ZIM 0 Bill TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Jensen Estates Preliminary Plat LOCATION: 1560 and 1580 McKnight Road DATE: July 6, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, is proposing an eight -lot plat for single dwellings in a new development called Jensen Estates. It would be on a four -acre site on the east side of McKnight Road on the properties now known as 1560 and 1580 McKnight Road. Refer to the maps on pages 10 -19. Request To build this project, Mr. Conlin is requesting that the city approve a preliminary plat for eight lots for eight single dwellings — one lot for the existing house at 1580 McKnight Road and seven lots for new houses. (See the map on page 14.) DISCUSSION Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. It would be an in -fill plat for new houses on a site surrounded by single - family homes. The proposal also would include an extension of Hoyt Avenue into a permanent cul -de -sac (not a through street connection to Currie Street to the north). Preliminary Plat Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 34 of the city code (subdivisions) regulates the platting or subdividing of property in Maplewood. The purpose of this part of the code is "to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic and safe development of land... ". As such, the city must balance many interests when reviewing and considering a subdivision in Maplewood. These include the interests of the property owner, the developer, the neighbors and the city as a whole. To this end, Section 34 -6 of the code says that "the planning commission may recommend and the city council may require such changes or revisions of a preliminary plat as deemed necessary for the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the city." Density and Lot Size As proposed, the eight lots on the four -acre site means there would be an average of two units per acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan and zoning code for single dwelling residential development. As proposed, each lot will be above the 10,000 - square- foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each single - family lot. Lot Sizes and Dimensions As proposed, the lots in the plat will range from 13,130 square feet to 27,000 square feet, with an average lot size of about 17,865 square feet. (See the proposed plat on page 14.) The city requires each single dwelling lot in the R -1 (single dwelling) zoning district to have at least 75 feet of width at the front setback line and be at least 10,000 square feet in area. In addition, the code requires corner lots to be at least 100 feet wide on each street side. As submitted, the proposed plat meets or exceeds all these standards. Wetlands The applicant's wetland consultant visited the project site and found one wetland on the property. This is the area near the eastern property line in Lot 8. The Watershed district has classified this wetland as a Type 4, which requires a 25 -foot no disturb buffer area. The proposed project plans show a 25- foot -wide buffer. The project plans also show two other low areas near McKnight Road as wetlands. Upon further review, the developer's wetland consultant determined that these are not wetlands but in fact were probably created with the construction of McKnight Road. The watershed district will have to verify this information and the proposed buffer areas. City Engineering Department Comments The city engineering department has been working with the applicant's engineering consultant in reviewing this proposal and plans. Erin Laberee's comments are included on pages 20 and 21. Public Utilities Sanitary sewer and water are in McKnight Road and in Hoyt Avenue and are available to serve the proposed development. The developer will extend the sanitary sewer and water main into the site from the existing systems in Hoyt Avenue. The Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) will need to approve the plan for the water main before the start of construction. Drainage As proposed, the grading plan shows most of the storm water from the site, including the front yards and driveways on the new lots and the new cul -de -sac, draining into the existing storm sewer system on Hoyt Avenue. Most of the site drains to the west and to the south. The developer's engineer told me that they want the development to not increase the rate of storm water runoff from the site. That is, the runoff leaving the site will be at or below current levels. This standard is a requirement of the city engineering department. Tree Removal /Replacement Maplewood's tree ordinance requires there be at least ten trees per gross acre on the site after grading or the developer would have to plant trees to replace those that the contractor would remove. For this four -acre site, the applicant's plans show a total of 140 large trees on the site anc that they would save 69 of the existing trees on the property (primarily on the perimeter of the site). 2 (See the maps on pages 13 and 19). The plans show the removal of 71 large trees including ash, oak, maple and pine trees. As proposed on the preliminary tree plan (page 19), the developer would plant seven trees on the site. These include one maple or coniferous tree on each new house site within the development, primarily at the front corner of each lot. As I noted above, the code requires there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site. For this four -acre site, the code requires there be at least 40 trees on the property after the construction is complete. As such, the proposed tree planting plan, along with the trees that the developer would save, would meet the requirements of the tree replacement code of the city. Watershed District The Ramsey /Washington Metro Watershed District is reviewing the development proposal and will have to issue Mr. Conlin a permit before the contractor starts construction. Please see the comments from Tina Carstens on page 22. She will be verifying the wetland delineations and buffers with the developer. Other Comments Police Department Lieutenant David Kvam of the Maplewood Police Department noted the following: 1. There may be traffic crashes as people attempt to turn onto McKnight Road from Hoyt Avenue. 2. It may be confusing to have only the houses on the new cul -de -sac with Currie Street addresses. It may make finding those addresses more difficult. However, I am not sure if the better answer is to leave the entire street named Hoyt Avenue. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, noted that the cul -de -sac must have a turning radius of at least 42 feet (for equipment) and that there be fire hydrants in proper locations. The proposed plans show these features. Dan Soler, Ramsey County Mr. Soler of the Ramsey County Public Works Department reviewed the proposed plat and provided the comments on page 23. COMMISSION ACTION On July 5, 2005, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed preliminary plat. 3 RECOMMENDATION Approve the Jensen Estates preliminary plat (received by the city on June 7, 2005). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.' Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Pay the city for the cost of traffic - control, street identification and no- parking signs. d. Provide all required and necessary easements including: (1) all utility and drainage easements. (2) ten - foot -wide drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five - foot -wide drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot. (3) Any off -site easements. (4) All wetland buffer easements for all wetlands and their buffers on the site. e. Have Xcel Energy install a street light at the north end of Hoyt Avenue near Lots 7 and 8. The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. f. Demolish or remove the existing house (1560 McKnight Road), garages and sheds from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. Cap and seal all wells on site and remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. Complete all curb on Hoyt Avenue and restore the boulevards on the south side of the site. This is to replace the existing temporary cul -de -sac, and restore and sod the boulevards. 2.' Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Erin Laberee dated June 22, 2005 and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. rd b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. This plan shall account for the existing grades and elevations of the properties and the houses that are adjacent to the project site. (3) Show house pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. Revise the plan for Lot 4 so the developer and contractor can save the tree near the south property line (# 265 on the tree inventory) and for Lots 6 and 7 to save additional trees. (4) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) Include the tree plan that: (a) Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (b) Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (c) Shows the spruce trees to be planted as a mix of black hills spruce or Austrian pines that are at least eight feet tall. (d) The planting of at least eight, eight- foot -tall black hills spruce or Austrian pines along the south side of Lot 4 to provide some screening for the house at 2289 Hoyt Avenue. (6) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas. (7) Show all proposed slopes. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with wood -fiber blanket, be seeded with a no- maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (8) Show all retaining walls. Any retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. (9) Show the sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed district or by the city engineer. (10) Show no grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (11) Be revised to lessen the amount of grading on the northern part of Lots Six and Seven to help save trees on these two lots. 5 (12) Be revised to show the trail between Lots 6 and 7 from the cul -de -sac to the property to the north. c. The street, driveway, trail and utility plans shall show: (1) The street with a width of 32 feet (with parking on one side), shall be a 9 -ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. (2) The new street (Hoyt Avenue) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer determines that concrete curbing is not necessary. (3) The completion of the curb on all of Hoyt Avenue, the removal of the temporary cul -de -sac and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) The repair of McKnight Road (curb, street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new street. (5) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS). (6) All utility excavation located within the proposed right -of -way or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (7) A water service to each lot. (8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (9) A detail of any ponds, pond outlets or rainwater gardens. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. (10) The cul -de -sac with a minimum pavement radius of at least 42 feet. (11) A label for McKnight Road and the new street as Hoyt Avenue on all construction and project plans. (12) The eight- foot -wide trail between the cul -de -sac and the property to the north. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Label the new street as Hoyt Avenue and label McKnight Road on all plans. c. Show a 20- foot -wide outlot or trail easement between Lots 6 and 7 between the cul -de- 0 sac and the north property line. This outlot or easement shall follow the approved trail alignment. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off -site drainage and utility easements. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 8. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage and ponding areas, install all retaining walls, install the landscaping and replacement trees, install all other necessary improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of McKnight Road (street, curb and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities. d. Meet all the requirements of the city engineer 9. If there are any, submit the homeowners' association documents for review and approval by city staff. These shall include provisions for the maintenance and use of the rainwater gardens. 10. Record the homeowners' association documents with the final plat. 11. Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for the new street access. 12. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 13. The owner or contractor shall get demolition permits from the city to remove the house, garage and the other structures from the property at 1560 McKnight Road. 14. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. 'The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. 7 Iy Ill IrFA4LIM9161LVAILVil4LI Ill LI-I I surveyed the owners of the 63 properties within 500 feet of this site and received four replies. Two of the replies were for the proposal and two of the replies had comments about the proposal. For 1. As long as Currie Street remains a cul -de -sac and does not go through, we are OK with it. We would hope to keep as many big trees as possible. (Gschlect — 1629 Currie Street) 2. We like the idea of Currie Street remaining cul -de -sac. (Winger — 1649 Currie Street) Objections Comments /Questions /Concerns 1. See the e-mail message from Joseph Serrano on page 24. 2. See the letter from Timothy Greeninger on pages 25 and 26. 9 1N4y4N40 [d=IILI l7QNLYi /elVQ0 SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: four acres Existing land use: Two single dwellings and accessory buildings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings South: Single dwellings on Hoyt Avenue West: Hillcrest Golf Course across McKnight Road East: Single dwellings on Myrtle Street PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R -1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R -1 (single dwellings) Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request (including the proposed plans) on June 7, 2005. State law requires the city to take action on this request by August 5, 2005, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec 24 -29 \Jensen Estates - 2005.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Address Map 3. Property Line /Zoning Map 4. Existing Conditions Map 5. Proposed Preliminary Plat 6. Site Plan 7. Proposed Grading Plan 8. Erosion Control Plan 9. Proposed Utility Plan 10. Proposed Tree Plan 11. Engineering comments from Erin L. dated June 22, 2005 12. E -mail comments from Tina Carstens dated June 22, 2005 13. Letter dated June 20, 2005 from Dan Soler (Ramsey County) 14. E -mail comments from Joseph Serrano 15. Letter dated June 21, 2005 from Timothy Greeninger 16. Project Plans (separate attachments) 9 A.ttacnmert 1 r } i 10 Attachment 2 -- - ------- -- - . ...... - - - - - - - - - - CARPENTEUR AVE U 77 -1 ,2402 92! 2 2264- 7 E224'N' cil 2334 _423W, --------- `Ro Ll� I, , - 650 1 ILJ 644 I b4,5 1643 P L 2 �o - - --- ------- - ---------- - -- ------ n. Li ' 1 7 1 p 4i ...... . ... . 3 ipa 1637 1636 .. . . . ...... 4 i�� ig.. g.j N24 1628 1 16 4 q:4 16 — ----- ----- I lo XI 241 V _j a 1616 1 t d- 16 1615 �9 600 A 05 j D of CL SITE— z < z 0 - HOYT AVE 450"' IRS f — ------ ------- __ , 1 06 A5.68 156 Meal - - --------- . ......... Z 1PI JOU -423 k 2303 - MONr - AVE' ANA U � 14 259e 2408 101 - --- - ---------- 1524 2421, n . 52 Id A 1514 ! 4 R. . ......... ... ia si . . M. Z 2420 1506 ..M0PdMU'I: 06 ft wr L L1� I. m . ............ _%A X ix I ix I /iLzacnment j ;I NC7 D 4 z U) C) Z 10 1 In I mx�M I 1616 1600 I Olp� 168a ��!! � p ., \` � I i � ` C3^ i f f y ` -_ -_ _ � °. - � / / l r���. 1 , �, `\ ,� A-r I f\WETLAA'l L - 2315 2279 2289 1540 I m I gmmm� I 1600 1616 TL - -- - - - - - - - - - - - 6 - - - - -- - - - - - -1 - ti ------ - - - - -- L - - - -- — - - ------ - — — — — — -- - - - - Gam F r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i FETL4ND -J L. - - - - - - - fl 1540 2279 zc 2289 2315 7 — — — — I MEE= . ............... JEJ VSEN ES rA rES . ....... - - ---- CH of Maplewood Ramsey county, Minnesota AND — — — — --- — — — 1600 1616 Z5 F — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7 14 C4, — E4 cc I > — — — — — — — — — — — — Lg T�LA,YD i L U40 2279 2289 2315 I I u. Y S�cx "Q 4"Xw� ROMOVILAR IN I Attachment 7 02 1 2279 2289 - 231P 1600 1616- All 1580 4- -4- 22891 2315 Li 2279 1540 L TEMPOIW r ROCXI CONSTRUC NON - - -- - - - - - - - �-- 1 1 Nom 101 Wel k! 19 a*] OU W-.l 6 IN 1600 f T - --- - -® - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1- 7 1580 1 2A '1 7' 2279 Li 1540 2289 2315 I L a - likAol go 1 11 *IX " I m i rm a W.&I m 4. Attachment 10 1600 Is II --A 2 wa F , Ir - IT 2279 2289 11 1540 / f 4 / y WE I \ 2315 a 1616 4 - L GX/ - y WE I \ 2315 a Attachment 11 L PROJECT. Jensen Estates PROJECT NO: 05-15 lU1V1E_VLUV' V.Y. DATE: June 27,2005 4 1 r..r 4 irls residential lots. As part of this proposal, the developer is proposing to extend the temporary cul-de- sac at the end of Hoyt Avenue about 180 feet into a permanent cul-de-sac. The proposed plans show no onsite treatment for stormwater runoff The developer shall incorporate best management practices into the drainage design. Infiltration basins (rainwater gardens) are a good example of a way to address storage and volume requirements while trying to obtain infiltration. For more information on infiltration basins, please see the Metro Council BMP Manual at their web site: h!Ip.//www.metrocouncil.or- enviroment/Waters�hed/bm m�anual.htmn Vn-site treatment could include rainwater gardens. These typically include a rock sump that have 1.5" of clean, clear rock wrapped in Type 5 geotextile filter fabric, (felt). The contractor places of r Ri KwA tl . Msud re 4 1 W, I nome• g" I I oil m I Im W to M W a From: Tina Carstens rwn'wd.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 22.2QQ51:4&P&U To: ErinLabmrom Cc: Ken Roberts Subject: Re: Jensen Estates Thanks Erin. i received the letter. While this letter does address the fact that there are wetlands present on the western side of the site, there is still not enough information here to determine if the wetlands were indeed incidentally created. I mn a0000iog that when they submit to the District they will fully address that in000. I quickly looked at the aerial pbncoo tuz the site. Unfortunately our 74 and 85 pbutuu are not very high quality and it was difficult to determine if a wetland was present there before the reconstruct of acnu19bt. one of the arguments he gives is the pceoaucn of a storm sewer pipe. -bat alone does not Drove that the wetland isn't jurisdictional. There are many instances that pipes were put in and out of wetland to facilitate drainage. -hose are my comments at this time. This project will require a permit from the District and water quality considerations must be made, Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Let me know if you have any other questions. Tina oziu Labecee wrote: >Yea, � >Tbcze was a letter attached that explains a little about the western »netlaod. I'll fax that too. � >Eziu � > ----- Original Message ----- >Fzom: �'ioa oacuLeos [mailto:tiva@zvwnwd.ozg] /Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:55 8M >To; Ken Roberts; Dzio Labezee >Subject: Jensen Estates � >I have scanned through the wetland delineation report and do not see >aoy discussion on the western wetland. Ibw report just identifies the >wetlaud on the eastern side of the parcel. Do you have another >documcut that discusses the wetland that they feel was created with the >zecouotzuct of McKnight? � >?iva � �-- >l975-2005 >celebratimg 30 Years of Water Resource Management, Pcnt*otinu e >Impznvomect � � >?ioa Carstens >Peznit Program Coordinator >Ramoey-a|aobiogtou Metro Watershed District >2385 Helen St. >mnztb 3t. Paul, MN 55109 /Phone: 661-704-2089 WA Attachment 13 D epartme n t of Public Works �' ^ °,, r Kenneth G. Haider, P.F.., D; reel or and Count Engineer w 20""5 t42b Paul Kirkwotd Drire Arden Hilts, NIN D5112 -3933 • (651) 266 -7100 • Fax {Gal) 266 -711() E -mail: Publie.Works@- eo.rumsey.nm.us TO: Ken Roberts City of Maplewood FROM: Dan Soler Ramsey C anty Public Works SUBJECT: Jensen Estates McKnight Road DATE: June 20, 2 005 The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat for Jensen Estates on McKnight Road south of Larpenteur Avenue, Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal. The proposed development will create seven (') new residential near the intersection of McKnight Road and Hoyt Avenue. This level of development will have minimal impact on traffic operations in the area. The traffic from five of the new lots will utilize the McKnight Road at Hoyt Avenue intersection. 2. The existing home at 1530 McKnight Road will remain in the new plat and will continue to use the existing driveway onto McKnight Road. The existing home and driveway at 1560 McKnight Road will be removed and replaced with two new lots requiring direct access onto McKnight Road. While it would be preferable to eliminate direct driveway access onto McKnight Road and consolidate access on Hoyt Avenue it does not appear that this is a feasible option. The new access points will require permits from Ramsey County for construction onto County right of way. The developer will also need permits for any utility work within County right -of -way. Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. W 11innesota's First Home Rule County Attachment 14 From: Joseph Serrano [chu ntsberg er@comcast net] Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:45 PM To: Ken Roberts Cc: carrie huntsberger fn summary, although the developer has put some effort toward making the best strategic planning/profit assessment for this project, the final consequences of the development on our street are still to be seen. My wife and I are here expressing our concerns about the future and expect that you would assess the situation with the same awareness before making a final decision. We will be watching the outcomes carefully. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Joseph Serrano NM, PhD Carrie Huntsberger- Serrano RN 229■ Hoyt Ave East Maplewood, N✓N, 55119 chuntsberger(a',comcast. net 24 6/20/2005 Attachment 15 JUN 2 12065 My name is Timothy Greeninger and I currently reside and own the home at 2289 1 loyt Ave E. My home is on the north side of Hoyt and closest to the proposed cul de sac extension. I currently have a number of issues with the development plan. access to Priory Reserve Park. I do not see this on the current plim. Is this an indication that saying that they had to change it f6r some reason. Additionally, I am very concerned about the financial impact on my home value, The current proposal puts asphalt on three sides of my property, Please see attached letter from property appraiser, This is a real concern and issue, The developer will finish his business and move on, those of us owning homes will be left to deal with the consequences and literally pay for his profit, The current plan indicates removal of numerous trees. Of special concern to me is tree 265, a 20' Oak that is on property lines shared by my home. The elevation of home 44 is approximately 9 feet above my current home. If this home plan includes a 2nd story and truss system it could rise to appro. iuinately 30' above my home. This would cause further devaluation of my existing home. Please see the attached letter from Lafayette Appraisals. Hoyt. The grading elevations for 2289 and 2279 Hoyt are from a grading plan before these homes were built. This i Lastly, the ecological impact of the near-by and also general community will be affected by the removal of anv current trees and vegetation, impacting also the wetlands and wild life inhabiting said area. While I believe that growth is necessary, housing developments are not necessarily "growth" and must be tempered with caution and a sharp eye toward quality of outcomes for the community. Hind site is always 20/20, but much can be accomplished if careful review is taken prior to making mistakes and long lasting negative implications/consequences can and must be avoided. Sincerely, I Timothy Greem9;_;r W Lafayette Appraisals Residential Real Property Appraisers. P.O.Box #233 Stillwater,NIN.55082 Subject: SS$ Impact, If Any, On Reconfiguring Of Hovt Avenue, I C w Mr. Greeninger, pursuant to your request, I have viewed your property/Site and evaluated IMPACT on SSS value to your existing site/improvements, if any. This appraiser has been, for (32) years, appraising Real Estate in Maplewood/St.Paul. Note that until the street/new cul-de-sac site is in place/improved, this appraiser can only estimate the loss in S$S value of the existing " Greeninger" house./site. Per the attached appraisal (completed by Robert G. Koehler), the value is reflected at 5280,000. Be advised, in this appraisers opinion, such a negative street improvement coutdJwould result in a minimum loss in value of 10% and perhaps as high as 15%. That is to say, in the "BEFORE" situation, as is, at present, value supported at 5280,000. In the "AFTER" situation,i.c., street/read improvement in place, value would be reflected at $252,000 or even as low as 5232,000. Such a street i m provemen Ure-con fi -u ration of its cul-de-sac would be tantamount to a "taking", if you will. Mr. Greeninger, we would hope the above clarification will suffice, per any negotiations you might enter into with the City/Developer authorities in their efforts) to resolve this matter, M Agenda Item K2 Ew4 0 1 U7ilN=1161:AI TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: Roselawn Avenue (Rice to 1 -35E) Traffic Issues, Project 05 -25 — Receive Resident Petition and Consider Study to Monitor Impacts DATE: July 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION A number of residents in the Roselawn area have signed a petition (copy attached) regarding the degradation of their neighborhood due to traffic on Roselawn. An investigation into the issues along Roselawn can be conducted and is available to the City Council as an option to respond to the petition. Background The attached petition indicates a major concern with traffic on Roselawn Avenue. The petition indicates that residents believe that traffic has doubled in the past three years and that a majority is large truck and school bus traffic. Additionally, roadway speed concerns are noted. A traffic investigation is needed to determine the extent of the problems and to identify solutions. The proposed study would include monitoring of the roadway speed and traffic volumes, some monitoring of traffic noise, some monitoring of air quality, some monitoring of surface vibration and observing of major traffic flows to quantify the percentage of traffic that is heavy truck and school bus vehicles. The cost of this monitoring and compilation of the data, along with some recommendations for modifications, is $10,000 - $12,000. Roselawn Avenue is a designated as a collector street in the Comprehensive Plan. A collector street is defined within the Comprehensive Plan as: Roadways designed to carry traffic between arterial system and local system, convey intra- community traffic between neighborhoods, business centers, industries, parks and the like, and provide direct access to abutting properties. This type of roadway carries moderate traffic volumes (1,000 -7,000 ADT), allows moderate -to -high speeds (30 -45 MPH), satisfies local trip needs (one to four miles) and connects local streets with arterials. Spacing of this roadway is about one -half mile. Traffic volumes on Roselawn were noted in 1998 at 5,600 ADT. Issues /Discussion The investigation and monitoring is a reasonable option to respond to the petition to determine the scope of problems within the area. Major revisions to the roadway system are probably not likely. Roselawn has access to Interstate 35E. Local roadway restrictions (for example, significant truck restrictions) would likely create problems in maintaining the 1 -35E access points. Current Metropolitan Council and MnDOT guidelines restrict access to the interstate system to arterial roadways or higher classifications and a one - mile spacing. Because Roselawn is a lower classification than an arterial, a collector, the long range (20- 30+ years) plans would likely eliminate the access point for Roselawn at 1 -35E. The traffic study could investigate these issues and provide final recommendations. Short -term changes may be limited due to the restrictions, although some options for minimizing impacts might be available. Agenda Item K2 Budget Impact The cost of this study ($10,000 to $12,000) will need to be paid from the Public Works Department's administrative budget for consulting services. This line item is an annual allocation of funds for consultant studies of various problems during the year. We are currently using this fund for the 1 -94 noise issues. There appear to be adequate funds in this account to complete this investigation. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Engineer to retain a traffic consultant at a cost not to exceed $12,000 to investigate and monitor impacts of traffic along Roselawn Avenue between Rice Street and I -35E, and the City Engineer shall report back to the City Council before the second meeting of October 2005. Attachments: 1. Resident Petition 2. Site Map Petition For Noise and Pollution Relief A Petition of. Affected Residents of Roselawn Avenue and Neighboring Streets. Addressed to: Mayor Cardinal and Council Members of Maplewood, Minnesota We the undersigned would like to bring your attention to the following problem and offer our recommendations. In the past three years the traffic on the portion of Roselawn Avenue (from Rice Street to I 35E) has doubled. Most of this has been large truck and school bus traffic. Add to this, the increasing speed permitted on this stretch of road and the problem becomes a major noise and safety issue. The noise and increased air pollution have created an atmosphere that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures and endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety and welfare of persons living on this street and surrounding areas and precludes their enjoyment of property and adversely affects the property values of their homes both due to the excessive noise pollution and the structural and real damage to homes and properties due to the constant vibrations of truck and bus traffic. We, therefore, recommend that the City Council undertake a study of the full impact of heavy truck traffic on this section of Roselawn and the distressful impact of hundreds of school buses being dispersed on a residential street from 6 a.m. until 8:00 and 9:00 pm. The Noise pollution precludes enjoyment of our property during day -time and evening hours and the increased air pollution from hundreds of buses makes the immediate area a health hazard to those who have breathing problems as well as to all local residents. Current noise levels and speed levels are not conducive to a viable residential neighborhood. June 16. 2005 Petition for Noise and Pollution Relief The above agreed upon by the following concerned people: N ame: Address: Phone: 4. 6. s. y l 4t -1 3 JA 14 c1 15 — Vt ( le `�iT , 17 18 �� �, - �Ctcy f c, t� l� �e.� . LrS�•L�u-� 7c 19 A Nt� t 7 NS2 Cf Y`t 4`6S -(- Petition for Noise and Pollution Relief Name: Address: Phone: 221 23 25 L -AJA 0 C11k 70 f� v G 26 �U H G3P'vw�' 1n�L- fi �2as�LHt .1 C L(8- 7- 1,2 27 Jahn S � IC t �IZ Ill Re se�aw� �t�e, 6 5 + —{g$ - 8703 + .r 29 32 _33 E5 / - y�,g •S -5' 3c/ , pba s S-/-, O CT f- 1 4 Petition for Noise and Pollution Relief Name: Address: Phone: 4 4_ tPS� et•lJfe. 353 44 �i nz�F�EZt� 10� � W -3'S3,P- 46 - �IIPYo f3 yfe = < 50 i � .fi j G 2 (9n _ u 4Pafa I�/� 51 gb khl I.. mvyz . fail\ �l &rntnfS �tfS. -5 )2 (Q ]�]� -gam; (�c� C)b u.) vj 60 _YY1ev 41 l er�i � ILl�Gl4l �fl �7 7C G �n Si `9 !// Lr 14& 1 49 25 J J J w 0 Oof i� AVE. � z MT. VERNON VE. o = Y DOWNS AVE. a LROSIELAW AVE BFn v v~ S NTON AVE. z 30 z J r Y �� - un n = n KINGSTON o V. D�� D w J L11 U Q' v� IL z w 0 Li Q LARPE LNTEUR �ninin Cn N r U n C C 7J i J iZ o� EB i to � z Q 0 J E F L no scale 3E 1j COUNTY RD. O v V- Sandy Lake ROSELAWN AVE., RICE ST. TO 135E